As the Conservatives hand Andrew Scheer a stirrup cup exuding distinct raspberry notes, there’s something else they urgently need to do. Nothing. No focus groups. No rush to a saviour who’s younger, hipper, more female, more liberal. Instead, they need a deep breath and a calm meditative pause.

The party needs a new leader, of course. And a program. But it also needs an identity and a philosophy. So treat this setback as an opportunity to ponder fundamentals.

It might seem the party already has a philosophy. After all, it’s the “Conservative” party, right? But conservatism means … well, what?

Conservatism means … well, what?

Classically it meant free markets, strong defence and traditional values. But traditional values are easy targets and Scheer’s efforts to have it both ways pleased nobody. On defence, the party seems to like the military, recognize China as an aggressive foe and stand with like-minded democracies, including oft-isolated Israel. But when it comes to recruiting more soldiers, joining the American ballistic missile defence program, acquiring equipment, or anything real, their record is dismal and their rhetoric unconvincing.

Ah well. There’s always free markets, right? The place conservatives huddle together in hard times. Yet in the past week alone two of Canada’s more prominent partisan Tories softened their support for fiscal conservatism and capitalism. Toronto Mayor John Tory revealed that his election promise not to raise taxes was rube bait, while Jason Kenney expressed interest for Mitt Romney-style “reform conservatism.”

In doing so he was channeling his former boss. Stephen Harper ran as a libertarian but then too often governed as a liberal, then wrote a book endorsing populism, which apparently means praising liberty while expanding government. But before getting too cunning, the Tories should reflect that, far from creating a natural conservative majority by incremental stealth, Harper lost in 2015 in a way that left his party struggling to make any sense at all, including on deficits.

One reason it’s tempting for Conservatives to abandon conservatism for tactical reasons, then abandon it strategically to avoid any awkward ditching of principles during elections, is that the philosophy often seems stern, forbidding and judgmental. And we concede that they face an uphill struggle, with only one Conservative leader per generation winning federal majorities since the First World War: Bennett in 1930, Diefenbaker in 1958, Mulroney in 1984 and 1988, and Harper in 2011.

Under the circumstances it may be tempting to seek a quick fix in an appealing leader and chuck your unpopular philosophy out the window into the river. But that plan has been tried sufficiently often to know that when they run as “Me too Liberals with a yes but platform,” to borrow an insult from Harry Truman, they lose the election, the policy battle and their honour. What has Andrew Scheer to show for the abandonment of everything he believed in? Was Joe Clark a success? Jean Charest? Kim Campbell? And Robert Stanfield’s trendy wage and price controls brought partisan defeat and paved the way for Trudeau Sr.’s disastrous interventionism.

Federal Conservatives should start their quiet meditation on the mantra that conservatism is the positive philosophy

So Canada’s federal Conservatives should start their quiet meditation on the mantra that conservatism is the positive philosophy. It doesn’t think we need government to feed and clothe us, find us jobs, guide our thinking, raise our families, renovate our patios and otherwise take us kindly but firmly in hand. Unlike liberalism, which speaks endlessly of compassion and respect but won’t let you go to the store by yourself lest you be swindled. Or increasingly to the voting booth without elaborate campaign finance restrictions and strict limits on free speech during elections.

True conservatism rejects such thinking. It wouldn’t be accurate to call it optimistic because it does see the world as a difficult place where war is natural and peace the fruit of resolution and preparation, poverty is natural and prosperity the result of persistence and ingenuity, oppression is natural and liberty the reward of eternal vigilance. But it is nevertheless a hopeful philosophy for one key reason: It says “Yes we can.”

It believes that ordinary people can do extraordinary things

It believes that ordinary people can do extraordinary things including safeguard freedom, create wealth and defend their nation. It understands that government must suppress force and fraud to create the conditions for the flowering of talent, including combining individual talents in voluntary associations from charities to neighbourhood groups to bakeries to multinational corporations. But it believes in the individuals it empowers.

Such a presentation can win minds, votes and elections. The other approach, sour, cunning and apologetic, cannot win. Look at Britain. Sure, the smart set laughed at Boris Johnson. But they’re not laughing now. And what was the difference? Johnson didn’t seem embarrassed by his party, his philosophy or his heritage.

There will be time enough to choose a leader. First, decide what you believe in and why. And second, resolve to take your arguments to the people. If you can’t, you won’t get a good leader or deserve one. If you do, the tactical things will fall into place.