The Ontario Progressive Conservative party seems determined to prove that politics, like life or golf, is never so bad that it can't get worse.  And that the initials PC stand for "Perpetual Chumps".  But my advice to them is not to overthink things.

To some extent their current plight is the result of an external shock not of their making at a singularly poor time.  But how they respond is in their hands.

Commentators seem agreed that they now face two urgent problems: whether to hold an leadership contest (and how) and whether to retain their current platform.  And it seems to me quite simple how they should proceed.

First, if they are satisfied that the current platform is either (a) a sincere expression of their views or (b) a suitably cunning plan to sidle into power, they should stick with it.  If it is an ideologically repellent or pragmatically flaws artifice foisted upon them by a now-disgraced leader they should ditch it.

Second, they should hold an open leadership contest and pick the best person.

Andrew Coyne has put forward his consistent idea that they should let the caucus choose the leader.  I'm sympathetic in principle, not least because if a party leader's caucus bails on him or her their career is over no matter what the party constitution says.  But I do not think it is appropriate in this crisis because it would seem to be a desperate and manipulative improvisation to show the public a "moderate" face in defiance of the grass roots.

For my money this sort of maneuvering is repellent in principle.  If your party's views are unpopular, try to persuade people that they are valid.  I can't understand why anyone would spent years scheming to implement a program they don't believe in.  What a way to spend your life.  But it is also unlikely to work.

The last time the Ontario PCs won was with Mike Harris, the last leader who didn't plainly regard conservatism as primitive and embarrassing and whose unapologetic if sometimes crude defence of his views brought back to back majorities.  Indeed, I would say that the fate of the party over the last 15 years and four elections shows what happens when you overthink politics.

Arguably their thinking was often also cloudy, they have been trying to win as, to borrow Harry Truman's priceless putdown, "Me too Liberals with a yes but platform".  But the more effort you expend trying to manipulate your way into power, the more voters shun you as manipulative.  Hence anything smacking of a rigged leadership contest would be a hideous political blunder, whatever its moral qualities.

To say so is not to deny the importance of intelligent, sometimes ruthless backroomers who excel at hidden manipulation.  As they say, the secret in politics is sincerity; once you can fake that, you've got it made.  I do not approve but I am not naïve about its effectiveness.  The real problem comes when, like the Pompidou Centre, you have your plumbing on the outside, and openly concede or ineptly conceal that everything you do, from how and whether to hold a leadership contest to what platform to advance, is done solely for the purpose of winning.  Such a stance is hollow, grasping and off-putting.  And if you then lose, it's also pathetic.

So my advice on choosing a leader is also very simple.  Given this sudden crisis, the only thing that won't look crassly manipulative is to use the same process you used last time, accelerated if need be.  (And if you can't manage that task, you sure can't run a province.)  As for the fear that such a contest would be "divisive," well, try to debate ideas not personalities, and shun the dark arts of spin, push-polling and debate "knock out" setup lines for an honest discussion including of those things that do divide you.

The objection that my advice is unlikely to bring victory would be a bit rich coming from a party, once a dynasty in Ontario, whose only real talent in recent decades has been snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  In any case, I would answer that winning is not everything, that honour counts for more in life than slithering up the greasy pole to grasp the brass ring… briefly.

I've previously cited John Jay in this context, writing to his wife after losing the 1792 election for New York state governor on rather dubious technicalities that "A few more years will put as all in the dust, and it will then be of more importance to me to have governed myself, than to have governed the State."  And before dismissing me as a rustic simpleton, recall that Jay did win the governorship four years later and crowned his distinguished public service career by pushing through a measure to end slavery in New York.  What similar accomplishment can this generation of Ontario Tories claim?

Everybody has some bad luck.  But if it continually strikes, there is some suggestion that you're doing something wrong, that you are not just unfortunate but a chump.  And the Ontario Tories seem to me to attract misfortune by being too clever by half and too manipulative by a much greater margin.