More from Don Lenihan available More fromavailable here

Everyone’s piling on Mike Duffy, but I’d like to congratulate him for a job well done. If not for his bookkeeping habits, we might never have known how vast the gap is between the government’s talking points and its real views on accountability.

Only two weeks ago, pundits were wondering if the government’s reputation for secrecy, control and bullying was enough to do it in. Back then, the discussion was about its “style” of governance. Interfering with a quasi-judicial process moves this to a new level. So what should we think now?

Let’s start with Conservative MP Michelle Rempel. On CTV’s Question Period last Sunday, here’s what she had to say about the Duffy-Wright deal: “… there’s an implication there that somehow this government … stands for something other than accountability and transparency … We are the government of the Accountability Act. And the prime minister is the … person who has first and foremost stood up for this value in government.”

Of course, no one believes any of this. Nigel Wright was using his money and his office to influence a public process. He resigned because he got caught — no thanks to the prime minister or the Accountability Act. So far, neither has been of any help in getting to the bottom of things.

What Rempel’s words really show is that the government’s commitment to accountability is limited to talk, not action. Now that people need answers, the government shows itself incapable of anything but spin. Rempel herself is Exhibit A.

This is not just ridicule. The Duffy-Wright deal is forcing a deep truth about the Conservatives to the surface and Rempel’s talking points help focus it: While the new party appropriated the language of accountability from the old Reform Party, it did not embrace the values and culture on which it was based.

The reasons take us back to Stephen Harper’s break with Reform in 1997. The rupture was caused by tensions between Preston Manning’s populism and Harper’s commitment to conservative principles. Three things are noteworthy.

First, transparency and accountability were important to Manning because they made populism possible. If Reformers believed government should do what the voters say, they also believed the public had to have some real control over government. Transparency and accountability were key.

The Duffy-Wright deal is forcing a deep truth about the Conservatives to the surface: While the new party appropriated the language of accountability from the old Reform Party, it did not embrace the values and culture on which it was based.

Second, Harper’s conservatism was inspired by Margaret Thatcher. Although she was popular, she was no populist. Her brand of conservatism was not up for discussion — especially with the public. Indeed, Thatcher was one of the first leaders to take seriously the role of marketing and communications in politics. Her view was that the government’s message should be crafted to sway the public, not to inform them.

Finally, the philosophy of neo-conservatives like Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush was heavily influenced by the political philosopher Leo Strauss — a quintessential anti-populist who taught that the public lacked the capacity to make informed decisions on political affairs.

In Strauss’ view, successful democracies are led by an elite group which can make the right decisions for the public, even though these will often conflict with what the public would expect or accept. Enlightened leaders bridge this gap by telling the public a story it can accept — what Strauss called a “noble lie.”

The unavoidable conclusion from the last few weeks is that the culture in the PMO is decidedly Straussian rather than Reformist, elitist rather than populist. Indeed, the Conservatives appear to have their own well-crafted version of the noble lie. It rests on the claim they remain true to their Reform roots, especially the commitments to transparency and accountability.

In reality, the communications machine crafts the government’s messages, and then foot soldiers like Rempel are called on to deliver it. Under Harper, this has become an elaborate system of governance. The party uses sophisticated data systems and research to tailor its messages to the public’s mood. Voters are told what the government wants them to hear and the gap between what is said inside and outside the PMO is protected by a wall of secrecy.

But what happens if that wall is suddenly breached — say, by a feckless senator? What will the public say if suddenly it becomes clear that the government really doesn’t believe all the things it says about transparency and accountability? What if the noble lie is exposed?

These are the questions that the Duffy-Wright deal has thrown into the spotlight. They are the questions everyone is now waiting to see answered.

So far, the government is sitting on its hands, admitting nothing, apologizing for nothing and insisting on its credentials as a champion of the values of ordinary Canadians.

But with each day it becomes clearer that its actions are at war with its message, exposing the PMO as an inner sanctum with its own truths and rules. Outsiders don’t know what happens there and no one who does will shed any light.

In a democracy, this is intolerable. Yet the government appears ready to gamble that the public is either too disengaged or too obtuse to really care. Strauss would have approved.

Don Lenihan is senior associate at the Public Policy Forum in Ottawa, Canada. He is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and public engagement, accountability and service delivery, with over 25 years of experience in the field. He is the author of numerous articles, studies and books. Don’s latest book, Rescuing Policy: The Case for Public Engagement, is published by the Public Policy Forum.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.