Alas, the Liberals are right: An election under the present circumstances would put the country in peril. The mathematics alone are hair-raising enough if the polling numbers were, in fact, turned into seats: a Conservative government based entirely in English Canada, with the Bloc Québécois sweeping Quebec and starting a countdown to the next referendum on independence.

But what’s even more unnerving, as far as I’m concerned, is the toxic psychology of the piece that’s bubbling up. This always catches us by surprise. The fumes seep out largely unseen, and suddenly a spark — a surprise court decision, an irresponsible statement, an act of intolerance by someone somewhere — sets the thing on fire and overnight, the country is in crisis.

The letters to the editor, the certain tone of voice of some Alberta politicians in particular, is this: Here we go again with corrupt Quebec politics disturbing the national peace. We’re mad as hell and we want to do something about it, starting with wiping out the Liberal party.

And in Quebec, it comes out like this: Here we go again with corrupt federal politics making Quebec look dirty. Let’s do something about this — let’s get rid of the federal system.

And here’s another reason why an election now — that is, before the Gomery inquiry on the sponsorship scandal makes its report next fall — is a profoundly bad idea: because it would reward corruption as much as it punished it.

Prime Minister Paul Martin called the Gomery commission, insisting that he wants to get at the root of the corruption. He did this over the objections of those Liberals who subscribe to the machiavellian virtues of craftiness and duplicity — mostly in the Jean Chrétien camp — who said this was a damaging political mistake: It would be better to stonewall, cover it up and depend on the public’s short memory to let the thing fade before the next election.

If Martin is to be trounced at the polls on this issue, then the electorate itself will be dumbly agreeing. The message that will go out to future politicians is: The masters of political deceit were right. Whenever there’s corruption, don’t deal with it. Snuff it.

Then, talking about machiavellian, there are the Conservatives themselves. They’ve been accused of being afraid to wait for the Gomery report — in case it exonerates Martin. This, I suspect, is exactly what it will do. Although it’s a standard refrain that as finance minister, “he must have known,” as far as I’m concerned, he didn’t; the Conservatives, if they pull the plug now, will be implying they believe that too.

After all, there was about a two-year window of opportunity when he theoretically could have known. But think about it. If someone is stealing in an organized way, even from your local legion or credit union or other small institution, it often takes that long to catch up with it — let alone in a $100-billion bureaucracy where the sponsorship money accounted for a tiny fraction of one per cent of spending. Besides, Martin has the reasonable excuse that he was shut out of it by a hostile prime minister’s office that insisted on running the show itself.

The Liberal party, too long in the tooth and with too much baggage, is not my favourite institution, and may not be yours either. But since we’re unfortunately in the position of having to choose lesser evils, for the moment I choose Paul Martin. Martin’s government deserves the courtesy of being allowed to exist until the fall — and the country requires it to see where the sponsorship chips fall and to clear its head.

If they do pull the plug, the Conservatives will be easy prey to the charge of recklessness and opportunism, and they could, in fact, find themselves on the defensive before the vote was actually held. Not pulling the plug, despite the temptation, would be a display of self-restraint that might gain them greater credit in the long run — assuming that the long run has any currency at all in modern politics.