On the weekend of December 2, 1,232 men, 1313 women, 1448 “youth,” 882 “former officials,” 245 Aboriginals, 616 Seniors and 130 at-large delegates, all of the Liberal persuasion, will meet in solemn conclave (well, maybe not so solemn), to choose the person most of them think can dump Stephen Harper and his Conservatives from the seats of power in Ottawa.

The natural governing party of Canada will be at full throttle. It should be quite a tussle, and for political junkies across the land, a major political event. That is because the choice these delegates make will have a great bearing on whether the neo-conservative movement led by “Steve” will continue in political power in Canada or be swept away, as has happened in the United States of America.

Make no mistake about it. The shift in control of the House of Representatives, and especially the Senate, to the Democratic Party in the mid-term elections, carries its own message to Canada about the efficacy of neo-conservatism in practice.

Yes, the vote in the United States was most certainly a vote against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it was more. It was a vote against the notion that it is possible to plant the idea of democracy in full flower of western thought through the use of military power.

Francis Fukuyama, one of the most famous of neo-conservative thinkers, has now admitted that “… the legacy of the Bush first term foreign policy and its neo-conservative supporters has been so polarizing that it is going to be hard to have a reasoned debate … in the coming years. Neo-conservatism … has become indelibly associated with concepts like coercive regime change, unilateralism and American hegemony,” wrote Mr. Fukuyama back in February of this year. “By definition, outsiders can’t ‘impose’ democracy on a country that doesn’t want it; demand for democracy and reform must be domestic.”

In other words — Mr. Bush blew it. And several hundred thousand people have been killed and maimed because he blew it.

So we now have a context in which the delegates to the Liberal Leadership Convention will choose the person they think has the best chance of leading the Canadian people in getting rid of “Steve” Harper and his Canadian cloned neo-conservatives.

Because, no matter how much Mr. Harper and his mob may protest that they are “Made in Canada,” they are in fact clones of the thinking that gave the United States Karl Rove and his puppet George Bush. They are the masters of the art of political division and deception, and it is incredibly refreshing to see them get their comeuppance.

Frank Rich writes in the New York Times: “This election was not a rebuke merely of the reckless fiasco in Iraq but also of the divisive ideology that had come to define the Bush-Rove-DeLay era. This kind of politics is now officially out of fashion.”

One thing is very clear, and that is that after ten years of ideologically driven politics, with its ruinous effect on the American economy and American foreign policy, the American people said “enough already” and voted to end the neo-conservative era in the politics of their country.

What then is the message for the Liberals as they select a leader?

It seems to me that the American rejection of the wars in the Middle East has its echo in Canada where most Canadians do not support the policy that has sent Canadians to die in Afghanistan. It matters not how often General Rick Hillier blusters on in support of the commitment there, Francis Fukuyama’s determination that “outsiders cannot impose democracy on a country that doesn’t want it” is a truism written in the blood of those who ignore the dictum.

Michael Ignatieff, during his 30 year sojourn outside Canada, was publicly a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, writing an op-ed piece in the New York Times to express his views. In a reckless effort to suck up to delegates from Quebec, he also declared himself to be in favour of a declaration of the nationhood of Quebec, one of the dumber political moves of the century.

It is also a reflection of the neo-conservative thought process — that divisiveness works in politics. It is not what the Founders of this country had in mind nor does the concept reflect the history of our country through nearly 150 years and the nation-wrenching debates of Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord — let alone the political philosophy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

The Globe and Mail carried an article last week which rather neatly offered advice to the contenders for the leadership of the Liberal Party. It was endorsed by such luminaries as Michael Bliss, Senator Gerry Grafstein and retired Supreme Court Judge Claire L’Heureux-Dube.

“Those who aspire to the leadership of the Liberal Party should not undermine their commitment to the founding principles of this country and the role Quebeckers have played in forging this great nation.

“Let us build on the values and principles that brought us together and not trade this generous vision for the risk of discontent, fragmentation and perpetual tension.

“There is a better way.”

That “better way” would not seem to be Mr. Ignatieff ‘s way. Indeed, Mr. Ignatieff, after a strong start mostly built on a media boost from central Canada, has stumbled badly. He talks the talk of the neo-conservative. It is clear as well, that he has no strong second-choice support.

Most of all, he is most definitely no second coming of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Bob Rae may not exactly be that emanation either — but he has grown in strength as the leadership campaign has progressed. Indeed, he seems to best represent the theory of the credible alternative as an exponent of economic populism, of political pragmatism, of a rejection of ideological correctness as the arbiter of political action.

It is to him that most of the votes will go as those at the tail end of the race drop off the ballot, and that is because he practices the politics of inclusion, rather than those of partisanship and divisiveness.

As that article in The Globe and Mail put it: “Our forefathers believed that people of different languages, religions and cultures could allow the common good to transcend whatever keeps them apart — that a shared humanity could be a robust guarantee of individual freedom and prosperity, and the majority need not dominate the minority.”

Sounds like my kind of country.

Delegates to the Liberal Leadership Convention might keep those thoughts in mind, as they go about selecting someone to bring the neo-conservative era of Stephen Harper to a short-lived end.

They might remember as well MacAndrew’s first law of politics — it’s all about having a credible alternative on the ballot. The Democrats became more credible the more the Republicans and George Bush lost their credibility.

A Liberal Party led by Mr. Rae would seem to fill the bill of a credible alternative in a Canadian context.