[Boreal]

I understand the argument, I'm just having difficulty buying it on a practical level. Is this to say that Liberal support is largely passive? That nobody is ideological Liberal, they are simply not ideologically Conservative or New Democrat, and therefore are Liberal?

It seems somewhat strange to me. Not implausible, just difficult to grasp. I'm sure there are many passive Conservative supporters. I know many Conservative voters who don't wave the party towel ever, nor even keep close tabs on the political situation, but will passively vote Conservative at nearly every turn.

I guess my statement would be, why can't you be ideologically Liberal? Many people I know have some views that line up right down the middle of the field. Wouldn't that make them ideologically Liberal (at least in the pre-Dion days, and perhaps in the present as well?)?

Now, don't get me wrong, I do think the right wing is much more dedicated to their cause in a holistic sense than is the left wing. That is to say that Conservative supporters (largely) tend to tie themselves very closely to the Conservative party. No question.

Nonetheless, I still think that the most successful political brand perhaps in the Western world, that being the Liberal Party of Canada, couldn't have achieved such lofty levels of prevalence, on little more than a large, predominantly passive following. My point being, even Liberal's have an ideological bent. I don't think you can tether people to a party without an ideological bent. Perhaps I'm missing something. Interesting debate though.