Pillar or Pillars?

It seems that some of the major figures of the new conservatives (meaning sarkozy , harper, merkle) are portrayed as being largely centralized and personally controlling. I don't buy that there is something inherent to liberalism or conservativism about this, so is there a structural reason? I'm not dispute the fact, just wondering why it is. Now given we’re dealing with just a few examples, it might be a coincidence that these leaders have this personal style. But maybe its not, and if not, why? I came up with three reasons, though I'm sure there are lots more.

One reason is the media. All are commonly portrayed as having a “hidden agenda”, and so reporters scour the public record, looking for candidates, staff, etc who might say something off message, since it will be taking as what Harper “really is planning”. The incentive is to vet every statement centrally, to make sure it doesn’t say anything they don’t mean to say.

At least in Canada, the Reform movement (populist, grassroots, very decentralized) was the total opposite of the current trend in Conservatives. That movement watched the Liberals win majority after majority, no wonder they’ve changed their minds.

Or maybe there is something to Naomi Kline’s new book “shock capitalism”. People always want the easy way out (government should fix it), and since conservatives generally denies them. Karl Rove was wrong, people are generally tend not to be conservative, so selling the conservative “self-help” message is innately harder to sell, requiring greater communications skill, meaning you have to rely on the best people (person).