A Deceptive Democracy: Stephen Harper and the F-Word

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"We stand for the maintenance of private property ... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order." - Adolph Hitler

In David McGowan's book; American Fascism and the Politics of Illusion, he claims:

The current political system in place in the United States at the dawn of the twenty-first century is fascism. Of course, we don't like to call it that. We like to call it democracy. Nonetheless, it looks an awful lot like fascism, though to understand how this is so requires an awareness of what fascism actually is.

We don't like to use the f-word at all. It tends to conjure up unpleasant images. Our perceptions of fascism are shaped both by the very real horrors of the Holocaust, and by the fictional worlds created by writers with British and American intelligence connections like Aldous Huxley and George Orwell. These are the images that our schools and our media provide for us.

So when we think of fascism, we think of concentration camps filled with corpses and horribly decimated walking skeletons. We think of a stiflingly regimented society in which 'Big Brother' watches our every move. We think of brutal pogroms by jackbooted thugs, and violent repression of dissenting views.

These images are so far removed from the world that we live in that we cannot conceive that our system of governance could have the remotest resemblance to that which was in place in Nazi Germany. The problem is that fascism, viewed from the inside through a veil of propaganda, rarely looks the same as it does when viewed from the outside with the benefit of historical hindsight. (1)

So how will historians view this period in Canadian history from the outside, with the benefit of hindsight?

McGowan wrote when George W. Bush was in the White House, but he felt that his country had been drifting toward fascism for some time, under the guise of anti-Communism and 'Western Democracy'.

And as he suggests, to really understand you have to remember what fascism really is. Adolf Hitler was a fascist. But he was not deemed a fascist throughout most of his political career because of the Holocaust or any notion that such an atrocity was possible. He was a fascist because he was a capitalist who believed in an authoritarian style of government to prevent Germany from drifting into Communism or socialism, the two things he detested the most.

And he didn't feel that a Liberal Democracy was capable of fending off the threat.

He was not really anti-Semitic until he believed the claims that the Jews were working with the Communists. In his early life, his roommates were Jewish, including his best friend. Much of what was in Mein Kampf was fabricated to create a persona.

And in what McGowan calls the 'Politics of Illusion', Adolf Hitler the man did not have as much power as history has given him. Most of the major decisions were out of his hands.

In 1936, American columnist Heywood Broun wrote:

"Fascism is a dictatorship from the extreme Right, or to put it a little more closely into our local idiom, a government which is run by a small group of large industrialists and financial lords ... I am going to ask latitude to insist that we might have Fascism even though we maintained the pretense of democratic machinery. The mere presence of a Supreme Court, a House of Representatives, a Senate and a President would not be sufficient protection against the utter centralization of power in the hands of a few men who might hold no office at all. Even in the case of Hitler, many shrewd observers feel that he is no more than a front man and that his power is derived from the large munitions and steel barons of Germany."

Ian Kershaw in his book, Hitler: Profiles in Power (2), agrees. And he states that if you read articles of the day, especially coming from the Soviets, they refer to him as a 'Capitalist'. And all of the real power in Nazi Germany was in the hands of the boys in the backroom. "... in the hands of a few men who might hold no office at all."

Who Are You Calling a Fascist?

To prove his theory, McGowan points to several aspects of American politics that define fascism, and we have comparisons here under Stephen Harper. And remember, this is based on the definition of political fascism and has nothing to do with the Holocaust. And as McGowan says: "To most of those living in Germany during the reign of the Third Reich, fascism didn't look the way that we think it is supposed to look either."

We could argue that the two most common descriptions of fascism: one-party dictatorship and forcible suppression of opposition, are a bit difficult to prove. However, Harper has certainly blurred the lines between party and state, and has suppressed opposition by making Parliament toxic, and shutting it down when he's losing control.

But we can't argue the third point: 'Private economic enterprise under centralized government control'. Guy Giorno, the man with more power than Stephen Harper, is a lobbyist. In fact, he's one of the top lobbyists in Canada. And he is the one deciding who gets what. He has centralized power to the PMO and every decision made is based on what's good for "free enterprise", or what Hitler himself called "the sole possible economic order".

In theory, at least, there is supposed to be centralized control over private enterprise, to enforce such concepts as fair labor standards, environmental protections, and anti-trust legislation. In truth, however, the heads of corporate America are also its heads of state, and are essentially regulating themselves. Or, more accurately, failing to do so.

But the point is that the way the system is supposed to work is for private enterprise to be under federal regulation. The federal government is supposed to rein in monopoly corporate power and guarantee that workers and the environment get a fair shake, in addition to setting monetary policy. (3)

The latest Omnibus bill removes all environmental standards and our safety standards were already traded away at Montebello.

The next point validating fascism that McGowan points to is "belligerent nationalism". Leo Strauss, the father of neoconservatism, to which Stephen Harper prescribes, calls for three main components. Deception, Religious Fervour and unbridled patriotism through perpetual war.

The main deception, I suppose, is the illusion of democracy and the religious fervour was well outlined in Marci McDonald's Armageddon Factor. Frank Lutz, the Republican pollster who has helped Stephen Harper along the way, suggested that he tap into Canadian symbols, like hockey. You'll notice that he does that every chance he gets.

But belligerent nationalism, fuelled by unbridled patriotism, is what can bring a nation to accept extreme acts of inhumanity, when it's wrapped up in God and Country. As McGowan relates before the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When I think of belligerent nationalism, I think back to early 1991, a time when it was not possible to drive even a few blocks to the local video store without passing a stream of American flags and yellow ribbons flapping in the wind. A time when one couldn't turn on the television without seeing a mob of people in a field somewhere creating a giant human American flag. I think of the pompous theme music and 'Desert Storm' miniseries style graphics on CNN, and the relentless braying of military and government hacks as they barely contained their exuberance while discussing 'sorties,' 'air supremacy,' and 'smart bombs.' I think of a nation so inflated with its own sense of self-importance and self-righteousness that it openly cheered each airing of sanitized video footage of bombing attacks on largely defenseless civilian targets.

And then I think that while America was busy patting itself on the back and beating its chest, the conditions were being created that would result in the deaths of as many as 2,000,000 Iraqis, over 60% of them children under the age of ten. That's over a million children, for anyone who's counting. And not one of them had anything to do with the planning or execution of the annexation of Kuwait. Nor were any of them involved in the building of any 'weapons of mass destruction,' or the oppression of the Kurdish people of Iraq. But they're all dead now.

And then I think back to December of 1998, and recall how the press whipped the people into a frenzy by literally demanding the further mass bombing of Iraq. Saddam had not learned his lesson, we were told, and needed a further show of America's resolve to enforce 'humanitarian' standards and the 'rule of law.' And so a nation that had just a decade before been the most socially advanced in the Middle East, with the highest literacy rate and the best schools, the best healthcare and quality of life, and the most advanced civilian infrastructure—and which now was reduced to abject poverty and rampant disease—would once again be bombed.

Once again toxic agents such as depleted uranium would be rained down indiscriminately. And once again chemical sites on the ground would be targeted, poisoning the land and the air, threatening food and water supplies, and killing the hopes and dreams of the Iraqi people that their children wouldn't be joining their friends and classmates who had already perished. And, sadly, once again the American people would cheer. That, my friends, is what you would call belligerent nationalism. (5)

In Canada we have our own "yellow ribbon" campaign, which not surprisingly came from the same ad firm, Hill and Knowlton. And we have our own chest thumping and cheering, forgetting that most of the people killed are civilians, many of them children.

When Rick Hiller said that they were "not civil servants but were trained to kill people", Jack Layton said that he was offended. From that day on he has been dubbed "Taliban Jack", in a you're with us, or against us mentality. "That, my friends, is what you would call belligerent nationalism".

McGowan next mentions racism, including "immigrant bashing." The Reform Party was notorious for racist comments, but under their new name, the Conservative party of Canada, they've toned it down, though mainly because they've been completely muzzled. But we are starting to see the signs, especially recently, with Jason Kenney and Stockwell Day threatening to put an end to affirmative action.

But perhaps the most compelling of McGowan's arguments, that is now becoming the norm in a country not know for such tactics, is the "militarization of the police" and the accelerated use of "Paramilitary police squads."

That one should hit you right between the eyes. It started at Montebello, with the use of tear gas and rubber bullets, after police provocateurs provided reasons to use them. And they got away with it.

Now they no longer need a reason.

The security at the Vancouver Olympics was described as "one of the largest security operations taking place on Canadian soil." In fact, it ended up being the largest to date of any Olympics anywhere. It was said that there were so many police along the fence that they totally blocked the view. Total cost was 900 million dollars.

And then there was the G-20, where the police were told to leave vandals alone and instead targeted civilians, even in the designated protest zones. And they used provocateurs. Total cost 1.3 billion dollars.

And most recently in Kingston when protesters tried to block the sale of the cattle from the prison farms. We have never seen this many police officers in one place, since the prison riots, decades ago. Even an 87-year-old woman was hauled off by police.

There is a clear message here. This is not a government that allows dissent.

Now you might not want to call it the F-Word, but it sure as HELL IS NOT DEMOCRACY!!!!

Sources:

1. Understanding the F-Word: American Fascism and the Politics of Illusion, By David McGowan, Writers Club Press, 2001, ISBN: 0-595-18640-8, Pg. 3

2. Hitler: Profiles in Power, by: Ian Kershaw, Longman House UK, 1991, ISBN: 0-582-08053-3

3. McGowan, 2001, Pg. 8

4. McGowan, 2001, Pg. 10-11

Harper Suspends Democracy to Move us Toward an Unjust Society

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"We fought for a fairer, more humane Canada, in which the power of government was a necessary instrument in the quest for a more just society." Lloyd Axworthy and Pierre Trudeau (1)

Just as FDR's New Deal in the United States remains a catalyst to many conservative groups south of the border, Pierre Trudeau is the red flag that can still ignite a passion in Canada's far right.

When Trudeau came to power in 1968, it was a time when society was demanding change, and throughout his sixteen years affecting policy, we went through a great many changes indeed.

Canadians witnessed a changing world balance of power, a transformation of the economic paradigm, an information explosion of global proportions, the emergence of a new definition of the role of women, the birth of environmentalism, the rise of multiculturalism, the sustained impact of the baby boom on education, jobs and housing, an intense outburst of nationalism in Quebec, a shift of power towards the provinces and a quantum leap in the desire and expectations of Canadians that government could simultaneously deliver more wealth and more equity. To say the least, it was a turbulent era in which to govern. (1)

The 1960's gave rise to a " New Left" and even initiated what was called the "Waffle Movement" within the NDP, to move the party even further left. (2) But they also created a surge in the far right, to oppose societal change and the country's new direction.

Love him or hate him, I think that Trudeau was the perfect prime minister for the time. He was young(er) and fresh and could relate to the Baby Boomer crowd. But he was also strong willed enough to get things done, and arrogant enough not to worry about those who opposed him.

The latter could also be said of Stephen Harper, but the difference is that Trudeau was taking the country in the direction demanded by the majority of Canadians at the time, while Harper is taking the country in the direction that the majority don't want to go.

Enter Brian Mulroney

The election of Brian Mulroney in 1984, changed everything. Mulroney was a corporate guy who was not only beholden to most of the country's business elites, but also to a new doctrine as presented in part by a group of young radicals from the University of Toronto, led by Tom Long and Anthony Panayi*.

The Mulroney government would steer Canada to the right, and all the gains made by advocacy groups who had been able to lobby government on behalf of the disadvantaged, started to crumble. "The election of Brian Mulroney's Conservatives marked the end of an era of experimentation in "participatory democracy" in Canada."(3)

And on the Horizon: Stephen Harper and the Reform Party

Though Brian Mulroney clearly steered Canada to the right, the Reformers did not feel that he had gone to the right enough. And their plan for Canada was laid out two decades ago. Stephen Harper was writing policy, and most of that policy came straight from the National Citizens Coalition handbook.

But what a lot of people don't know is that much of the National Citizens Coalition handbook (4), came right from Ernest and Preston Manning's Political Realignment.**

Brian Mulroney began the process of reversing two decades of greater democratic participation, and the Reform Party intends to continue this trend. Their policy formally calls for expenditure elimination" of "grants to interest groups for the purpose of political lobbying".

Judy Rebick, President of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, an organization which was repeatedly attacked by Stan Waters and other Reformers, views with dismays the Reform Party's commitment to cut funding to advocate groups:

[The cuts] will be a serious threat to democracy as we know it in Canada. This will mean that only groups like the Business Council on National Issues will be able to make their voices heard on the national level. It pretends to be for the "little person" but in fact the Reform Party's policies favour the most powerful forces in society.

How would the Reform Party respond to the needs of those groups in society who are still marginalized within the political system? Without government funding, effective representation to government is extremely difficult for disadvantaged groups who have few resources, precisely because they are disadvantaged.

As Lise Corbeil, Executive Director of the National Anti-Poverty Organization, puts it:

If we live in a democracy, then all the groups have to have fair access to the system. The government has a responsibility to give them the means to have their voice heard and grants are part of that responsibility. Poor people don't have professional organizations —people aren't 'professionally' poor.

If groups speaking for poor people, for example, cannot raise the money themselves to keep an office open in Ottawa and hire staff to meet regularly with government, then their voices simply will not be heard. (5)

And that's exactly what's happening in Canada today. The disadvantaged have no voice, as we've seen with the recent prison farm issue. But we've also seen an erosion in the ability of NGOs to speak for stakeholders. If they challenge this government they risk losing their funding altogether.

We are becoming a corporate state. The prison farms were not closed as a means to accelerate punishment, though it certainly fits with the Harper government's far-right ideology. But what Harper saw was an opportunity to once again promote the corporate cause, by allowing them to provide services that were being handled very well by the public sector.

In fact, he already gave the contract to provide dairy products to the prisons, to an American firm. He had no intention of listening to anyone in this country.

And borrowing from American Republican strategists, like Frank Lutz and Karl Rove, he acted first and then will try to build a consensus, by playing "divide and conquer".

But in this case, it may be a little more difficult. Because the protesters at the Kingston prison farms did not fit into Harper's molds. Normally, he plays to his base and whitewashes the issue for the mainstream, while completely ignoring the experts and stakeholders.

But those in the crowd trying to prevent the cattle from being taken away, included farmers, teachers, doctors, ministers, Catholic nuns, RMC professors, mothers, grandmothers, great-grandmothers (including an 87 year-old-woman who was arrested), and even children. And they were united as Canadians. Not "special interest". Not "lefties". Many said they actually voted Conservative.

And I think what we may be seeing is a new trend. Because more and more, single-issue groups are becoming multiple issue groups, as they now face a common enemy. The census issue provides a perfect example:

You have to admire the political logic. If there is no data to research, there will be no facts to account for. How perfect the Tories' ditching of the mandatory long-form census data collection is for themselves -- and how dangerous for the rest of us. This crazily arcane little issue is just the latest example of how the government is craftily tearing down the foundational infrastructure of democratic accountability.

After four years of the same, we're close to a tipping point -- at least that is what an unprecedented number of NGO watchdogs (aka civil society orgs) are risking their necks to tell us right now. (6)

There is a rumbling. You can almost feel it. Harper may be enjoying his latest little surge in the polls, but the West is keeping his numbers up and he knows it. Because there is a very large and angry electorate ready to join forces to put an end to his Reformer dreams.

"The aim of life in society is the greatest happiness of everyone, and this happiness is attained only by being just toward each and every person." Pierre Trudeau

Footnotes:

*Now calling himself Tony Clement

**In 1975 Ernest Manning convinced Colin Brown to incorporate the NCC and set it up as a non-profit group. (4)

Sources:

1. Towards a Just Society: The Trudeau Years, By Thomas S. Axworthy and Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Viking Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-670-83015-1. Pg. 1-5

2. Canada's 1960s: The Ironies of Identity in a Rebellious Era, By Bryan D. Palmer, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 13-9780802096593

3. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 202

4. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, Douglas-Gibson, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3 6

5. Dobbin, 1992, Pg. 203-204

6. NGOs risk all in standoff with Harper over civil society crackdown, By Alice Klein, July 23, 2010