A Deceptive Democracy: A Confidence Game

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

"Nothing is inevitable." - John Ralston Saul, Canadian Essayist

When Michael Ignatieff was in Kingston at the start of his summer tour, he was asked about one of the bills presented by the Harper government, and the egregious nature of some of it's elements. Ignatieff said that standard for this government was to present a bill, then tell the opposition to pass it, or they would call an election. "That" he said, "is what passes for democracy in the Harper government".

In the book I've been reading and sharing: Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis*, one of the contributors, Gary Levy, also noted the pattern. In a section Playing Fast and Loose with the Confidence Convention, he says:

... there is no hard-and-fast rule about what is a question of confidence. It is widely accepted that certain traditional motions —namely, the motion to adopt the Throne Speech, the motion to adopt the budget, and the Appropriation Bill (government estimates) — are automatic votes of confidence.

There is less agreement on other areas related to confidence. What would happen if a government refused to resign when it had lost confidence? Does defeat of an important government bill always constitute a vote of confidence? Can procedural motions be considered matters of confidence? Can a government claim to have lost confidence without being defeated in the House? The failure of successive minority parliaments, starting with Paul Martin's, to find the right answers to these questions led to the December 2008 crisis. (1)

All governments have manipulated the process, but none to the extent of the Harper government. But they misjudged their power. They challenged the opposition to bring them down, and then were shocked when they called their bluff, resulting in the Coalition proposal.

What happened next was a horrible attack on our democracy, by a man who knew that the proposal was legitimate in a Westminster Parliamentary system, but intentionally misled the public into believing that this was some kind of coup. Former insider Tom Flanagan, after admitting that Harper's 2004 coalition attempt included the full support of the Bloc (2), justified Harper's actions by saying that he was fighting for his political life. His. Not ours.

But focusing on the nature of "confidence" issues, Levy also reminds us of Rob Nicholson's attempt to threaten the Senate into passing a bill. He should have known as Justice Minister that the Senate is not a confidence chamber.



But that was not the first time they tried to manipulate this body. Beside stacking it with fundraisers and party faithfuls, they also devised a clever scheme to make sure that senate bills they didn't like, never saw the light of day.

Bills that require a sponsor, were grabbed up by the Harperites, and then they never followed through, knowing that a bill automatically dies if its sponsor fails to show up twice for debate on it. This was noted with a bill aimed at ending pre-election partisan advertising binges. If passed this could have saved us over 100 million dollars on the Harper advertising extravaganza. (3)

And that's what passes for democracy in Harper's World.

Elected MPs can't talk, the media is banned, he prorogues when things get too hot to handle, he adds lobbyists to his staff, he squashes dissent, he sets fixed elections then ignores his own law, he bans books, closes our borders to "undesirables", launches witch hunts on anyone who might challenge him and attacks anyone who does.

This is democracy?

In his book The Myth of the Good Corporate Citizen, Murray Dobbin reminds us of how we accomplished our democracy, that is under attack by the corporate world. And he is blunt in his claim that the only ones who can reverse democracy's decay is us.

We have forgotten how we first achieved the things we are now losing. None of these community institutions was simply given to us by benign governments and good corporate citizens. The struggles of hundreds of thousands of men and women — citizens — in labour movements, farm movements, and social organizations made democracy real at a time when many of them did not know where their next meal was coming from. For them democracy was a process to be engaged in. (4)

This is how Stephen Harper is getting away with the things he is getting away with. Canadians are no longer engaged. They have thrown their hands in the air and their butts on the couch.

The social and psychological distance between citizen and government has become so great that the notion of government as an expression of community is weaker now than at any time in the post-war period. For far too many people political citizenship is an afterthought or, at best is reduced to brief and alienated participation in electoral rituals.

Maybe we got into this habit because we believed medicare, public education, a full-time job, and a future for our children would always be secure. These things are our right. But as corporations prove every day, rights, like democracy, are a process, not an institution. As community, as citizens, we haven't caught up with the new reality. (4)

We haven't started fighting back. If Olga Hudson can do it. If Betty Krawczyk can do it. What's the matter with the rest of us?

We've seen some positive changes. We won small victories with Kory Teneycke and Fox News North. Care for the elderly is back on the table. We've got a long way to go but it's a start.

The assault on democracy and equality by corporations and those who benefit from their power is couched in such terms as globalization for good reason. It creates an atmosphere of inevitability. We can, by this definition of reality, do nothing but attempt to adapt to the predetermined course of history. (4)

But remember John Sauls three little words: "Nothing is inevitable."

1. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, By Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9- 2, Pg. 20

2. Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says, By: Frances Russell, Winnipeg Free Press, December 11, 2009

3. Tory procedural ploy 'hijacks' Senate bills: Conservatives sponsor legislation they oppose, By Joan Bryden, Canadian Press, July 06, 2009

4. The Myth of the Good Corporate Citizen: Canada and Democracy in the Age of Globalization, By Murray Dobbin, James Lorimer & Company, 2003, ISBN: 1-55028-785-0, Pg. 5-6

Islamophobia Now Defines our Official Policy. How Did we Let This Happen?

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

"If international Jewry should succeed, in Europe or else­where, in precipitating nations into a world war, the result will not be the bolshevization of Europe and a victory of Judaism, but the extermination of the Jewish race." Adolf Hitler, January 3, 1939

Those words are shocking to us now, with the value of hindsight. But why weren't they shocking to German citizens who listened to that speech in 1939? Their leader was promoting the possible "necessity" of eliminating an entire people. Millions and millions of human beings.

It was because his party was suggesting that their planned military campaigns were an act of defense, not aggression. A necessary defense against both socialism and Judaism.

Fast forward to January of 2006, when senior Canadian military officers, soldiers, defence analysts and lobbyists gathered together to listen to American Lt.-Gen. Thomas Metz, then commanding general of Fort Hood, Texas.

[Metz] presents the audience with "a quick trip around the world." Using slides, he flashes a series of maps that highlight, one at a time, India, China, the Pacific Rim, the Western Hemisphere, Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. Then he comes to his final map, the one that really matters. Unlike all the others, this isn't just a map of a geographic area. It's a map of a religion: the Islamic World.

The Islamic faith is not evil," says the general, then quickly adds. "but it's been hijacked by thugs ... He then shows a chart depicting the military challenges America faces, measured in terms of level of danger and level of likelihood. At the very apex—the most dangerous and the most likely—sits just one: radical Islamic terrorism. "Radical Islam wants to reestablish the Caliphate," says Metz. "Just as Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, you can read what they want to do." (1)

But if you wonder why the invited guests included corporate lobbyists, Metz continues.

In his southern drawl, the general notes how much oil the U.S. consumes—roughly 25 per cent of the world's consumption, even though Americans make up only 5 per cent of the world's population—and how central this is to the country's high standard of living. To dramatize the importance of energy, the general points out that one can put a pint of gasoline into a chainsaw and then go out and cut a huge amount of wood before the gasoline runs out. The next day, he says, one could feed a big, strong man an enormous breakfast and send him out to cut wood—and he'd be able to cut only a fraction of what the gasoline-fired chainsaw had been able to cut in far less time. The lesson from this little fable is clear: America needs oil to go on being the rich, advanced society that it enjoys being. Without oil, Americans would be like that big strong man with the big breakfast—with only a tiny pile of wood to show for it.

The general's little discourse on the importance of energy to America is certainly interesting. But what is it doing in a speech about military threats to the United States? The connection between America's voracious oil consumption and the dangers of radical Islamic terrorism are never explicitly stated by Lt.-Gen. Metz; he simply notes that the Islamic world has a lot of oil and what happens there has an impact on energy markets. But an important element has clearly been added to the picture: the U.S. needs what lies under the ground in the Islamic world if Americans are to go on living the bounteous life that lies at the heart of the American dream—a life that has them devouring the lion's share of the world's energy. (1)

So the threat is not Radical Islam so much as the threat that the people of the Islamic world would like to control their own natural resources.

The lobbyists in the room were salivating. Not only would they continue to cash in on huge military contracts, but in the end would control the mineral wealth of the Middle East.

But how could they sell this to the Canadian people, who were already weary of the war in Afghanistan, and wanted to bring our soldiers home?

They wrapped it up in a yellow ribbon, sprinkled it with a dose of religious fervour and instilled fear that we are threatened with attack. "They hate our freedoms" says Stephen Harper. They hate Christians and they hate God. They couldn't possibly hate the fact that they were invaded and forced into a war they didn't want, under the guise of "fighting terror" and chasing ghosts.

What Will Precipitate the Next Holocaust?

Canada has long been a nation that promoted peace. We never waged war and when we entered war, it was deemed to be a matter of principle. But that has changed. Canadians may still consider themselves to be peace loving, but our government no longer reflects that image.

We are not peacekeepers, we are warriors. Rick Hillier stated that "We are not the public service of Canada. We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people." And said of the perceived enemy "These are detestable murderers and scumbags." (2)

Why were we not shocked by that?

For the same reason that the German people were not shocked when Hitler promoted "the extermination of the Jewish race." We were led to believe that they threatened our way of life. He wouldn't dare suggest that it was a depletion of oil that threatened us, so we must take it by force, as Metz did. The job of armed forces was to kill people. But not to worry because the only people they killed were "murderers and scumbags." Our magical weapons that were coated with fairy dust, knew the difference.

And for anyone who doesn't believe that this new target of hatred, Islam, could ever result in another Holocaust, guess again. And I'm not talking about the thousands and thousands of Muslims killed in the Middle East already, but those who promote the annihilation of a people, wrapped up in their "love of Israel". Israel with nuclear weapons, that is positioned to use them, with the full support of Canada.

Our new foreign policy is to not only allow, but encourage Israel to launch a nuclear war. A Holocaust.

And the two people promoting this the most, are from the extremist group: Christians United For Israel. John Hagee and his Canadian partner Charles McVety. Two very dangerous men. (You can hear them speak in the videos that follow.)

It is Charles McVety who put a stop to to the Imam speaking to our military, calling it a threat to national security".

Defence Minister Peter MacKay has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, which is worrisome for someone who oversees the Canadian Armed Forces. By cancelling an invitation to Imam Zijad Delic of the Canadian Islamic Congress to speak at a defence department conference, MacKay has sent a signal
of intolerance to the country’s growing Muslim community, estimated to number 1
million people. That’s precisely the opposite of what organizers of the forum had intended.

MacKay’s last-minute order to disinvite Delic, the CIC’s executive director, came as Christian evangelical groups were campaigning against the presence of the Muslim cleric. MacKay insists he made the decision on his own, but his motives remain murky. (3)

Mackay has marginalized an entire segment of our population, based on the rantings of Christian extremists. What next will the Harper government agree to? Internment camps? Will they have to wear crescents? Abide by curfews? How far will this government take this to appease the religious right to avoid breaking the ties of their purse strings?

According to news reports, MacKay was going on information provided by two Christian evangelical groups. These groups must have placed considerable pressure on the minister, because he cancelled Imam Delic's speech hastily, and apparently without consultation with other government agencies.

Had the minister consulted other agencies, he would have discovered that Imam Delic presents to numerous federal departments, including RCMP national security agents. He is well-liked and well-respected among officials, as well as the Muslim community. He is highly regarded by numerous faith groups for his outreach work.
Last Sunday, I sat next to Imam Delic at a youth conference where we were both invited to speak. He has been heavily involved with the event for the last few years, and encouraged me to come out to at least one of the events. As he presented his talk, it was clear that this man, who came from war-torn Bosnia as a refugee, had proudly made Canada, a place of safety, his home. He stood smiling, and preached about how important it was to be an engaged citizen, and a progressive one.

When MacKay allowed himself to be led by pressure groups, he not only shattered the delusions we all had that day when we listened to Imam Delic speak to youth about how Canada is a free country that allows us to express ourselves, he also shattered any hopes we had in our political process. (4)

We know that Stephen Harper will do anything to stay in power. Anything. And he and his government are using the same tactics that the Nazis used to prepare a nation for an unspeakable solution.

And they do it by calling anyone who criticises Israeli aggression, anti-Semitic.

They do by comparing a peaceful demonstration against Israeli Apartheid, to a pogrom.

They do it by hand picking Alykhan Velshi to act as Jason Kenney's aide. Velshi was the Manager of Research for a group called the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. According to Sourcewatch:

In early 2001, a tightly knit group of billionaire philanthropists conceived of a plan to win American sympathy for Israel's response to the Palestinian intifada. They believed that the Palestinian cause was finding too much support within crucial segments of the American public, particularly within the media and on college campuses, so they set up an organization, Emet: An Educational Initiative, Inc., to offer Israel the kind of PR that the Israeli government seemed unable to provide itself.

They do it by sending out vile taxpayer funded literature calling opposition parties anti-Semitic.

This creates an atmosphere of fear, where the only thing we're afraid of is crossing our government.

The Globe and Mail with it's new neoconservative format is suggesting that Canadians should forget about being defined as Peacekeepers. We must instead take pride in our military might. Forget health care. Shift our adoration to fighter jets.

Forget responsible government. Stick with Harper and his vision for Canada. A nation that we no longer recognize.

Oh, but just look at the shiny pictures!






Sources:

1. Holding the Bully's Coat, Canada and the U.S. Empire, By Linda McQuaig, Doubleday Canada, 2007, ISBN 978-0-385-66012-9, pg. 67-69

2. Rick Hillier reconnected Canadians with Forces, By John Ward, The Canadian Press, June 29, 2008

3. MacKay’s speech ban: Message of intolerance, Toronto Star, October 6, 2010

4. Politicians on the run: By hastily cancelling a speech by Imam Zijad Delic, Peter MacKay has shattered the faith of Muslims in our political process, By Aisha Sherazi, Citizen Special, October 5, 2010

Words of Wisdom That Should Not Have Been Ignored

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

In 1965 a young reporter with the Calgary Albertan wrote a piece on the history of the Social Credit party in that province, which was then celebrating it's 30th anniversary.

Created during the depression, when desperate people were looking for a saviour, it was both a blessing and a curse. And this is what he discovered in interviewing those who were around at the time of it's creation. Reports were either glowing or painted a picture of "hooligans, emotion run amok, and a stab of fear."

In the churches, the country churches where so long there had been unity, Social Creditors sat on one side of the aisle, and others on the other, and there was a hostile silence after the service. (1)

And this was actually encouraged by the party. Divisive politics played out well at the ballot box. And so did fear.

Meetings of the opposition were often disrupted by " a 'group of big fellows' who honked car horns, yelled and pounded logs against the walls and doors of their meeting halls. Reporters were barred from [Social Credit] meetings, and often made to feel unsafe upon the streets." (1)
And on his Bible program, then leader William Aberhart regaled against "Henchmen", "Bigshots" and "those who betrayed Christ". And if critics phoned into his radio show, they were "threatened with tar and feather, shooting and physical violence". Religious fervour and politics can create a dangerous climate.

So when this young reporter sat down in 1965 to file his story, he understood the dangers of this kind of political party. His name was Joe Clark and he would go on to become Canada's youngest prime minister.

Yesterday, someone posted a CBC clip from the 2004 election campaign, on Canadians Rallying to Unseat Stephen Harper. In it Joe Clark suggested that former PCers (the party folded in 2003) should vote Liberal, and called Stephen Harper "a dangerous choice for voters".

Naturally the Reform/Alliance members, now marching under the 'Conservative' banner, went on the attack, suggesting that Clark was just upset because he was on his way out.

However, if the media had dug a little deeper, they would have understood that Clark was speaking from decades of research, and experience with this movement, that began in 1935 as Social Credit under first Aberhart, and then Ernest Manning. It then passed to Ernest's son Preston under Reform and Preston's lieutenant Stephen Harper under Alliance, before becoming the 'Conservative Party of Canada'.

He knew what they stood for. He knew how they operated. And he knew that Stephen Harper was a "dangerous" man.

Schooled in Politics

Joe Clark and Preston Manning attended the University of Alberta at the same time and were members of the Youth Parliament. At the time Manning was considered to be a little odd.

At university in the early sixties he gave the impression of a rural kid completely isolated from the ways of urban society. He presented an odd image. "He was part of the Youth Parliament's Social Credit caucus at the same time Joe Clark, Grant Notley (the late, former leader of the New Democratic Party in Alberta), Jim Coutts (who became prominent in the Liberal Party under Pierre Trudeau), and others were representing their respective parties. He was a good speaker, but you never saw him on campus. People knew who he was, and the rumour was that his father didn't want him to hang around the university too much because it would be a bad moral influence on him," recalls Fred Walker, a student at that time. "He looked very out of place — odd enough in his mannerisms and physical appearance and dress to be the occasional subject of ridicule. He gave the impression of being a very serious and committed young man — but more an apologist for his father's party and policies. He didn't play a very prominent role." (2)

But during debate it was clear that his political thought was not only to the right, but also, like his father's, grounded in a fear of socialism.

"It was not simply that Social Credit was found ... to be wanting in areas of social policy - it was more that conservative ideas were being challenged by socialism. Left-wing thinking was influencing events and people ... 'We [socreds] believe that Canada is drifting towards socialism even when the majority of Canadians are opposed to collectivism and the welfare state...'" (3)

The idea that the majority of Canadians opposed the welfare state, came from party rhetoric, and was not based on fact, a pattern that continues today.

What Canadians wanted was more from their government. If they were expected to go to war in the name of nationalism, then they deserved to share in the resources of the nation that they had fought for.

After the war, public policy launched upon a prolonged process of social reform. It was as though the generation that had endured the Depression and fought the war had determined upon the establishment of a new Canadian society based upon compassion and caring and a gathered resolve that life could be made better for all Canadians by governments committed to principles of tolerance, fairness, and equity. (4)

They Meet Again

After the Reform Party was founded, Preston Manning decided to run against his old university nemesis Joe Clark in the riding of Yellowhead Alberta, for the 1988 election. This wasn't so much because of a personal grudge, but he felt that the publicity would be good for the party. With Mr. Clark's status, the press would be following this race closely.

There is a funny story about that campaign from author Gordon Laird.

"Like many Albertans Preston Manning knows how to dress cowboy ... Manning learned how to ride on his parent's farm near Edmonton where he once won northern Alberta's 4H livestock raising championship .... but it was not until 1988 that Reform's head cowboy formed his first posse. Campaigning against the incumbent Progressive Conservative, Joe Clark ... Reform's new leader hatched a publicity stunt before a debate in the town of Jasper. A 'Reform Posse' of riders, complete with Reform banners and saddle blankets, was organized to chase down the ex-prime minister, who was scheduled to arrive at the local train station. It was High Noon for Mulroney's token westerner. 'The posse and Sheriff Manning were in pursuit of the notorious Joe Clark' ....

"To the disappointment of the fifteen horses and riders looking for a political lynchin', Clark never showed; his train was delayed. The Reformers still had fun handing out 'Wanted' posters and posing for pictures with tourists ..." (5)

Manning lost and he lost soundly.

A New Party and a New Nemesis

From the time that Stephen Harper was made the leader of the Alliance Party, he started a war against Joe Clark and the Conservatives. He didn't try to negotiate an alliance but told Clark to "stop pissing around or get out of my way." He wanted to devour the PC party and Clark fought back.

This prompted an abuse of his franking privileges, when Harper sent out letters to PC party members suggesting that Clark was misleading his party.

And when Joe Clark fought desperately to hold onto what was started by Sir John A. MacDonald, never joining the "new" neoconservative spin-off, he knew exactly who Stephen Harper was, and he knew what this party represented.

Former PC member of parliament , Flora MacDonald called it "... the demolition of a historic 150-year-old institution that has done so much to build this country... and claimed that "The party's future lies not in some right-wing alliance that would violate the progressive and moderate traditions of its former leaders, but with a renewed emphasis on the values that the great majority of Canadians feel represent their views." (5 )

So when in 2004, Joe Clark called Stephen Harper "dangerous", it was not based on sour grapes, but on decades of fighting against a destructive movement, that promoted divisiveness, was run by "hooligans, emotion run amok, with a stab of fear."

Canadians should have listened.

Sources:

1. A Desperate People Turn to Social Credit, By Reporter Joe Clark, Calgary Albertan News Perspective, August 1965

2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 5

3. Dobbin, 1992, Pg. 24-25

4. Whose Country is This Anyway? By Dalton Camp, Douglas & McIntyre, 1995, ISBN: 1-55054-467-5, Pg. 17

5. The Toronto Star, November 14, 2003

Neoconservatism has a Destructive god and is a Religion of Greed

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

"We must not undervalue our God-given blessings as a nation to such an extent that we let them be taken from us as we sleep." Maj. Gen. Lewis MacKenzie

I've written a fair bit on Leo Strauss, the father of Neoconservatism, whose doctrine has given Canada politicians like Grant Devine in Saskatchewan, Ralph Klein in Alberta, Mike Harris in Ontario and of course our current federal government under Stephen Harper.

However, the neoconservatism defined by Strauss, was not really an economic theory. It was a blueprint for achieving and holding onto power.

Rick Salutin, just before being fired by the Globe, wrote a column: Stephen Harper – the last Straussian? In it he outlines the key ingredients to Strauss's Neocon stew: Secretiveness, Religion, Nationalism, Populism and Contempt.

But what of the economic theories of neoconservatism?

Their conventional wisdom is that if corporations are allowed free rein, with no obligations to workers or community, everyone will win. And even before George Bush proved this to be nonsense, after destroying both the economy and the soul of America, other neoconservative experiments had failed miserably. Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Roger Douglas, neocons all, were train wrecks for the countries they governed. And yet Stephen Harper follows their theories like a religion.

Canadian journalist Madeliene Drohan suggested that neoconservatism "allowed the select few to enrich themselves at the expense of many." (1) Very astute.

Dalton Camp, former president of the federal progressive Conservatives, sounded the alarm a decade and a half ago. When answering the question of what neoconservativism looked like, he said "it looked like Hell, " and he meant that literally. A little piece of Hades here on earth, with the greedy wielding the pitchforks.

It has become clear that multinational corporatism and new patterns of cartelization have forever altered the longstanding relationships between business and society, between employer and employee, and between the nation state and the outside world. The result has been what we see around us: structural employment, falling incomes, a vanishing middle class, all in a climate of fear, anger, and disillusion. (2)

And Scott Reid sees a dramatic decrease in the fortunes of the middle class, that have been accelerated with our own federal neoconservative* experiment.

According to research from the Gandalf Group, 50 per cent of Canadians say their financial situation has deteriorated in the past year and one in five Canadians believe it will worsen further. Just this week, Angus Reid reported that household debt ranks as the primary anxiety on the minds of most middle-class Canadians. Fully 43 per cent of the country says their personal finances are in either poor or very poor shape. Unfortunately, people’s impressions are justified. Economists tell us that household debt in Canada has never stood at higher levels. Not in the recession of the early 1990s or the early 1980s. Not even during the Great Depression. Overdrawn lines of credit.

Maxed out charge cards. Borrowing against declining home equity. These are the financial facts of life for most working families. In short, middle-class Canada is struggling to keep its head above water. And it sees waves headed its way. (3)

And part of this problem was Harper and Flaherty mistakenly suggesting that Canada would not feel the pains of other countries because of their great handling of the economy. It was all smoke and mirrors, so now not only have Canadians maxed themselves out buying homes they couldn't afford and spending money they didn't have, but we are still stuck with the rotten paper bought up on our behalf.

The writing was on the wall for Canada when the Reform Party first reared it's ugly head, and though Stephen Harper has been credited with writing their policy, then president of the National Citizens Coalition, claimed that 2/3 of it was cribbed from the NCC handbook. (4)

Plagiarized from the playbook for the revolt of the rich.

Nietzsche put it perfectly, in The Will to Power: "The great majority of men have no right to existence, but are a misfortune to higher men." This is a codicil for the comfortable, the affluent, and the obscenely rich in our time, as it was the inspiration for fascism earlier in our century.

The new order is not without its coterie of apologists and intellectual dandies. Indeed, it even has a political party of its own, called—irony of ironies—the "Reform" Party. Their models and values, as their political heroes, are American—the latter including such established mountebanks as Newt Gingrich, Al D'Amato, and Jesse Helms, and the ubiquitous pair of shabby parsons on the Christian right.

Among these trend-setting followers of the new conservatism, American style, are rising hosts of Canadian imitators and cross-breeders, fervently devoted to the reduction of government and the elevation of the oligarchy.

It seems to me a mistake to call neo-conservatism anything other than the enemy of the society those of my generation built over the years since the war. The differences are irreconcilable; there is no common ground. As a Tory Canadian, neo-conservatism is as alien to me as is Marxism or fascism or dadaism. It rejects the idea of Canada and the ideals that have, for so long, been the inspiration for the kind of society that has become a political wonder of the world.

Peter Lougheed, for many years the all-conservative quarterback in our nation's politics, has warned the Tory party not to set its face against the poor. He has also expressed his unease with the increased "Americanization" of our country.

For some time, while writing the columns in this book, I seemed to be alone in my concerns. This is no longer true. The general and the former Alberta premier may not agree with any of my views, but they share my concerns. They would, I am sure, put things differently; how differently, I cannot know. (2)

There are many of us who now feel like we're alone in our concerns. We know that neoconservatism is destroying our country and we also know that this is not what democracy looks like.

Initially the attack was on the poor, and the religious right was exploited to tell them that their poverty was their own fault. The devout were advised that these "enemies" were poor because God wanted them to be poor. This was Leo Strauss's instructions on how to control the ignorant masses.

But with Harper's agenda in full throttle, it is no longer just the poor who are suffering. The middle class, representing the majority of the population, is in serious trouble.

And yet what does Harper's ideology tell him to do? Provide even more tax cuts to corporations, buy fighter jets and make the supplier's lobbyist his chief of staff to make sure that he money gets into the right pockets, while snubbing his nose at a report with recommendations on helping the disadvantaged.

But not to worry. Neocon senator Hugh Segal advised the Harper government to "temper their message of austerity with compassion." (5)

We're about to be screwed, but they'll be gentle.

Footnotes:

*In many ways I thought that Paul Martin was a neocon, which is why I never voted for him. However, he still felt a moral commitment to assist the most disadvantaged Canadians. Harper not so much.

Sources:

1. Globe and Mail, May 1996.

2. Whose Country is This Anyway? By Dalton Camp, Douglas & McIntyre, 1995, ISBN: 1-55054-467-5, Pg. 17-19

3. Financially, middle-class Canada is awash in a world of hurt, By Scott Reid, Globe and Mail, September 29, 2010

4. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3

5. Not even a crumb from Harper, By Carol Goar, Toronto Star, October 2, 2010

A Deceptive Democracy: Harper From Pugnacious to Dangerous

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

With a possible election on the horizon, and a new Governor General at Rideau Hall, it's important to review what happened during the 2008 coalition attempt; a perfectly acceptable and legal alternative in a Parliamentary democracy.

It's also important to understand how Stephen Harper operates, so we can prepare ourselves for the next campaign.

Canadian journalist Michael Valpy has referred to the Harper government as the "most pugnacious" in memory, but I think he was too kind.

From manuals on how to disrupt committees to attack ads outside of an election, Mr. Harper came to Ottawa ready for a fight. He never intended to work with opposition, only to make it go away.

In other words, he never intended that 2/3 of Canadians, speaking through their elected MPs, would have a voice. And yet almost five years later he is still there. And in fact, has only gotten worse. How is that possible?

There are a lot of reasons I suppose. A corporate media and a disinterested public would certainly be near the top of the list. Photo-ops instead of taking questions, allows him to control the message and his image. That would also be up there.

But I see something else.

Laura K on her blog American by Birth, Canadian by Choice, posted a piece: Canada for the people, not the conservative party. It was originally going to appear in the Mark News as part of a series, "Who owns Canada?" but too many edits prompted her to instead post it on her blog.

It is excellent and everyone should read it. Well researched and to the point.

But I had one criticism found in this comment.

"A majority of Canadians did not vote for Stephen Harper's Conservatives. Yet we are held hostage to his anti-democratic agenda because he has so successfully exploited an antiquated, first-past-the-post electoral system and a pitifully weak opposition."

Every time a progressive journalist claims that we have a "weak opposition", Harper's polling numbers rise and more and more Canadians are turned off the political process. Because the piece that gives all the right reasons for getting rid of the wrong government, bursts into flames. The message to readers is "what's the point?"

We'll go with the devil we know, or just stay home, and continue to be "held hostage to his anti-democratic agenda." We have to call out all journalists who continue to resort to the theory of a weak opposition. They are weakened after a full frontal assault on the democratic process, but they are far from weak or unworthy.
In fact in 2008, they were stronger than ever. As Elizabeth May reminds us:

Great moments of flux and crisis allow innovations to occur. The fact is that the prime minister lost the confidence of the House in December 2008, whether or not the matter was put to a vote. His spectacular miscalculation led to something that would have been impossible to imagine even weeks earlier. Arch-enemies put aside their distrust and ancient hatreds. The Bloc has an intense dislike for Stephane Dion, who, as champion of federalism, was the author of the Clarity Act. Stephane Dion has always been similarly hostile to the Bloc .... Now, here was Dion ready to work with Duceppe. And more amazing, Jack Layton was prepared to assist a Liberal to become prime minister. The NDP's hatred of Liberals was once described to me by an NDP friend who labels himself as a "fundamentalist." No matter how much it might make sense to cooperate, he assured me, NDPers could never and would never cooperate with Liberals. A coalition was simply the stuff of fantasy only days before it became a reality. (1)

I remember reading one comment that said Stephen Harper had not only united the right, but also united the left. Not exactly true because the PCs were never really that right-wing. However, semantics aside, the opposition was ready to forget their differences and work for the common good.

But I don't think they anticipated what happened next, as even the media started referring to it as a "crisis".

The Invisible Hand of Karl Rove

Michael Valpy has called the 2008 election campaign "one of the most uncivil in modern Canadian history." It was pure Karl Rove. And while the mud slinging dirtied the political landscape, Stephen Harper kept his hands clean, more or less. And that's because he was never in the trenches. His entire campaign was in a bubble.

No handshakes on street corners or rallies in the parks. Only highly staged backdrops for his daily political message, and assemblies where Tory staffers and security officers closely monitor the crowds ... The Harper campaign keeps a short leash on national and local media, limiting questions and access to local candidates, sometimes calling on RCMP security to block reporters from doing their jobs. Harper "hides from Canadians. He lives in a bubble." (2)

This allowed him to avoid having any of the ugliness pinned on him. The only exception was when cohorts Steve Murphy and Mike Duffy helped to engineer Dion's demise.

And when Stephen Harper realized that he had failed to get his majority, he promised to play nice.

In his election-night victory statement in Calgary, he pledged to fulfil his party's election platform, but also to govern for Canadians who had voted for other parties. And he offered cooperation with opposition MPs. 'This is a time,' he said, 'for us all to put aside political differences and partisan considerations and to work cooperatively for the benefit of Canada. We have shown that minority government can work, and at this time of global economic instability we owe it to Canadians to demonstrate this once again. We stretch out a hand to all members of all parties, asking them to join together to protect the economy and weather this world financial crisis. (3)

And the same conciliatory tone was reflected in the throne speech. But then all hell broke loose.

Seeing an opportunity to crush the opposition, Stephen Harper again went on the attack, gambling on what he perceived as a weakened opposition: "The government's plans to suspend women's rights to seek legal redress on pay-equity issues and the right of federal civil servants' to strike were seen as unalloyed ideological actions ..." and "The plan to eliminate parties' vote subsidy was labelled provocative and a partisan attack aimed primarily at the money-straitened Liberals."

And all of these changes "were concocted in the Prime Minister's Office, sent over to the Finance Department at the last moment, and not presented to the Conservative cabinet or parliamentary caucus for prior discussion." (3)

And in the ensuing uproar Jim Flaherty challenged the opposition to "Bring it on" while Peter Mackay "boasted to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald on Thursday that, when the subsidy measure came before Parliament, the opposition would blink. 'When they play chicken,' he said, 'they wind up looking like chickens."' Except they didn't." (3)

Then when the coalition was presented, Stephen Harper and a compliant media turned it into a "crisis", and when things heated up, rather than assuming the role of prime minister, asking that calmer heads should prevail, Harper continued to fan the flames.

Dennis Pilon, a political scientist at the University of Victoria, stated that : "I do not mean to be an alarmist in suggesting that we may be heading for violence. But the actions of this prime minister are coming dangerously close to inciting mob rule." (4)

All of this speaks to the lengths that this man will go, just to hold onto power, and they speak to the fact that he cannot be trusted.

This book, Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis is a warning to us, that we are indeed in crisis. Every action of this prime minister is moving us closer to a dictatorship.

That is not hyperbole but fact. He has challenged the supremacy of Parliament more than once, and even threatened to go to the Queen if he didn't get his way. These are not the actions of a sane person.

And if we exercise our democratic rights and vote him out, we can be sure of one thing. He will not go quietly.

Previous postings on this topic:

1. Coalitions and a Knowledge Deficit

2. Drama on the High "C"'s. Coalition, Coups, Crisis and Conspiracy

Sources:

1. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and Crisis in Canadians Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 233

2. Harper a man who 'lives in a bubble': Tory campaign goes to extraordinary lengths keeping him from public, By Richard Brennan, Tonda McCharles and Joanna Smith, The Toronto Star, September 25, 2008

3. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, By Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9, Pg. 6-11

4. May, 2009, Pg. 226

A Deceptive Democracy: Drama on the High "C"'s. Coalition, Coups, Crisis and Conspiracy

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

There is a 2009 book Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, edited by Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, that focuses on a country in crisis.

And of course that country in crisis is Canada, now in the grips of a man who will do whatever it takes to hold onto power.

The book focuses on the 2008 coalition and the actions of the Harper government, but it also speaks of a broader issue. An ill informed public so easily led to believe that there was a national emergency, when in fact the only thing happening was democracy in action.

Because what took place at the end of 2008 was not a "coup" or a "conspiracy".

And it was not a government seeking compromise, but a rehearsed drama performed to instill fear into an audience of onlookers. A nation that no longer participated, but were happy to simply watch. And even more alarming was that the whole performance was underwritten by a media who felt that drama sold more papers, than fact.

James Travers suggests that the new Governor General must assume the role of teacher.

Canada has a new Governor General and an old problem. In replacing Michaelle Jean, David Johnston, a lawyer and teacher, inherits a Prime Minister and country in desperate need of a civics lesson. (1)

I agree that the public needs a lesson, but Stephen Harper knew exactly what he was doing. He knew it because he had done the same thing four years earlier. He knew how coalitions worked and why at times they became necessary.

But he allowed his arrogance and visceral hatred for political opponents to take over, and the only thing that mattered was power and the refusal to accept that he could lose.

Harper told Conservatives at their annual Christmas party: 'We will use all legal means to resist this undemocratic seizure of power. My friends, such an illegitimate government would be a catastrophe, for our democracy, our unity and our economy, especially at a time of global instability."' The media pointed out that Harper himself, in 2004, with a minority Liberal government at risk of being defeated in the Commons, had sent a joint letter with Layton and Duceppe to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, urging her to 'consider all your options' if the government fell on a confidence vote. Their letter had said: 'We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation.' (2)

We also learn from Lawrence Martin's new book: Harperland, that he was prepared to even go the Queen to plead his case. He was that desperate.

As the crisis roiled, John Baird, then as now Stephen Harper’s go-to guy, revealed plans revolutionary enough to rock Canada’s foundations. Defending Parliament’s suspension, Baird said, “I think what we want to do is basically take a time out and go over the heads of the members of Parliament, go over the heads, frankly, of the Governor General, go right to the Canadian people.”

Parsed to its essence, a ruling party then accusing “Liberals, socialists and separatists” of overthrowing the government was contemplating what sounds dangerously close to a coup. If Jean refused to find in the Prime Minister’s favour, Conservatives were prepared to ride roughshod over Parliament’s will and the Governor General’s decision. (1)

That's what I find frightening. Would he have resorted to military rule if the Queen, as she would most certainly have done, refused to step in? He turned Toronto into a militarized zone during the G-20. This man is clearly capable of anything.

In November of 2008, the opposition had outsmarted him, and were able to use legal means to do so. And backed into a corner, frothing at the mouth and eyes flashing red, he did the only thing left . He lied. And he lied big. And every lie necessitated another lie, until it completely overwhelmed him, and us.

By Tuesday, 2 December, the government was indicating that prorogation would be the route it would follow. The exchange that day between Harper and Dion in Parliament's Question Period was explosive, with the prime minister focusing on the inclusion of the sovereigntist Bloc in the coalition pact and at one point accusing Dion of removing the Canadian flags from the room before signing the accord with Layton and Duceppe. Thus, to a political and constitutional uproar, the prime minister now added a third element: national unity. (News organizations took several photographs that clearly showed there were two Canadian flags, as well as the flags from all the provinces, directly behind the leaders as they read their statements — along with a third, separate Canadian flag behind the table where they signed.) (2)

And even when Gilles Duceppe produced both the letter that Harper had given him in 2004, that clearly showed he intended to make Duceppe a full partner in the Coalition, and another from 2000, when Stockwell Day presented the Bloc leader with the same proposal, the Harper team denied it. Cries of "Separatists" and "Socialists" drowned out intelligent debate.

It's important to review what took place now because as Travers points out:

First Conservatives denied considering an appeal to the Queen if Jean had refused to padlock Parliament two years ago. Then, barely pausing to regain their hyperbole, Harperites inflated the specter of a coalition seizing control after the coming election. The denials are credible; the fear-mongering irresponsible.

After his first success with suspending democracy, Stephen Harper has made it his modus operandi, with another self-serving prorogation and the refusal to respect the supremacy of Parliament in dealing with the Afghan detainee issue.

And regardless of how you feel about the dynamics of the coalition, remember there would not have been pork barrelling, photo-ops, enormous amounts of cash given to exclusive religious schools, 50 million dollars going to signs or almost 100 million to self serving ads. There was no need.

The drama would have closed opening night, saving us all two years of bad acting.

Previous: A Deceptive Democracy: Coalitions and a Knowledge Deficit

Sources:

1. New GG must teach Harper how Canada works, By James Travers, Toronto Star, October 2, 2010

2. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, By Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9, Pg. 13-14

A Deceptive Democracy: Coalitions and a Knowledge Deficit

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

Reading the comments sections a the end of online articles, there are many loyal Harper supporters who are suggesting that all that their hero has to do is scare people with the notion of a coalition government, and he will get his long sought after majority.

It's sad really, given that the 2008 coalition in itself was not frightening, so much as confusing, as squeals of "high treason" and "coup" hit a population with a knowledge deficit of Parliamentary procedure, right between the eyes.

And yet coalition building, as Lawrence LeDuc reminds us, "lies at the very heart of democratic politics." (1) In fact Stephen Harper and his former aide, Tom Flanagan, were well aware of this.

In 1997, Harper and his confidant Tom Flanagan, writing in their Next City magazine, suggested that coalition-building was the only practical way for the right to seize national power. They said an alliance with the Bloc Québécois "would not be out of place. The Bloc are nationalist for much the same reason Albertans are populists – they care about their local identity ... and they see the federal government as a threat to their way of life." (2)

"An alliance with the Bloc Québécois would not be out of place." So why was an NDP/Liberal coalition with the support of the Bloc on confidence motions only, "undemocratic"?

It's important to revisit this now because the Harper government, as unbelievable as it sounds, is once again raising the issue, in an attempt to paint themselves as perpetual victims. Nonsense.

Stephen Harper created the crisis that initiated the coalition, and many Canadians liked the idea. Graham White called it "The possibility of real Parliamentary change without abandoning the principles of responsible government that have long served Canada well." (1)

Michaëlle Jean has only recently come forward with the reasons for her decision to grant Stephen Harper his prorogation. Under the circumstances she probably made the only decision she could at the time. But she brings up an important point:

Jean said she saw a positive result from that December 2008 episode: the whole prorogation crisis prompted a national discussion and, as a result, led Canadians to learn more about their democracy. (3)

It did get Canadians talking and learning. And we are now, hopefully, a bit more aware of just how democratic a coalition would have been.



We've also been able to inform Canadians that Stephen Harper himself attempted a similar coalition in 2004 and Stockwell Day in 2000.

Of course Ms Jean doesn't explain why she granted his second prorogation, that was the most egregious attack on our democracy in modern history. And to think that it was done with just a phone call.

Sources:

1. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, By Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9

2. One Canada or 10 Canadas? Harper's goal to create autonomous regions out of the provinces is a step back to colonial times, By Sinclair Stevens, Toronto Star, April 25, 2008

3. Gov. Gen. Jean explains 2008 prorogation: Jean breaks her silence on decision to grant Harper's prorogation request, Canadian Press, September 29, 2010