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

When Stephen Harper "United the Right", He Solidified the Centre. Just Not For Himself.

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

How Stephen Harper became a "Tory" is the stuff of legend. Or more accurately, the stuff of fairy tales. He did have a brief stint with the PCs in the early 80's, but left the Party because they weren't right-wing enough.

The fact is, that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was not really right-wing at all, at least not in heart and soul. They were just right of centre. And they were 100% Canadian. And in many ways, historically, they were not unlike the Liberal Party in terms of policy.*

That doesn't mean that there weren't fierce rivalries. They were like two football teams (I don't want to use hockey because Harper has done that to death) who battle each other for the prize, but at the end of the day, both teams are in the same league, and committed to the game.

And while they both went after the same prize, the team that won it, honoured it. Showed it off and protected it for the next winner, whether it be themselves or their opponents.

They didn't win it, then smash it, to make sure that no one else could have it. That's how I see the Reformers, whether calling themselves Social Credit, Reform, Alliance or Conservative. They are the party that wants to smash the trophy and terminate the league.

Uniting the Right Was Not About Vote-Splitting

The common belief was that the PCs and Reform-Alliance joined forces to avoid splitting the vote. Sounds good but completely false. That's the way it was sold when David Frum arranged a meeting between Jean Charest then head of the PCs, and Preston Manning, then head of Reform.

In terms of bridging the differences between the parties of Preston Manning and Jean Charest, the conference made little headway ... the chasm in terms of the egos and pride of the leaders; the different attitudes that the parties have towards populist initiatives; Reform's origins in western alienation, Social Credit, and religious fundamentalism; and the fact that Reform emerged in part as an angry protest against the policies of a Progressive Conservative government made a rapprochement unlikely. (1)

A later report by Laurence Putnam confirmed the divide.

The first misconception about the Reform movement is that it is a conservative party. The Reform party has all the characteristics of a Western populist party and very few marks of a conservative party. (2)

And as to the myth of avoiding vote-splitting. In the West, many of those who voted PC did not go to Reform. Most of Reform's gain was at the expense of the NDP, another party that started out as a Western protest movement. But many also went to the Liberals.

Since the 2000 election, unity activists in both the PC and Canadian Alliance parties have preached that the PC party lost a major part of its family when the Reform Party rose to prominence, however, this is not exactly true. The PC Party did not experience a mutiny, but rather with the decline of the PC Party in Western Canada, an opportunity was extended for a new crew, the Reform movement, to come to power. In fact, many members of the Reform Party elected in 1993 had never been Conservatives at all. Preston Manning had been a member of the federal Social Credit Party prior to incepting the Reform Party. MPs Diane blonczy, Deborah Grey and Val Meredith were never members of the PC Party ... As these members were not Tories throughout the 1980's and early 1990's when the Tories were at their most successful peak since Sir John A. Macdonald ... (2)

Promoters of unity between the PC and Canadian Alliance parties had argued that if there were either only a PC or CA candidate in your average Ontario riding, they would have beat the Liberals in 2000. But what about Etobicoke North? In 2000, no PC candidate ran in Etobicoke North, but a Canadian Alliance candidate did, and yet they gained only 3.9%, and the majority of the PC votes migrated to the Liberal candidate. This despite the fact that provincially, the identical riding was held by PC M.P.P. John Hastings.

This riding is one example that proves 1+1 doesn't necessarily equal 2 when it comes to defeating a Liberal incumbent in Ontario ridings. Another interesting Ontario result was found in the riding of Markham, where Jim Jones was elected as a Progressive Conservative in 1997. Mr. Jones crossed to the Alliance in the summer of 2000, but lost re-election just months later. Why was Mr. Jones electable to the people of Markham, Ontario, as a Tory, but unelectable as a Canadian Alliance M.P.? (2)

It's because the majority of the Canadian electorate are moderates. The same people who voted for Brian Mulroney later voted for Jean Chretien, illustrating that votes between the Liberals and the PC Party were always liquid, while votes cast for ideologically-driven parties, like Reform/Alliance and NDP**, came from a "base".

The Reform movement only became palpable to Canadians when they shed their wolf's clothing and started calling themselves "Conservative", or worse yet "Tories", cashing in on a century and a half tradition. And for awhile, they were able to fool some of the people some of the time. But unfortunately for them, as their policies became increasingly un-Canadian, their level of support has drifted back to their "base".

They have no hope of drawing votes from the NDP, except perhaps in the West, but they are also losing the votes of moderates ... aka: ordinary Canadians.

So now they have a problem. Instead of eliminating what they thought was their own competition, they have eliminated all competition for the centre, and all of the "liquid" votes are now flowing away from them.

They are a right-wing fringe party. Nothing more. They came, they saw, they scared the hell out of us, and now they must leave.

This brings us to Michael Ignatieff. I see him as the perfect leader to unite the centre. And if I wasn't convinced before, a column by the widow of the late PC president Dalton Camp, has me sold. Ignatieff is not "a bleeding heart Liberal" but will lead a party that will be fiscally responsible but socially aware.

His family has a long history in this country, and come from all political stripes. His G-Grandfather, George Munro Grant helped Sir John A. and Confederation, and later promoted his railway. His uncle George Parkin Grant was also a Conservative, and author of the popular Lament for a Nation, as reaction to the defeat of John Diefenbaker. His fear was that we would become too Americanized and too beholden to corporations, and while this book was reactionary, he would later suggest that he felt that Pierre Trudeau was on the right track. (3)

Michael's father George Ignatieff was a foreign secretary under Diefenbaker, Diplomat under Pearson, and even served as acting president of the United Nations General Assembly***. He was also a peace activist, who fought hard against nuclear weapons, earning him a reputation as a "Peacemonger." (4)

Another uncle was Vincent Massey.

And though Michael Ignatieff's political views are his own, they have been nurtured in the true Canadian tradition.

So while Johannes Wheeldon may ask "Can Iggy Find His Centre?" He didn't have to. He was already there. And as Wendy Camp says: "He has come home to us." And whispering in his ear, will be family voices from the past, making sure that he doesn't screw up what they helped to build.

Footnotes:

*Stephen Harper referred to the PCs or "Red Tories" as "Pink Liberals".

**The NDP has since become more moderate and appealing, though some of their early followers feel that they had to sell out to do so. I like them and remember the greats like Tommy Douglas and Ed Broadbent, and the leader Jack Layton used to be.

***Stephen Harper and the Reformers never trusted the United Nations.

Sources:

1. The Winds of Right-wing Change in Canadian Journalism, By David Taras (University of Calgary), Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 21, No 4, 1996

2. An Analysis On The Differences Between the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada & The Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance, by Laurence Putnam As prepared for the Fraser Institute, December 2002

3. Lament For a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, By George P. Grant, McClelland & Stewart, 1970 edition with new introduction by author.

4. The Making of a Peacemonger: The Memoirs of George Ignatieff, By Sonja Sinclair, University of Toronto Press, ISBN: 0-8020-2556-0

The Reform Movement Was Populism, Not Conservatism

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

"The first misconception about the Reform movement is that it is a conservative party. The Reform party has all the characteristics of a Western populist party and very few marks of a conservative party." - Laurence Putnam 2002

I wrote yesterday about a 2002 article published for the Fraser Institute, that laid out the reasons why the so-called "unite the right" movement was misleading. Written by Laurence Putnam, it was entitled: An Analysis On The Differences Between the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada & The Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance.

But despite the fact that the Reformers have always sold this to the Canadian public as a union of two right-wing parties, to avoid vote-splitting; it was no such thing. It was a new, corporate friendly, hard right populist fringe party, with money to burn; taking over a centrist party with a century and a half tradition.

And it was done with the sole intent of pushing an extreme right agenda, dressed up in comfortable familiarity. Think of it as the Big Bad Wolf pretending to be granny to lure in Little Red Riding Hood.

"My what a large number of lobbyists you have Stevie" ... "The better to hear you with"

"My what a large number of photo-ops you have Stevie" ... "The better for you to see me with.

"My what a lying two-faced person you are Stevie" ... "The better to fool you with"

Decades of Trying to Take Over the PCs

In the late 1960s, several wealthy businessmen approached Ernest Manning with the idea of creating a right-wing, free market party, but Manning suggested that instead of trying to launch something new, they would be better off trying to work through the current Conservative party. He and his son Preston wrote Political Realignment, which described two political rivals. One left, one right, with clear ideological differences. (1)

The Mannings attended the PC national convention in 1967, with the intent of selling their ideas, but they had overestimated their importance, and the party wanted nothing to do with them. Ernest then had his most popular party member, Robert Thompson, run on a PC ticket, to work on the inside to move the party right.

Thompson won the seat but had little luck doing anything more than that. So they put the idea on hold, waiting for the next wave.

When the resulting Reform Party had their first electoral success in 1993, it has always been thought that they did it at the expense of the PC Party, when Brian Mulroney's coalition self-destructed. But in his paper, Putnam largely refutes these claims. In fact, in the West, it was often at the expense of the NDP.

Citing BC as an example: in 1988, the NDP won 19 seats, but in 1993, only 2. The PCs went from 12 to 0, while the Liberals from 1 to 6.

Prime Minister Kim Campbell's loss of Vancouver Centre, a traditional Tory seat (H.H. Stevens, Doug Jung, Pat Carney, Kim Campbell) to Liberal challenger Hedy Fry. The Liberal gains in the West during the 1993 election came chiefly at the expense of the PC Party, whereas most Reform party gains came chiefly at the expense of the NDP, as was witnessed in Lorne Nystrom's shocking loss in the Saskatchewan riding of Yorkton-Melville to Reform challenger Garry Breitkreuz .... British Columbians who supported the NDP in the 1980's and supported the Reform Party through the 1990's did not expediently shift their political views from the left to the right, but rather they were voting for the populist, anti-establishment party that best represented their views at the time.

In other words they did not go conservative, never believing that Reform was a conservative party.

Since the 2000 election, unity activists in both the PC and Canadian Alliance parties have preached that the PC party lost a major part of its family when the Reform Party rose to prominence, however, this is not exactly true. The PC Party did not experience a mutiny, but rather with the decline of the PC Party in Western Canada, an opportunity was extended for a new crew, the Reform movement, to come to power.

In fact, many members of the Reform Party elected in 1993 had never been Conservatives at all. Preston Manning had been a member of the federal Social Credit Party prior to incepting the Reform Party. MPs Diane Ablonczy, Deborah Grey and Val Meredith were never members of the PC Party. North Vancouver Reform MP Ted White came to the Reform Party after having left the Western Canada Concept* party, an unsuccessful Western separatist fringe party.

Western voters were looking for something entirely different. They always distrusted the East, so the Reform Party was seen as a vehicle for them and them alone. The PCs, Liberals and NDP, all represented Ottawa now, and the Reform battle cry hit home: "So you don't trust politicians, neither do we."

And former conservative voters did not go to Reform believing them to be another conservative party. They never would have voted for them if they thought that. They saw Reform as something completely new, but if it was with any feelings of tradition, they were with the Social Credit Party.



Footnotes:

*Stockwell Day's father was also a member of this party.

Sources:

1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 28-29

Fraser Institute Paper Reveals That Stephen Harper is Not a Conservative

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

Throughout history there are a great many myths, and of course those myths then become facts and those facts become history. But for our time, one of the biggest myths is the labelling of Stephen Harper as a Tory, and his party as conservatives.

Anyone who has ever voted Progressive Conservative in the past, must know in their gut that this party is absolutely nothing like the Progressive Conservative Party that we are familiar with.

Can you imagine the wonderful Dalton Camp, former conservative strategist, ever working with someone like Stephen Harper? When he first learned that there was a movement to unite the Alliance Party (formerly Reform Party) with his conservatives, he was adamantly opposed, suggesting that the two parties had no common ground and that then leader of the Alliance Party, Stockwell Day, was "viewed by most Tories as embedded in the lunatic fringe." (1)

Lawrence Martin recently asked: Is there an old-style Tory in the House?

Is there a moderate Tory left in this land? There are many, of course. It’s just that they have no voice. They might as well be in cement shoes at the bottom of Lake Nipigon. This year, in particular, it has become evident just how much the old Tories of Robert Stanfield and Dalton Camp and Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark have been vanquished.

During their first years of governance, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives paid heed to the views of that progressive breed. But the party’s hard right now appears, with a few policy exceptions, to have assumed control of the agenda. And that agenda is about keeping out boat people, letting in Fox News, building new jails, reviewing affirmative action, killing the gun registry, playing down climate change, revamping the census and giving more voice to social conservatives.

However, I came across a decade old article published for the Fraser Institute, that lays it all out succinctly. Written by Laurence Putnam, it was entitled: An Analysis On The Differences Between the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada & The Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance.

I was a bit confused at first, because the Fraser Institute, with people like Jason Kenney, David Frum and Ezra Levant, worked very hard to unite these parties, and yet clearly this report detailed why such a union was wrong.

This analysis has been prepared in answer to pleas from various political personalities in Canada to unite the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance. It is the goal of this paper to illustrate, with evidence of past elections, voter migration patterns, an examination of each party's culture and historical evidence to prove that any such unity between these two parties would alienate the moderate support base the Progressive Conservative Party enjoys and which must be captured to form a government.

It is the intention of this paper to successfully show how the Reform Party rose to prominence ... and how the Conservatives can work to ensure that movements such as the Canadian Alliance are not allowed to grow in the future.

What Putnam showed was that this would not be about "uniting the right", because the PC Party was not a right-wing party. I had mentioned this before, that in most ways there was little difference between the Liberals and PCs on policy, so elections were always about platform and personality. But the divide between the Reform/Alliance and the PC was a veritable chasm.

And they knew that.

So why did they do it, and why was it so successful?

I remember years ago reading an article in a May, 1939 issue of Liberty Magazine: Why Germany Will Not Go to War. In it the columnist laid out all the reasons why Adolf Hitler would not declare war in Europe. And what I found interesting was that everything predicted came true, and they lost as a result. And that's becasue what wasn't factored into the prediction was profiteering.

A lot of people stood to become very rich off that war, and they in fact did, including many American corporations. (George Bush's grandfather made his fortune financing the Nazis)

And this union of the right, as erroneously as it was labelled, was poised to make a lot of wealthy people wealthier. That's what neoconservatism is all about. And it's why they plucked Stephen Harper from the National Citizens Coalition, a group financed and run by multi-national corporations.

Stephen Harper himself has said that he got back into politics because he felt that the NCC no longer had any allies in government, with Brian Mulroney gone. And the NCC held his job open for four years, before naming another president. He was now working for them on the inside.

I'm going to break down Putnam's paper into several posts, because there are many startling revelations. I then intend to edit it down for a chapter in my E-Book, but for now the important thing is that Stephen Harper and his people deliberately perpetrated a fraud on the Canadian people, when they engineered a hostile takeover of the PC Party.

It puts so many past quotes and stories into perspective.

What was revealed to the Fraser Institute was that there were no grounds for a union. So instead they changed their strategy. And for that they went to Tom Flanagan, the Calgary School and founding member of both the Reform Party and Civitas Society, Ted Byfield.

Ted Byfield, the unabashed voice of the West since the Calgary School’s professors were pups, sees it another way – in terms Leo Strauss might have approved. “All these positions which Harper cherishes are there because of a group of people in Calgary – Flanagan most prominent among them,” Byfield says. “I don’t think he knows how to compromise. It’s not in his genes. The issue now is: how do we fool the world into thinking we’re moving to the left when we’re not?” (2)

I guess "you can fool some of the people some of the time", but who are they really fooling now? Harper's base has been reduced to those who know and relish the fact that he is not a Tory.

Sources:

1. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 381

2. The Man Behind Stephen Harper, by Marci McDonald, From the October 2004 issue of The Walrus

Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper Debate Over Who is the Most Homophobic

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

I think some of the best moments in politics over the past decade are the leadership races of the Reform, Alliance and now Conservative party.

The Reformers will complain about how the opposition paints them as racist, homophobic or religious fanatics, but frankly what they do to each other, defies anything the opposition could come up with.

The 2000 leadership campaign for the new Alliance Party became a holy war.

In early May, the Campaign Life Coalition's Website described a Tom Long win as a "disaster," identifying two prominent members of his inner circle as "self-proclaimed homosexuals. Long condemned the Coalition's comments, as did the other candidates ... Then, on 3 June, Families for Day similarly attacked Long's organization for employing homosexuals. Stung by the viciousness of Day's social conservative supporters, Long gave his support to Manning.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, a game of hard ball politics was going on. Days before the final vote, MPs Deborah Grey and Eric Lowther accused Day's team of using threats and intimidation to win the nomination. They pointed particularly to a letter written by Dr. Ted Morton, a Day supporter and political scientist at the University of Calgary, sent to Lowther. In the letter, Morton urged Lowther not to criticize Day or to let himself be "used by Preston and his advisers as a tool for their surrogate negative attacks on Stock" as it would not be in his [Lowther's] interests: It's no secret that there are more than a few ex-Tories/now Alliance who want to take a run at you for the Calgary Centre nomination. If Stock wins—which he will—he (and Jason [Kenney]) will be in a position to protect you against a nomination challenge. Alliance MPs Diane Ablonczy, Peter Goldrick, Bob Mills , and others similarly suggested members of the Day camp had threatened them. MP Deborah Grey said she was "heartsick." (1)

And they were already exploiting religion for political gain:

All of the candidates in the race professed strong Christian beliefs, while both Manning and Day are devout evangelicals. There is no reason on the surface, therefore, to expect that evangelical or fundamentalist Christians should have supported Day any more vigorously than they did Manning. But Day cultivated this community's support more aggressively than Manning .... Within the religious community, Families for Day was no doubt his strongest supporter. Created by Ron Beyer (head of the Calgary-based Canadian Family Action Coalition) and Garry Rohr .. Families for Day organized an E-mail campaign to sign up new members. Beyer claimed the organization signed up at least 6,000 new party members who voted for Day on the first ballot—approximately the margin of Day's lead over Manning, if correct. (2)

This prompted Manning's team to refer to Stockwell Day's team as a "cult", comparing Day to Jim Jones.

So when a new leadership race took place in 2002, after Day's caucus mutinied, Canadians who follow politics braced themselves for another holy showdown. And this one got even uglier. As journalist Kevin Michael Grace set the stage:

One thing is for certain. This is going to be a dirty campaign--perhaps even nastier than in 2000, when the Tom Long campaign was accused of being a homosexual coven and Mr. Day was compared to mass murderer Jim Jones. And despite Mr. Harper's promise to avoid personal attacks--a promise made also by Mr. Day--it was his campaign that drew first blood. (3)

The "first blood" was a dismissal of Day's announcement that he would be running again, having learned a lesson. Harper's campaign spokesperson, John Collison called his launch a "non-event," and said that he had "pretty much worn out his media welcome" and "Stock Day...is not the deepest policy thinker."

He apparently had underestimated his opponent and the fact that he had a past that could be used against him. Collison was a former radio shock jock, who had been fired from his job at a Winnipeg radio station for his relentless attacks on two gay politicians. He referred to it as a freedom of speech issue, and indeed the CRTC had repeatedly warned him (4) about his anti-gay rhetoric. But I think it was more of libelous situation, and one of his victims did sue and was awarded a cash settlement.

So far as shock jocks go, the fact that they call themselves "shock jocks", means that we can expect the outrageous, so I don't think they should really be censored. Personal attacks are something else.

However, Day used this opportunity to paint Stephen Harper as homophobic.

At this point, the Collison affair becomes murky and somewhat bizarre .... a profile of Mr. Collison by Peter O'Neil appeared in the Vancouver Sun ... "Ex-shock jock an aide to Alliance leadership hopeful: former radio host was fired after being accused of abusive treatment toward gays." ... Although Stockwell Day spokesman Eric Duhaime denies it explicitly (as does Mr. O'Neil), it is widely supposed that a Day supporter fed the Collison material to the Sun. It is also widely believed that Day supporters forced Mr. Harper to accept Mr. Collison's resignation after they indicated that unless he did, Mr. Day would not guarantee to support Mr. Harper if the latter won the leadership contest. It is further widely believed that Day supporters boasted that they had exposed Mr. Harper for harbouring a homophobe." (3)

This prompted Harper supporter, Lorne Gunter to remind us that it was Day supporters that had outed Tom Long staffers as homosexual. Also that "Some of the leaders of those pro-family groups are now working for the Day campaign, and one of Day's senior strategists is a gay libertarian from Quebec, yet there is not a peep from these former family lobbyists."

"A gay libertarian from Quebec"? Say it ain't so.

I think when a leadership race comes down to which candidate is the most homophobic, your party has a problem. Both men would prove time and again that it was a race to the bottom.

Not long after winning the leadership, Harper attacked MP Svend Robinson, an openly gay man, with the comment: “I am sure the picture of the honourable member of the NDP is posted in much more wonderful places than just police stations.”(Hansard No. 013, October 23, 2002)

When Day was leader of the Opposition he refused to send condolences to the Palestinian people on the death of President Yassir Arafat because party insider and former George Bush speechwriter, David Frum, claimed that Arafat had died of AIDS.

In a November 16 email to his Conservative colleagues Mr. Day stated: "Some of you have asked why I have not released a statement of condolence or sympathy. As you know, there are two sides to the Arafat story. You pick...." He then included in the email an article by David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush, indulging in unfounded speculation about the cause of Arafat’s death. Frum suggested that Arafat’s symptoms “sounded AIDS-like.” (5)

I think for Stephen Harper's new Fox News North, they should reenact some of these past leadership campaigns. They might actually get people to watch the show, if they can bill it as a sitcom.

Sources:

1. Requiem for a Lightweight: Stockwell Day and Image Politics, By Trevor Harrison, Black Rose Books, 2002, ISBN: 1-55164-206-9, Pg. 63

2. Harrison, 2002, Pg. 52-53

3. Strange Alliances, By Kevin Michael Grace, Report Newsmagazine, February 04, 2002

4. In Canada, Free Speech Has Its Restrictions: Government Limits Discourse That Some May Find Offensive, By Steven Pearlstein, Washington Post Foreign Service, December 12, 1999

5. The Man Who Walks with Dinosaurs: The return of Stockwell Day, who now implies that people with AIDS deserve no sympathy, By Murray Dobbin, The Tyee, December 1, 2004

The Creation of Stephen Harper's Sandbox

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

The creation of the Alliance party was the result of efforts by three neoconservative parties: The federal Reform Party, Ralph Klein's Alberta and Mike Harris' Ontario. The creation of the Conservative Party of Canada, came about through a hostile takeover of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

And though there were many warnings about the outcome of a neoconservative takeover, we didn't listen.

The wonderful Dalton Camp, a longtime conservative insider, opposed the notion completely. When he first learned of the attempt to unite the right he was livid, claiming that the conservatism of Stockwell Day "is viewed by most Tories as embedded in the lunatic fringe." (1)

But I think Frances Russel of the Winnipeg Free Press said it best. She felt that this was not going to be a "big tent" party as many were suggesting, but rather a sandbox.

One week into the launch of the latest "great right hope" and the portents are perilous for those who seek a "big tent" party capable of unseating the governing Liberals. So far, the proponents of a united right are making it clear they aren't interested in giving a real option to Canadians. They are only interested in fashioning their own little sandbox where they can play their own narrow ideological games.

Mr. Manning was positively giddy in his article in yesterday's Free Press. He thinks he's finally realized the dream he and his father put into book form back in 1967, the dream to create a party of ideologically pure social and economic conservatism to confront "the collectivist welfare state" that disregards "individual liberties and
responsibilities" and is an affront to "personal salvation."

Moderates within the Progressive Conservative Party must act quickly to ameliorate the harsh, hard-right image of the new party before it solidifies in the public's mind. The Harrises, the Mannings, the Longs -- and the Stephen Harpers -- are not living in political reality. (2)

And she was right, because the only way that Harper has been able to sell neoconservatism to Canada has been to operate in the shadows. Or as his former right-hand man Tom Flanagan once suggested, "fooling Canadians into thinking you're moving to the left when you're not". (3)

Senator Lowell Murray wrote a piece for the Globe and Mail urging Peter MacKay to reconsider.

Stephen Harper called last week for an "electoral coalition" between the Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance parties. If our party's leader, Peter MacKay, goes down this road -- and he seems tempted to explore it -- he will waste precious time and political capital. And he will find it's a dead end.

... The fact is that the two parties are fundamentally different. That they are incompatible would soon become clear to Tory candidates trying to defend Alliance policies, and vice versa, in the unstable electoral cohabitation proposed by Mr. Harper and others. Reform conservatism, which is what the Alliance practises, relies on people's fear of moral and economic decline combined with nostalgia for a Canada that no longer exists. It spoils all the good arguments for the market economy by making a religion of it, pretending there are market criteria and market solutions to all our social and political problems. (4)

And even Norman Spector called it the 'Kiss of Death':

Stephen Harper wants to make "common cause" with newly elected Tory leader Peter MacKay in order to throw the Liberal rascals out of office. The Alliance leader says voters expect the two parties to present a single slate of candidates in the next election.

That's eyewash: Most Canadians -- including out here in British Columbia, where the Alliance traditionally elects the plurality of its MPs -- expect Paul Martin to be their next prime minister. They'd be appalled if Tory/Alliance backroom boys and girls came together to carve up the country for political gain. In truth, the proposal is largely tactical, a cleverly designed kiss of death for the Tories. (5)

What we now have is a sandbox, where Stephen Harper and his schoolyard bullies play their ideological little games, and for anyone who disapproves, they can expect to have sand thrown in their face or get a wedgie from hell.

It took Marci McDonald's book, the Armageddon factor (6), for us to realize what has happened to our country. The American Religious Right has accomplished in four years, what it took them thirty years to do their own country. But they couldn't have done it without willing accomplices, a sleeping electorate and the complete lack of an independent media.

And I don't mean that they have turned us into a 'Christian' nation, though a theocracy is definitely on the horizon.

We've been neo-conned, and I suspect we're about to find out just how painful that really is, as we are now on the verge of losing everything that once identified our country. And unless we can convince the parties on the left to unite for the common good, there may be no turning back.

"When I get through with Canada, you won't recognize it". Stephen Harper

That may be the only time he's ever told the truth, because I barely recognize it now.

Sources:

1. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 381

2. Watch for a purge of Red Tories, by Frances Russell, Winnipeg Free Press, 24 October, 2003

3. The Man Behind Stephen Harper, The new Conservative Party has tasted success and wants majority rule, By Marci McDonald, Walrus Magazine, October 2004

4. Don't do it, Peter: There is no good reason for Tories to climb into bed with the Alliance
by Senator Lowell Murray, Globe and Mail, June 23, 2003

5. An Alliance kiss of death: The Tories should call Stephen Harper's bluff by proposing a common platform for the next election, by Norman Spector, Globe and Mail, June 25, 2003

6. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, By: Marci McDonald, Random House Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-307-35646-8 3

Craig Chandler and the Roots of Change

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

Craig Chandler, a long time Reform-Alliance-Conservative supporter and organizer, used his Progressive Group for Independent Business (PGIB), to help the unite the right, with the motto "Unite the Right to Unite the Country."

PGIB has contributed to the success of Mike Harris, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper, to name a few. Chandler would hold three 'Roots of Change' conferences, that greatly impacted the outcome of the subsequent merger, fashioned in part on David Frum's Winds of Change.

Tom Walkom in the Toronto Star, wrote of Chandler's initiatives:

When influential conservatives held a conference to unite the right two years ago, Craig Chandler couldn’t even wangle an invitation. “I called to get in but (organizer and journalist) David Frum wouldn’t let me,” the 27-year-old former Reform party candidate recalled this week. “He said they were full. It was a kind of cliquey, elitist sort of thing.”So Chandler got his own back. Yesterday, he kicked off his own two-day, unite-the-right conference in Toronto. And David Frum wasn’t there. Instead, Chandler’s Roots of Change conference is attracting the kinds of blood-and-guts rightists who sparked the Reform party, but who – as Reform attempts to become more respectable – find themselves relegated to the sidelines. (1)

If they were indeed from the fringe, it's interesting to note that their speakers included not only Stockwell Day, but Link Byfield, Mark Montini from the Leadership Institute, Steve Jalsevic from the anti-abortion Campaign Life Coalition* and Michael Coren who now has his own television talk show on Christian TV.

But Craig Chandler contributed something far more important to the cause. He paved the way for a hostile take over of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and they didn't see it coming.

The 2Cards Campaign:

Craig Chandler, founder of the Progressive Group for Independent Business thought that perhaps the best way to bring the Progressive Conservative party on board, was from the inside. So he joined the party and then ran for it's leadership, drawing many of his followers into the PC fold. His bid failed, but at the 2002 PC Convention in Edmonton, Alberta, he manged to have Resolution 9, which sought to ban dual memberships, defeated. This paved the way for an aggressive campaign launched by the PGIB, called the 2Cards.

As you are well aware both the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and the Canadian Alliance are sending the Merger Package for full ratification. The Tories and the Canadian Alliance are sending the proposal to their memberships and each party is different and this the real issue. Our polling numbers from The Strategy Group Inc show that 80 - 83.5% of Canadian Alliance members would support any effort for a united conservative movement. Also, since the Canadian Alliance only requires a simple majority to accept the Merger Package our efforts will not be focused on persuading Canadian Alliance members.

However, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is where the battleground is. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada's Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote from participating members to ratify this Merger package and this is where the problem lies. ... How can we insure that the Tory membership will embrace the Merger Package?

Quite simply, by following the initial plan of the www.2cards.ca campaign and insure that those that have dual memberships such as the Jim Prentice supporters, many Scott Brison supporters, Peter McKay and Craig Chandler supporters become activated and campaign on the yes side of the merger package. (2)

Chandler encouraged all Alliance Party members to buy PC memberships, so that they would be able to, in effect, vote twice. Without this important initiative, the PCs would never have allowed the merger to take place.

Interestingly, one of the loudest opponents to the uniting of the right was Stephen Harper.

Before Craig Chandler sought the leadership of the Progressive ConservativeParty of Canada with PGIB support, even Stephen Harper was against uniting the two parties. Peter McKay was also very clear about his views on unity with the Canadian Alliance in a very negative way throughout the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada Leadership race ...

Harper had the audience on his side when he dismissed the idea of a merger with the Tories. "And ladies and gentlemen, that's not cooperation, that's surrender, and that's not taking us forward, that's backward. And that's not where we're going to go," said Harper.

But some feel that Harper isn't the right choice, because he's against a merger with the Progressive Conservative Party. Many of Day's old Alberta cabinet buddies aren't backing him but they're also leery of Harper. "I have the greatest respect for Harper," says Alberta's Infrastructure Minister Ty Lund. "I was disappointed, though, to hear that he wasn't interested in working with the PCs." (2)

Stephen Harper had always hated Red Tories and detested the notion of any reference to 'Progressive'. He once said that there would be a showdown between Reform and And the PCs and that Reform would not lose.

However, in exchange for Chandler's support, he took a different approach and when he won the leadership of the Alliance, the extreme right-wing Australian League of Rights was thrilled, since this was an important victory for the movement:

The most notable political developments of the past few weeks were the election of Stephen Harper as the new leader of the Alliance Party, succeeding Stockwell Day; and Mr. Harper's immediate meeting with PC leader Joe Clark, in which he challenged him to stop piddling around and wasting time, and join the Alliance in 'uniting the right,' or else get out of the way as the Alliance moves forward ... Mr. Harper, because of his early background with the Reform movement, his several years' experience in the House of Commons and as leader of the National Citizens' Coalition, should be well equipped for his new role. (4)

Unfortunately, Joe Clark was forced out and the Progressive Conservative party of Canada ceased to exist as of December 7, 2003. The anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbour, was a fitting date.

Canada no longer has a legitimate conservative party, though there are rumblings that former conservative supporters are thinking of reviving the old party. I hope so. We need a right of centre altrnative to a party so far to the right, they are pulling Canada off the map.

Next: The Creation of Stephen Harper's Sandbox

Footnotes:

* "The Campaign Life Coalition, an anti-abortion lobby group backing Mr [Stockwell]. Day, was also censured by party officials for sending out 130,000 letters asking its supporters to donate money so the organization could buy memberships in bulk to help the candidate. Organizers for Dr. Hill and Mr. [Stephen] Harper complained successfully that the actions by Campaign Life violated party rules prohibiting groups from buying memberships."(3)

Sources:

1. Chandler’s Roots of Change Conference attracts fringe elements: Unite-the-right’s downmarket element. Meeting attracts those relegated to sidelines, By Thomas Walkom, Toronto Star, March 21, 1998

2. THE BATTLE HAS BEEN WON BUT THE WAR HAS JUST BEGUN!, Buy your PC membership To INSURE a Merger vote Victory! NOVEMBER 30th DEADLINE, PGIB

3. Day slips into Bible college for Rally, By S. Alberts, National Post, February 13, 2002

4. Canada Calling, Harper Wins Alliance Leadership, Australian League of Rights Archives

David Frum and the Winds of Change

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

In May of 1996, one of Conrad Black's hand picked right-wing journalists, and close friend, David Frum*; held a Winds of Change conference in Calgary, with the purpose of getting together Jean Charest, then leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, and Preston Manning, then leader of Reform.

The goal, according to Frum, was to discuss the prospects for a merger between the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties. He believed that a vigorous airing of views behind closed doors, would help to develop a common agenda, and create the momentum that was needed to unite the right.

The conference turned out to be both more and less than expected. In terms of bridging the differences between the parties of Preston Manning and Jean Charest, the conference made little headway. The conference did endorse a move that had been underway for some time to field a single Reform-Progressive Conservative candidate in the federal riding of Brant. But the chasm in terms of the egos and pride of the leaders; the different attitudes that the parties have towards populist initiatives; Reform's origins in western alienation, Social Credit, and religious fundamentalism; and the fact that Reform emerged in part as an angry protest against the policies of a Progressive Conservative government made a rapprochement unlikely. The conference also revealed deep divisions between so-called fiscal conservatives who wanted a smaller role for the state and a climate that would foster business growth and social conservatives who wanted greater state involvement in legislating morality whether on abortion, criminal justice, or "family" values. (1)

Ernest Manning had attempted such a merger three decades before, but the neoconservative movement now had the media, controlled by Conrad Black; the Fraser Institute and the National Citizens Coalition.

The Winds of Change conference occurred at a time of both political crisis and rising influence for the right in Canada. On one hand, the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties continue to battle each other for supremacy on the right, splintering the vote. The conference did little if anything to alleviate the problem. On the other hand, the entire agenda of Canadian politics has been influenced by an intellectual climate that is shaped more and more by right-wing journalism. (1)

David Frum would go on to become a speech writer for George W. Bush and it was he who coined the phrase "axis of evil." He is still very heavily involved with Stephen Harper and the Reform-Alliance-Conservative movement, especially when it comes to foreign policy, promoting a nuclear attack on the Muslim world.

Next: Craig Chandler and the Roots of Change

Sources:

1. The Winds of Right-wing Change in Canadian Journalism, By David Taras (University of Calgary), Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 21, No 4, 1996

Peter Mackay and the Death of the Tory Party in Canada

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

"When good people in any country cease their vigilance and struggle, then evil men prevail." Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973)

In 2003 former Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament, Flora MacDonald, had been in Afghanistan, working with a group of war widows.

When she returned to Canada she was surprised to receive a call from a CBC reporter asking for her views on "the merger". Thinking she was inquiring about some amalgamation of business interests, she explained that since she had just returned to Ottawa, she wasn't up to date on the latest business ventures.

But imagine her shock to learn that the merger in question was that of her Progressive Conservatives with the ulta right-wing Alliance Party. After all, Peter MacKay had clearly indicated during his leadership campaign that this was not a process he would endorse.

MacKay was not my first choice at the June leadership convention - I supported Scott Brison on the first two ballots but after that I gave my vote to MacKay because I took him at his word. He said he would support the strongly endorsed decision of the party at its national convention in Edmonton in the summer of 2002 that there would be 301 Progressive Conservative candidates in the next federal election.

My reaction to the agreement in principle, signed secretly by MacKay and Stephen Harper in October, 2003, was first of all one of incredulity, then anger that the party decisions so strongly expressed in Edmonton and endorsed by MacKay during the leadership campaign could be so easily jettisoned. Further, the fact that he would willingly preside over the demolition of a historic 150-year-old institution that has done so much to build this country leaves me asking how he defines integrity and principle. (1)

How he defines integrity and principle?

The leadership convention that had taken place in May, saw David Orchard, a leadership candidate, throw his support to Peter MacKay with the promise that he would not unite the right. In fact, at the the convention, the members voted overwhelmingly, that no such merger should take place.

So a meeting was held with representatives of the Mackay and Orchard teams, resulting in a written contract, that read:

May 31, 2003 Agreement between Peter MacKay and David Orchard

1) No merger, joint candidates with Alliance. Maintain 301.

2) Review of FTA/NAFTA - blue ribbon commission with David Orchard with choice of chair with Peter MacKay's agreement. Rest of members to be jointly agreed upon.

3) Clean up of head office including change of national director in consultation timing within reasonable period in future, pre-election and some of DO's people working at head office.

4) Commitment to making environmental protection front and center including sustainable agriculture, forestry, reducing pollution through rail.

Signed by Peter MacKay and David Orchard (2)

It was a done deal, or so the party thought. What happened? How was Mackay able to renege on a written contract, to "willingly preside over the demolition of a historic 150-year-old institution that has done so much to build this country"?

Next: Ernest Manning and the National Citizens Coalition

Sources:

1. Flora MacDonald’s Comments, The Toronto Star, November 14, 2003

2. "Tory leadership deal, Peter MacKay won David Orchard's support at the Tory leadership convention based on a deal hastily scrawled on a piece of paper", Globe and Mail, June 5, 2003

The Health, Wealth and Stealth Continued: Roots of Change

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

Craig Chandler, a long time Reform-Alliance-Conservative supporter and organizer, used his Progressive Group for Independent Business (PGIB), to help the unite the right, with the motto "Unite the Right to Unite the Country."

His group has contributed to the success of Mike Harris, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper, to name a few. He's kind of an "energy bunny", who's often been controversial, and while I would never agree with his ideology, I kind of like him simply because he's honest. He may exaggerate his importance, but there's no denying his influence.

I also appreciate that on his Concerned Christian Coalition website, he clearly states that it is FOR profit. It's a business, not a non-profit organization. In this way he doesn't have to hide his political stripes, as so many of them do, though usually not well.

In David Lethbridge's 2001 article: Prescription for Fascism (1), where he writes about the "quackery" movement and ties many of the groups with the extreme-right, he lists among them Citizens' Voice for Health Rights . The head of CVHR is Debbie Anderson who was part of the National Executive, and BC chair of Chandler's PTIB. She was also involved with the "Roots of Change" Conferences. (I should mention though that Canadian Wholesale Direct, a relatively well respected health-food distributor, lists Anderson's CVHR first under its heading "Health Freedom" (1)).

Tom Walkom in the Toronto Star, wrote of Chandler's initiatives, reminding his readers that they were independent of the "Winds of Change", run by David Frum and Ezra Levant.

When influential conservatives held a conference to unite the right two years ago, Craig Chandler couldn’t even wangle an invitation. “I called to get in but (organizer and journalist) David Frum wouldn’t let me,” the 27-year-old former Reform party candidate recalled this week. “He said they were full. It was a kind of cliquey, elitist sort of thing.”

So Chandler got his own back. Yesterday, he kicked off his own two-day, unite-the-right conference in Toronto. And David Frum wasn’t there. Instead, Chandler’s Roots of Change conference is attracting the kinds of blood-and-guts rightists who sparked the Reform party, but who – as Reform attempts to become more respectable – find themselves relegated to the sidelines. (2)

They may have been sidelined but they continue to support and influence the party, with their various grassroots movements. Chandler recently had an audience with Stockwell Day, so they are obviously still on speaking terms. I'd be happy if someone from this government just answered my emails.

I should also point out that if they were in fact on the "sidelines", or part of the "fringe" their speakers included not only Stockwell Day, but Link Byfield, Mark Montini from the Leadership Institute, Steve Jalsevic from the anti-abortion Campaign Life Coalition* and Michael Coren of the Financial Post, to name a few.

Lethbridge, mentions not only Debbie Anderson speaking on behalf of Citizens' Voice for Health Rights, but several others including:

Mark Mix of the National Right to Work Committee: a union busting organization from Springfield, Virginia. You can listen to Mix's interview on Fox News here. A director of the NRWC is none other than Morton Blackwell, and need I remind you, that besides the Leadership Institute, that Preston Manning designed his own institute after, he is also one of the founders of the Council for National Policy, the vanguard of both the Religious Right and the Republican Party in the U.S.

I already mentioned Mark Montini from the Leadership Institute above. He is one of the most influential speakers and Republican pollsters in the U.S. I love his motto: "If Mark doesn’t light your fire, your wood is wet". (LMAO) I've visited his site and I guess my wood must be soaked.

He is a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage and was sued by a gay couple for stealing a picture of them and then using it in one of his campaigns.

Ron Leitch of the Preservation of English in Canada (APEC) - was a long time associate of Ron Gostick and an early Reform Party supporter.

Jocelyn Dumais of the Quebec-based ADAT - another union busting group.

Robert Metz of the Freedom Party of Ontario - Their platform is the usual laundry list of neocons everywhere: tax reductions, and opposition to welfare programs, the Human Rights Commission, affirmative action programs, multiculturalism and official bilingualism, yada, yada, yada.

John Thompson, executive director of the MacKenzie Institute, a right-wing think tank based in Ottawa, with a pro-war agenda (fear mongering) - The Western World's scarcely recognized war with the Islamic Jihad stumbles on; handicapped by the unwillingness of most Muslims to engage in the war (so far, anyway) and by our own common inability to correctly name or identify the enemy. As we get lost in the minutia of homegrown Jihadists, airport security and fighting in Afghanistan, we are losing sight of the forest on account of the trees. Maybe if they can't see the forest for the trees, their wood is just wet.

They don't all sound like "fringe" and in fact many are quite legitimate, showing that Chandler is better connected than his opponents suggest.

I'm going to continue with a few more "Health"/Right-wing connections, so stay tuned, because as Lethbridge concludes:

" Wherever we find tendencies to irrationalism and conspiracy-mongering, there we find fertile ground in which fascism can grow, or a movement which fascism can exploit. These tendencies are rife within the ever-expanding and overlapping alternative medicine, New Age, and tax refusal circles. While the class basis for these tendencies is essentially petit-bourgeois, it is by no means restricted to this class; certainly, sectors of the working class are being strongly influenced by these same forces. It would be foolish to dismiss fascism's entry into these areas which are often considered purely marginal or simply bizarre. On the contrary, much political and agitational work needs to be done on this front, as on so many others, where fascism has found a new foothold." (1)

Next: Religion vs Knowledge

Sources:

1. Prescription For Fascism: Alternative Medicine and Right-Wing Politics, By David Lethbridge, April 2001

2. Chandler’s Roots of Change Conference attracts fringe elements: Unite-the-right’s downmarket element. Meeting attracts those relegated to sidelines, By Thomas Walkom, Toronto Star, March 21, 1998