The Deficit Cure: Acupuncture or Shock Therapy?

When the neoconservative movement in Canada first appeared on the radar of many journalists, it was tied to the administrations of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Both of these leaders launched aggressive attacks on the welfare state, and left devastation in their paths.

Grant Devine in Saskatchewan, Ralph Klein in Alberta and Mike Harris in Ontario, all sought to experiment with the Thatcher/Reagan theories in their respective provinces.

On the federal scene, the Reform Party had their ideology in check, and were just waiting for their turn.

At the time, Thatcher and Reagan were not on tour, so Canada's neocons were taught strategy by New Zealand politician, Roger Douglas.

He held information seminars, speaking to the Harris caucus in Ontario, with Tony Clement, John Baird and Jim Flaherty in attendance; and Klein's in Alberta, indoctrinating Stockwell Day.

But the most important lecture, when it comes to the future of Canada, was presented to the Reform Party of Preston Manning and Stephen Harper, at their 1991 Assembly.

Douglas was introduced by Preston Manning, the only assembly speaker to be so honoured. And Manning told the delegates: There are three basic reasons why we have invited Sir Roger Douglas to be with us ... and three reasons why Reformers should pay close attention to what he has to say ... Sir Roger is an authority in fiscal reform and has advocated and promoted many of the fiscal reforms ... He is not only a reformer in word, he is a reformer in deed. Sir Roger deregulated the financial sector, phased down agricultural and other subsidies .. phased out import controls and drastically reduced tariffs levels. He instituted a 10% flat rate consumption tax (GST)*, with virtually no exemptions ... (1)

And Roger Douglas's most important message to his followers was "don't blink". Once you start cutting, keep going.

And if you developed a case of blepharospasm, uncontrollable eye blinking, a little acupuncture would fix you right up.

Because what Douglas failed to mention was how his policies affected New Zealand.

Dr. John Warnock, travelled to New Zealand to study the effects of what New Zealanders dubbed 'Rogernomics.' The figures tell a story of devastation - a word used by New Zealand's own agricultural minister to describe the state of agriculture in four years after the 'reforms': A 40 per cent drop in farm income; a 50 per cent drop in the value of farm land; a policy of paying 3,000 farmers incentives of $ 45,000 to leave and the suggestion that another 15,000 (out of 79,000) should follow them. Unemployment, which had been at 4 per cent before Douglas's reforms, jumped to over 12 per cent in just over a year and is still increasing.

"Douglas completely eliminated regional development grants and subsidies to rural services. Says Warnock, 'They had things like subsidized petroleum - regardless of where you were the price was the same - subsidized train service, bus service, airport service. They privatized all these things and the prices immediately skyrocketed.' A massive de-population of the countryside resulted, and approximately 40,000 New Zealanders per year have since left the country for Australia to find work ... (1)

He should have blinked.

Shock Therapy

While Roger Douglas may present us with a little trip down memory lane, Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty will probably forgo acupuncture for shock therapy.

This is the remedy prescribed by Milton Friedman, and articulated at places like the Fraser Institute. Friedman believed in taking advantage of disasters, like Katrina, but when none presented themselves, they could simply be created.

His most famous induced disaster, was the Chilean experiment.

In 1970, when a socialist, Salvador Allende, was elected president, many of Chile's elite, were not pleased.

Allende, a physician by training, understood the cost that malnutrition imposed upon the poor and set out to alleviate the grinding poverty in which so many Chileans were trapped. He ensured that every Chilean schoolchild had access to at least a half-liter of milk each day, and that their parents had access to jobs and the means to feed and educate their children. Median incomes began to rise dramatically in the first two years of Allende's term.

To pay for these social programs designed to create opportunities for the poor, rich Chileans who had lived all their lives off of rents, dividends and interest and who had never paid a dime in taxes, found themselves paying taxes for the first time and being forced to morally justify their lives of luxurious leisure at the expense of the poor. They didn't like it one bit. And they began to complain to their friends in Washington. (2)

Fortunately for them Washington was already aware of the situation, and with the help of several corporations, engineered a coup to oust Allende and place the murderous Augustus Pinochet in the presidential palace.

Friedman then took over, encouraging Pinochet to implement "shock therapy" on the people of Chile.

Friedman advised Pinochet to impose a rapid-fire transformation of the economy—tax cuts, free trade, privatized services, cuts to social spending and deregulation. Eventually, Chileans even saw their public schools replaced with voucher-funded private ones. It was the most extreme capitalist makeover ever attempted anywhere, and it became known as a "Chicago School" revolution, since so many of Pinochet's economists had studied under Friedman at the University of Chicago. Friedman predicted that the speed, suddenness and scope of the economic shifts would provoke psychological reactions in the public that "facilitate the adjustment." He coined a phrase for this painful tactic: economic "shock treatment." In the decades since, whenever governments have imposed sweeping free-market programs, the all-at-once shock treatment, or "shock therapy," has been the method of choice. (3)

And though Friedman and his Chicago School are still being hailed as heroes by Neoliberals/Neoconservative/Free Marketeers everywhere, his remaking of Chile was an absolute failure.

.. The country's period of steady growth that is held up as proof of its miraculous success, did not begin until the mid-eighties, a full decade after the Chicago Boys implemented shock therapy and well after Pinochet was forced to make a radical course correction.

That's because in 1982, despite its strict adherence to Chicago doctrine, Chile's economy crashed: its debt exploded, it faced hyperinflation once again and unemployment hit 30 percent—ten times higher than it was under Allende. The main cause was that the piranhas, the Enron-style financial houses that the Chicago Boys had freed from all regulation, had bought up the country's assets on borrowed money and run up an enormous debt of $14 billion.

The situation was so unstable that Pinochet was forced to do what Allende had done: he nationalized many of these companies. In the face of the debacle, almost all the Chicago Boys lost their influential government posts. (4)

So despite the fact that both of these experiments in economic reform were catastrophes, we know that it will not change Flaherty's or Harper's ideology.

Canadians will probably be subjected to a little "shock" in the upcoming budget, or if not then, in the not too distant future. The convoluted belief being that if we associate pain with social programs, we will not be too quick to want to reintroduce them (Friedman was a nut), especially if they convince us that they have been replaced with something better.

Poverty being good for the soul.

So slap on the electrodes boys. I'm ready.

Footnotes:

*The Reform Party was conflicted about the GST, with most wanting it scrapped if they came to power. Harper himself convinced them to keep the GST but eliminate any exemptions.

Sources:

1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 113-114

2. Free Market Fundamentalism: Friedman, Pinochet and the "Chilean Miracle", By Scott Bidstrup

3. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, By Naomi Klein, Vintage Canada, 2007, ISBN: 978-0-676-97801-8, Pg. 8

4. Klein, 2007, Pg. 123

We Are at War and We Must Mobilize Our Allies

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

Although many Canadians don't yet realize it, we are at war; a worldwide class war of capital versus everyone else, a war which the bubble of the Keynesian welfare state temporarily obscured. In this war, the Right has daunting weapons. Over the past 20 years, capital has forged a unified coalition of business, politics, and fundamentalist religion. It owns most of the national and local media ... And through speculative manipulations, they have the power to disrupt the entire Canadian economy. As a result, they wield enormous influence over all levels of government and public opinion. The Right speaks with almost one voice and its vision is insinuating itself into the popular consensus. (1)

We are indeed at war, but our enemy is not the police, who are only following orders. And our enemy is not the corporate media, who write what they are told to write. And our enemy is not even Stephen Harper, who in this phenomenon of image politics, is only the current face of a formidable movement. He has no more power than we do.

Our enemy is Neoconservatism.

And now that we've been able to define that, we need to mobilize our allies, if we have any hope at all of restoring our democracy: "Because the success of the Right comes through carefully managing public opinion, the starting point for defeating the Right is through creating a well-informed public." (1)

Breaking Down the Conservative Myth

In 2004 Philip Agre wrote a paper: What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:

Q: What is conservatism? A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism? A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world. (2)

What Agre is describing is not Conservatism but Neoconservatism, and therein lies the problem. The party now headed by Stephen Harper is not our historical Conservative "Tory" party, and we need to constantly remind Canadians of that. Neoconservatism is the antithesis of Conservatism and relates more to fascism than democracy.

But rather than force a demagogue on a democratic society, they wrap him up in a cloak of moderation and sell him as a man (or woman) of the people.

One time girlfriend of Leo Strauss (who is deemed to be the father of the neoconservative movement), Hannah Arendt, herself a respected political philosopher, once questioned whether Nazi Germany was in fact a full totalitarian dictatorship, since it depended so heavily on a "certain societal consensus". (3) Their success depended on directing and exploiting public opinion, and they did it masterfully.

That consensus was engineered by the masterful propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Today it is engineered by people like Karl Rove and Guy Giorno, who not only help to get their "leader" elected, but stick around to make sure they do as they're told. And when the government gets into trouble they send their "leader" on a photo-op, so they never have to wear the controversy, leaving others to clean up the mess.

Defining Our Allies - We're Stronger Than we Think

The conventional wisdom in electoral politics has been that getting the support of great numbers of people was more important than courting the wealthy who had money to spend. Rather than pleasing the well-off, good politics decreed that a party design policies to appeal to the great mass of middle-income voters, not the top 20 percent, but the 60 percent in the middle-income brackets. The bottom 20 percent could be safely ignored, as they could be assumed not to vote. However, their basic needs would be covered, not forgotten or left to charity. The favoured electoral strategy was to unite the middle, build support around programmes with wide appeal, and show how each benefits from programmes available to all. (4)

But neoconservatism takes a different approach. They unite upper-income voters around a programme that appeals to the interests of the wealthy, and then convince many middle- and low-income people of the advantages of more business and less government.

But more importantly they create common enemies of the 20% of society that are a nation's most vulnerable. Those who are invisible.

What about the economic insecurity of our poorest fellow citizens? Why can't our politics address this? It can't be because everyone has shared the fruits of our recent economic boom. It can't be because the poor don't exist. It must be because they have become invisible. (5)

We need to include that 20% and convince them that they must vote, and once we have voted out this neoconservative government, we need to make sure that our most vulnerable never become invisible again. Neocons want us to believe that our "too generous and unaffordable" social programs must be cut or eliminated and wages must be held down (6) to feed this monster named "economy". Meanwhile, the wealthiest citizens just keep getting wealthier, while they are going through with massive corporate tax cuts, and preaching austerity to everyone else.

And of that 60% in the middle, those who support social programs and demand rights are marginalized. And intellectuals who try to cloud issues with facts are dismissed as "university types" and demonized.

So while we advocate for specific groups, march and demonstrate, we have to remember that we are all in this together. We have a common enemy and as such are allies. Neoconservative governments do not allow dissent, but they cannot ignore 80% of the population.

We keep hearing about Harper's "base", that he is pandering to, but who is this "base"? I suspect that many believe they are voting for the party of Sir John A. and John Diefenbaker, without realizing that if the full agenda of this party is implemented, they too will be thrown into the fire, if we lose our public health care and access to education.

In 1994, speaking on behalf of the National Citizens Coalition, Stephen Harper was discussing the accomplishments of the NCC.

"Universality has been severely reduced: It is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy. The family allowance program has been eliminated and unemployment insurance has been seriously cut back." (6)

He believes that if you are successful, it's because you worked for it, forgetting that things like access to public education and medicare, helped toward that success. And if we allow this to continue, we will end up with a Third World type of societal structure, something that has long been a goal of neoconservatism. It's why they fought so hard to maintain apartheid in South Africa and keep Nelson Mandela in jail.

The Politics of Fear

Harper's former VP when he was president of the National Citizens, Gerry Nicholls, wrote recently that:

"Hate and fear make the world go around. Those are the two emotions you must arouse to mobilize citizens. Why is that? I would venture to say that it’s because they are powerful primal emotions that trigger the fight or flight response. What’s important, though, is that you recognize and harness their power." (7)

Another element to the success of the neoconservative movement is fear. It was no accident that at the G-20, journalists and advocacy groups were targeted by riot police. There was a message there. Cross us and you will pay. He is sending the same message to NGOs who risk losing their funding if they challenge any government decision.

But it is also fear of other forces. Rick Salutin explains:

Since the Second World War, the U.S. economy has been built around what you might call the fear sector: its military-industrial complex, its crime-prison complex and its homeland-terror complex. We're now seeing the first attempt by a Canadian government to follow this model.

... The Harper government is clearly impressed. They don't seem to mind big government, if they can tax and spend in the fear sector. So they've expanded our military budget and just announced a $9-billion (or maybe $16-billion) purchase of 65 U.S. jets we'll have to find some use for. They're increasing the prison population through U.S.-style sentencing laws and planning "major construction initiatives" that will boost (sorry) corrections costs by 43 per cent. On homeland security, there's that amazing $1.2-billion spent at the G20.

But it's a hard sell. Canadians will have to be persuaded to shift more money from a stretched health-care system to the fear sector. The benefits here aren't as obvious. For buying those jets, all our firms get is the right to bid on U.S contracts. Lotsa luck. Mostly, though, there's the fear culture that you need for a fear sector. (8)

So we need to cut through all this. Some suggest that we should study the tactics of Karl Rove and emulate them, but I don't agree. I hate divisive politics and I don't think those tactics help anyone. They just turn people off.

We need to mobilize the 2/3 of Canadians who don't support the Harper regime, and educate those of the 1/3, who believe they are supporting the Canadian Conservative tradition.

There are several grassroots attempting to do that, including:

Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament

Canadians Rallying to Unseat Stephen Harper

Canadians Demanding a Full Public Inquiry in to the G-20

Canadians for a Liberal-NDP-Green partnership NOW!! (If you like the idea of a coalition. I prefer a Liberal government with the NDP as official opposition, but would definitely be on board with a coalition if that's what it takes)

Catch 22 Harper Conservatives

I'm going to end with one of my favourite John Lennon songs to get us in the mood. I share it often, but am sharing it again, because .. well, this is my blog and I love John Lennon.



Sources

1. Open for Business, Closed to People: Introduction, By Diana Ralph, Fernwood, 1997, ISBN: 1895686733, Pg. 15

2. What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It? By Philip E. Agre, Polaris, August 2004

3. The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda, By: David Welch, Routledge, 1993, ISBN 0-203-93014-2

4. The Rights Revolution: CBC Massey Lectures, By Michael Ignatieff, Anansi Books, 2000, ISBN: 978-0-88784-762-2, Pg. 20

5. Comes the Revolution: Waiting for the Pendulum to Swing Back, By E. Finn, Canadian Forum, August 1995

6. Will the real Stephen Harper please stand up? A citizen’s guide to comparing election campaign promises to deeply held beliefs, By Murray Dobbin, January 10, 2006

7. The Trudeau Empire Has Fallen and It Can’t Get Up! Why now is the time for the Canadian conservative movement to win the War of Ideas, By Gerry Nicholls, December 3, 2008

8. Canadian government adopts America's fear economy, By Rick Salutin, Rabble, July 23, 2010

The Christian Coalition and Jason Kenney Help to Create So-Cons on Steroids

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

James Egan and John Norris Nesbit, were a gay couple who had been in a conjugal relationship since 1948. Their challenge to the courts over the definition of a spouse would pave the way for not only gay rights but equal marriage.

The Old Age Security Act in Canada, provides that a spouse of a pensioner may receive a spousal allowance should their combined income fall below a certain amount. So when Nesbit reached 65, fitting the definition, he applied to the Department of National Health and Welfare for a spousal allowance. However, he was refused on the basis that spouse, defined in section 2 of Old Age Security Act, did not include a member of the same sex.

So Egan and Nesbit delivered a motion for a declaration of unconstitutionality to the Federal Court of Canada alleging that the definition of "spouse" under the Old Age Security Act constituted an infringement of their right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law, entrenched in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Though they were refused by the trial judge and their case was turned down for an appeal, they took the matter to the Supreme Court, who in 1995 agreed, and the two men were granted the supplement. (1)

As a result of this decision, the Canadian government amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to explicitly include sexual orientation as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

This inclusion of sexual orientation in the Act was an express declaration by Parliament that gay and lesbian Canadians are entitled to "an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives they are able and wish to have..." (Section 2). The Canadian Human Rights Commission , which is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Act, provides further information about human rights and sexual orientation. (2)

This decision angered many fundamentalist Christians, who feared that legitimizing same-sex marriage would be the next step. Two of them were Brian Rushfeldt and Roy Beyer, pastors of Victory church. Since neither were ordained ministers, they decided to take a correspondence course at Charles McVety's Canada Christian College, but the change in the Constitution to include gay rights, changed their priorities, and they decided to:

... drop everything and build a grassroots political force to demand the restoration of biblical principles to government. At Victory headquarters, their boss arranged for them to fly to Washington for a tutorial from the reigning expert on evangelical organizing, Ralph Reed, the Georgia wunderkind whom Pat Robertson had chosen to build the Christian Coalition. (3)

Also in attendance were Jason Kenney and Don Spratt, the man who would create the Canadian Christian Coalition, based on the techniques used by Reed.

Years earlier, Reed had confided to a reporter that stealth was essential* to his modus operandi. "I want to be invisible," he said. "I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night." Warming to the metaphor, he boasted, "You don't know it's over until you're in a body You don't know until election night." Nobody had paid much attention until 1994 when Reed realized that scenario on a national scale. The mainstream media woke up on election night to discover that the Christian Coalition had been instrumental in engineering a Republican takeover of both houses of Congress for the first time in forty-two years. (3)

Beyer and Rushfeldt were also inspired by Reed and they too started a Christian grassroots movement: the Canada Family Action Coalition.

Canada Family Action (CFA) was founded in early 1997 with a vision to see Christian principles applied in Canadian law, politics and society. We provide strategies, networking, training and tools to enable ordinary Canadians to influence government, education, media, and culture.

We work with individuals, churches, other like-minded groups, and businesses to provide a unified thrust in promoting the Christian worldview in government, the media and society. Presently we have over 40,000 individuals who are active supporters, plus hundreds of thousands of others who participate in various major campaigns through phone calls to MPs , petitions, brochure distribution and letters to editors of newspapers. Some even host meetings in their area on issues and invite speakers. Our Mission: To mobilize, train and activate Canadians in defending and promoting Christian principles in Canadian society. (4)

They immediately went into action, when Alberta premier Ralph Klein, called an election, and

... scrambled to put together a homegrown version of a tool that Reed had developed for churches, a political report card aimed at pinpointing acceptable social-conservative candidates without taking a partisan stand that would jeopardize their charitable tax status. Those voters' guides graded lawmakers on how they had cast their ballots on bills close to theo-con hearts. Beyer and Rushfeldt sent out their first edition to ninety thousand Alberta households in what turned out to be a dry run for the federal election that was called months later.

In a burst of enthusiasm, they ordered half a million copies of their new national guides, confident that evangelical corporate leaders would leap at the opportunity to underwrite such an innovative scheme, but Beyer came back from his first fundraising tour empty-handed. "Up here," Rushfeldt says, "the Christian community had bought into this idea that politics and religion don't mix." (3)

(The Canadian Christian Coalition fared much better for the Reform Party).

Jason Kenney and Don Spratt

Reproductive rights rights in Canada took a giant step backward in January when a provincial court judge gutted the British Columbia's government's new Access to Abortion Services Act, which had established protest-free "bubble zones" around abortion clinics and doctors' homes and offices. The ruling came at a time when the previously disorganized Religious Right in this province was congealing into a B.C. wing of the newly formed Christian Coalition of Canada, inspired by the politically influential Christian Coalition in the U.S. ... a formidable lobbying force in American politics, installing its anti-choice, anti-gay agenda and candidates at all levels of government, from school boards to Congress.

The B.C. chapter is headed up by Operation Rescue activist Don Spratt ... "Advisors" to the new CCC reportedly include Ted and Link Byfield (owners of the ultra-conservative B.C. Report and Alberta Report magazines), Jason Kenny (head of the Canadian Taxpayers Association), and Alex Parachin (head of the Christian Broadcasting Associates in Toronto, the Canadian branch plant of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network). (5)

As mentioned, Don Spratt was then the leader of Rescue Canada (also known as Operation Rescue), a position he held in "the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, for which he was repeatedly jailed for “contempt of court” for obeying God rather than man ... "(6)

His group fared better than Canada Family Action, perhaps because of the connections of people like Bill Vander Zalm, Jason Kenney and the Reform Party.

The Christian Coalition has established roots in British Columbia, Canada ... Bill Vander Zalm, a former British Columbia premier and one of the more than 20 directors ... announced that the group plans to distribute "voter guides" in churches around the province in any upcoming election.

Vander Zalm notes that the group is already organized in the Okanagan, the Fraser Valley and the Lower Mainland. Vander Zalm has associated in the past with the right-wing Reform Party and the Family Coalition Party of B.C. The B.C. chapter formed after several dozen Canadians attended the fall 1995 Christian Coalition convention in the U.S.

Don Spratt, a member of Operation Rescue, leads the B.C. chapter. Other advisors to the group include Ted and Link Byfield of the right-wing Alberta Report and B.C. Report magazines, Alex Parachin, head of the Canadian branch of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network and Jason Kenny, head of the Canadian Taxpayers Association.

Jim Garrow, the Ontario-based leader of the Christian Coalition of Canada told reporters that the group will seek allies in organizations such as the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, REAL Women and the Canadian branch of James Dobson's Focus on the Family. (7)

They would build up such a network of think-tanks and non-profit groups, that I'm beginning to feel the way that Lucy did in the following clip. You start off slow, tracking the money and the players, and then they speed up the conveyor belt and you're stuffing names in your hat so they don't fall off your radar.




I'm going to do a list and the end of this chapter, of which, mostly faith-based groups, promoted which candidates for the 1997 election, as well as future ones; but it's pretty clear that this party has been taken over by the Religious Right. I don't think Stephen Harper could stop them now even if he wanted to.

So why should this matter? Well, as Canadian author and activist, Maude Barlow explains:

Sincerely held religious beliefs accompanied by strict morality are obviously not a bad thing, and any Church is entitled to make its own rules about who, for example, it will choose to marry under Church auspices. (Some may deplore a lack of tolerance for alternative lifestyles displayed by particular denominations, but the freedom of religion means that people are free to make such choices.) Civil rights are another matter. Increasingly, however, the sometimes narrow convictions of Christian sects are being exploited by politicians in both Canada and the, United States (where the tendency is highly developed) to introduce into the political realm a degree of inflexibility, passion, and rancour that tend to undermine the spirit of accommodation and tolerance that is essential to the functioning of a democratic society. Our civil liberties are threatened as a result. The point is that people are free to believe what they want privately, but if they enter politics to inflict those beliefs on others, then their religious concerns become fair game.

Intolerance for gays, passionate opposition to abortion and a handful of other "hot-button" issues are pushing a number of born-again Canadians to identity with the evangelical, right-wing views of American fundamentalist groups such as Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition, two of the groups that helped put George W Bush in the White House. (7)

Less than 11% of Canadians are evangelical, and of that probably less than half are of the extreme variety. Yet they now make up more than half of the Harper caucus. But what's worse, they have also been infiltrated into all levels of the public sphere, and are now in the courts, the senate and even the civil service.

If this government is in power much longer, the majority of Canadians risk losing their voice, and all decisions made will be contrary to Canadian beliefs and Canadian values.**

Next: Implosions Help Jason Kenney's Christian Coalition to Explode

Footnotes:

*Stephen Harper would later also adopt Reed's strategy: "The state should take a more activist role in policing social norms and values ... To achieve this goal, social and economic conservatives must reunite as they have in the U.S., where evangelical Christians and business rule in an unholy alliance. Red Tories must be jettisoned from the party ... Movement towards the goal must be "incremental, so the public won't be spooked." Stephen Harper (8)

** "Westerners, but especially Albertans, founded the Reform/Alliance to get "in" to Canada. The rest of the country has responded by telling us in no uncertain terms that we do not share their 'Canadian values.' Fine. Let us build a society on Alberta values." Stephen Harper

Sources:

1. Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513, May 25, 1995

2. Sexual Orientation and Human Rights, Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada

3. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, By: Marci McDonald, Random House Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-307-35646-8 3, Pg. 69-70

4. Canada Family Action, Mission/Vision Statement, Accessed June 25, 2010

5. The Christian Coalition Comes to Canada, by Kim Goldberg, The Albion Monitor, May 5, 1996

6. For Truth, Life and Liberty, DonSpratt.org

7. Too Close for Comfort: Canada's Future Within Fortress North America, By Maude Barlow, McClelland & Stewart Ltd., 2005, ISBN: 0-7710-1088-5, Pg. 24

8. Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy: Close advisers schooled in 'the noble lie' and 'regime change', By Donald Gutstein, The Tyee, November 29, 2005

The Fraser Institute, Roger Douglas and Revisionist History

Roger Douglas has been a regular speaker at the Fraser, beginning with his first appearance in 1989.

Fresh off his dismantling of the New Zealand government, he was ready to instruct others on the art of radical reform.

However, in the case of New Zealand in 1984, when Douglas took his post as finance minister; a bit of radical reform was necessary.

They were virtually bankrupt, after several years of Keynesian policies and over zealous regulation.

The country was within days of defaulting on international loans; New Zealand's overseas diplomats were asked how much foreign cash they could raise on their credit cards. An urgent devaluation was needed to stem the outflows. (1)

But Douglas was like Margaret Thatcher on crack, and many of his actions had horrible results. He was the Yang without the Yin, and that lack of balance would cause the whole thing to come crashing down.

Roger Douglas's Revisionist History

Though the popular theory is that former New Zealand finance minister Roger Douglas (1984-1989), turned the fortunes of his country around, the fact is, that while there was a temporary change in their economic position, much of it was an illusion.

He did bring in much needed cash, but his actions were too simplistic, with little or no forethought.

Roger Douglas, a diminutive, dogged accountant ... unleashed free-market policies with such pace that they blindsided most New Zealanders — including [Prime Minister David] Lange. Douglas floated the New Zealand dollar, wooed foreign banks, wiped away controls on credit, foreign-exchange transactions and import tariffs. The once sacrosanct farmers lost their state subsidies ... (1)

He also privatized 60% of state-owned companies, fired 55% of the government workforce and placed the central bank chairman on a performance contract. But it was too much too soon, and it would end badly.

His far-right policies were already alienating some supporters, but the prime minister continued to give Douglas free reign.

" ...he continued to support the Douglas experiment until the fearful stock-market crash that October [1987]. The New Zealand market dropped the furthest in the world; its recovery took the longest.

The shock caused Lange to argue that it was "time for a cup of tea" and to rein Douglas in — but not before tens of thousands of people lost their jobs. Eventually, Douglas, fuming, walked out of Cabinet. Lange, worn out, depressed and drinking heavily, resigned in 1989. It was a sad end to Labour's great economic experiment.

According to conventional economic wisdom, New Zealand had headed down the path of righteousness. But while the old, closed economy held no hope for the future, the gains had been oversold; economic growth remained, for the most part, slower than that of the rest of the developed world; productivity and living standards barely moved for years. (1)

However, Canada's neoconservatives have lauded Roger Douglas as the guru of finance. Why?

I think the answer is pretty simple. Their goals are not to direct Canada toward a bright economic future, but simply to "starve the beast". Douglas did that in spades.

So the Fraser invite him to speak on a regular basis, not for his smarts but his moxie; and his simple message: "don't blink".

Sources:

1. 1979-1989 David Lange, Time Magaazine, By Bernard Lagan, October 29, 2009

Ralph Klein Takes Care of Some "Unfinished Business"

In the introduction to her book, Hard Right Turn; Brooke Jeffrey describes being in Toronto in the 1990's; stuck in traffic, because thousands of protesters were blocking the streets. She asked the cab driver what the problem was and he said "Mike Harris (Ontario Premier for 1995-2002). Who wouldn't be upset with this guy?"

A few months later Jeffrey was in Edmonton, where she witnessed similar protests, which like those in Toronto, were orchestrated by teachers, nurses, municipal workers and other concerned citizens. "All of them were furious with the Klein (Ralph Klein. Premier of Alberta 1992-2006) government's cutbacks.

The premier and his controversial treasurer, Stockwell Day, were adamant the cuts would go forward as planned.

The striking thing about Klein's comments was his choice of language. It was almost identical in tone and content to arguments Mike Harris had used to defend his actions in Ontario a few months earlier ... I, like most people thought Klein's reputation as a folksy populist was established. Mike Harris admitted his 'Common Sense Revolution' took it's inspiration from the Klein government's neo-conservative agenda, but he failed to mention an authoritarian attitude was also part of the package." (1)

What Jeffrey didn't realize at the time, was that both Klein and Harris had the same mentor. A former New Zealand finance minister, named Roger Douglas, who was then on the road promoting his book, Unfinished Business.

Both Klein and Harris continue to emulate the B Movie slogan of Sir Roger Douglas, the architect of of New Zealand's harsh experiment in program-slashing: 'I ain't gonna blink.' In 1994 Ralph Klein accepted the Fraser Institute's annual prize for 'the best fiscal performance' of any North American government. 'Alberta stands alone as the only government that refuses to take the easy way out, the brainless way out, and that is to raise taxes ..."

Douglas was one of the new breed of corporate friendly politicians who promoted fiscal reform on the backs of ordinary citizens. Like others who ascribed to this theory, including Ronald Reagan; his program made a lot of money for a handful of people, but also created almost unprecedented poverty. The gap between rich and poor was never so high.

Apart from the neo-conservative writings on Thatcherism and Reagonomics provided by his friends in the 'Klein Gang', and the advice offered by the business community through the Red Deer round table, the premier also called on the services ... of former New Zealand finance minister, Sir Roger Douglas, who was peddling the wares of restraint and cutbacks. Having turned New Zealand's economy around and its society inside out ... Sir Roger was now touring the world, urging others to heed the call and take the same drastic action. This new messenger of change was actually invited to speak to the Conservative caucus, where he put forward the view that change must be significant and it must be
instituted quickly if the liberal consensus were to be broken and the state removed from the marketplace. The government that blinked would fail.

"Unfinished Business by Sir Roger Douglas of New Zealand, is credited with having provided the vocabulary of the 'Red Deer' budget round table. Terms such as 'hit the wall' and 'don't blink,' for example, made their debut at this event, and have now passed into the common parlance of all Canadian neo-conservatives." (3)

One area where the Klein government made immediate cuts, was to health care. But his policies were bizarre, under a scheme of Total Quality Management. Stockwell Day, was then Labour Minister, and with little more than a high school education; his policies were definitely ideologically driven.

Some employers quickly applied the Total Quality Management technique of substituting lesser-skilled workers for highly-skilled personnel. An example of this occurred in one UNA [United nurses of Alberta] worksite where RN's were told not to have RN on their name tags because they were now to refer to themselves as Patient Hostesses. And in another UNA worksite, LPN's were scheduled to do the work of laid off RN's and the maintenance workers were trained to give the bed baths—work previously done by the LPN's. The profession of nursing was undermined and compromised. Not only did UNA fight for improved wages and benefits in 1993—it also fought for the very profession itself.

Stockwell Day learned his lessons well from Roger Douglas, something which we will see more clearly now that he is heading up Canada's treasury. His only other known prior experience with someone from New Zealand, came from his father, an old Social Creditor, and friend of Doug Christie.

Stock Sr. once got into trouble for hiring an illegal immigrant as a domestic. He wrote to Christie: "She is a New Zealander with no criminal record; she looks like us; she speaks like us; she prays like us. Yet when we came through the waiting room, it gave me the impression that we were at a family reunion for the Harlem Globe Trotters [sic]. What the hell is going on?"

That certainly explains a lot.

Footnotes:

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

2. Slumming it at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, Gordon Laird, 1998, Douglas & McIntyre, ISBN: 1-55054 627-9, pg. 66

3. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 93

4. Health Care Reform, 25 Years of History, United Nurses of Alberta, 1993