A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
"There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it." - Oscar Wilde
The new Tea Party in the United States is trying to revive the Boston Tea Party and the revolutionaries who fought against taxes imposed by Britain.
T.E.A. stands for 'Taxed Enough Already", but in fact, the Tea Party want taxes reduced even more, while still paying down the deficit. They also want the government to butt out of their lives.
What was the Boston Tea Party Really About? According to American historian Ray Raphael:
We all know and celebrate the climax to the Boston Tea Party. On December 16, 1773, several dozen men dressed as Mohawk Indians boarded three ships belonging to the East India Company, cut open 340 chests of tea and dumped the contents in Boston's harbor. We fondly remember the carnival-like drama as a catalyst for the American Revolution, and over the years both liberal and conservative protesters have laid claim to its irreverent legacy. (1)
And yet Revolutionary-era Americans did not celebrate the event.
... many patriots viewed the destruction of tea as an act of vandalism that put the Revolution in a bad light. Patriots also downplayed the tea action because of its devastating impact. That single act precipitated harsh retaliation from the British, which in turn led to a long and ugly war. (1)
The Boston Tea Party Was Not About Lower Taxes
Though the modern day version believe that the original Tea Party was about lower taxes, it was not. It was about collecting their own taxes. Whoever levied taxes got to call the shots, including how to spend the money.
The Tea Tax was nominal and in fact "Land taxes and poll taxes assessed by their own colonial assemblies, as well as long-standing import duties on sugar, molasses and wine, were a much greater burden." (1)
And after the Revolutionary War, the Americans were taxed even heavier than before to pay for war debts. Property was seized and debtors thrown in prison.
This prompted an armed rebellion led by Daniel Shaye, a veteran of the American Revolutionary war. And Shaye's Rebellion used symbols like "liberty poles" and "liberty trees" to represent their cause.
They would probably better represent the modern Tea Party than the original Tea Party.
According to a farmer at one of their meetings:
"I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war; been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates and all rates...been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth...The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers." (2)
And while today the "patriots" often carry signs with the image of George Washington, Washington actually came out of retirement to advocate for a stronger national government after the failure of the revolt. He did not not want less, but more, government "intrusion".
What if the Tea Party Gets What it Wants?
In the BBC documentary Crashing the Tea Party, commentator Andrew Neil speaks with two men about the questions of taxes, and why they cannot be eliminated. The protesters don't understand that taxes pay for vital services like fire departments , paramedics and police. They pay for schools, roads, bridges. They keep people safe.
One Obama critic claimed that the president was trying to control their air and water. They want less "red tape". This means that corporations would be free to pollute with no safeguards for the public.
What if their children get sick because of toxins in the water? They can't very well go after those who put them there, because they would not be breaking any laws.
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
The late Lester Milbrath, an American political scientist; once categorized the citizens of democratic nations, as three distinct groups:
Apathetic - those who rarely, if ever, become engaged in politics. They may vote out of a sense of duty, but that's as far as it goes.
Spectators - those who do engage in political discussions, especially when they centre around single issues. Spectators almost always vote.
Gladiators - those who become actively involved in politics, campaigning or running for office.
Canadian political scientist, Brooke Jeffrey, takes this one step further, when she's discussing the neo-conservative movement; and includes a category for 'Ignorant Gladiators'. These are people who enter the political arena on a wave of anger and resentment, with few qualifications to actually lead.
They are the anti-government politicians, who only want to tear down, with few plans to rebuild. They offer no solutions to bring a nation, province or municipality forward. They only come prepared to dismantle and discredit.
Her book, Hard Right Turn was written a decade ago so the only 'Ignorant Gladiator' (1) governments she referenced were Ralph Klein's (Alberta) and Mike Harris's (Ontario). Neither man was terribly well educated, but they talked tough; feeding off the 'spectators' with hot button issues and private resentment.
But Jeffrey did speak a great deal about the Reform Party and their rise to power, and how they fed off ignorance. Their leader of course, was a very smart man. Smart enough to know where his base was. So messages were always simple but explosive.
No one suggests that there is only one career path or appropriate set of credentials for those who plan to run for public office. Life experience as much as education, could give individuals the ability to manage ... Unfortunately, few of the individuals attracted to the neo-conservative ideology have demonstrated these qualities. The greater the neo-conservative leadership's emphasis on moral and social conservatism, the more likely the supporters will be uncompromising in their views. (1)
In the United States the media has been aware for some time of the threat imposed by ignorant gladiators, especially those steeped in religious fundamentalism. But the Neocons knew they needed that passion to advance their cause.
So negative policy was wrapped in ambiguity, while they sang loud and clear the things they knew their followers wanted to hear. "Don't take our guns". "Hang 'em high". "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
But while many in the American media were sounding the alarm, in Canada few spoke of it. The movement was given free rein, until it was almost too late.
Marci McDonald, who had spent a great deal of time in the U.S. as a journalist, knew the signs, so when she returned to Canada was shocked that the Neoconservative/Religious Right movement had gained so much ground.
So she wrote a book: The Armageddon Factor*, and the outrage was immediate, from both the right and the left. An exaggeration. She was a bigot. She hated Christians.
So the mainstream media mostly ignored her warnings, not wanting to upset their readers. There was a general consensus that we were merely following the United States, and since it took 30 years for their movement to bear fruit, we had a few decades to prepare ourselves.
But what they failed to realize was that this movement was running simultaneously, north and south of the border. We didn't need 30 years or even 30 days. It was here.
Last night I watched a BBC documentary that I had taped: Crashing the Tea Party. Commentator Andrew Neil interviewed many people involved in what has been described as the fastest growing political movement in the United States, and I was immediately struck with a feeling of Déjà vu .
This is Reform Party replay. And in the same way that the Reformers infiltrated and then took over Canada's conservative party, the Tea Party has now done the same with the Republicans. In fact one of their spokesmen, Matt Kibbe, when asked if they had infiltrated the Republican party, said that he preferred to think of it as "a hostile takeover".
They want to "purify" the Republicans and move them further to the right. How much further to the right can they go?
I guess we're about to find out.
And sadly the few remaining moderates in the party are being pushed out.
But what I found alarming was that the signs many of the tea party-ers carry could have been written at Reform Party headquarters 20 years ago. "Silent Majority no more". "No new taxes". "Stop the spread of socialism".
It's absolutely frightening.
When the Republicans decided to open this box, I don't think they realized what they were doing. They saw the "charged up" as their ticket to power. But now they have clearly lost control. The "Ignorant Gladiators" are taking over.
They are angry, they are righteous and they are armed. And they are eating the Republicans alive.
I've been reading Bob Altemeyer's online book: The Authoritarians, written before the Tea Party began. He was optimistic after the 2006 mid-terms believing that there may be some return to sanity. But he warned us not to get too comfortable.
The mid-term elections of 2006 give hope that the best values and traditions of the country will ultimately prevail. But it could prove a huge mistake to think that the enemies of freedom and equality have lost the war just because they were recently rebuffed at the polls. I’ll be very much surprised if their leaders don’t frame the setback as a test of the followers’ faith, causing them to redouble their efforts. (p. 3-4)
And redouble their efforts they did, reaching even further into the sess pool, and it could very well prove to be their undoing.
Footnotes:
*The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, By: Marci McDonald, Random House Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-307-35646-8 3
Sources:
1. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, By Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 396-402
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
In restricting knowledge to an élite ruling class of “the few”, obscurantism is fundamentally anti-democratic, because its component anti-intellectualism and elitism exclude the people as intellectually unworthy of knowing the facts and truth about the government ... (1)
The late Dalton Camp, formerly president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, was not an alarmist. He was intelligent and a well respected columnist and author.
So when he began warning Canadians of the dangers of the Reform Movement, almost two decades ago, we should have listened. He understood their ideology and was concerned with the Republicans they had aligned themselves with. The same people who are now destroying American politics, as card carrying members of the Religious Right and the Tea Party gang.
In the introduction to his book; Whose Country is This Anyway?, Camp quotes Friedrich Nietzsche from The Will to Power: "The great majority of men have no right to existence, but are a misfortune to higher men."
This is a codicil for the comfortable, the affluent, and the obscenely rich in our time, as it was the inspiration for fascism earlier in our century. The new order is not without its coterie of apologists and intellectual dandies. Indeed, it even has a political party of its own, called—irony of ironies—the "Reform" Party. (2)
Germany under Hitler was fascist, because it was run by industrialists, who profited from war and the build up of the country's military. The German people, while manipulated with propaganda, were nothing more than "a misfortune to higher men."
The notion of anti-intellectualism can mean simply that Stephen Harper has always opposed public education, referring to it as "union run schools", and bragging that "Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy... These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party..." (3)
It can also refer to his attacks on the well educated who challenge his policies, dismissing them as "university types" ... "elites".
But in the theory of Obscurantism, it's something much more profound. It's a deliberate attempt to paint themselves as being part of the anti-intellectual crowd, despite the fact that many in the movement have university degrees, including several PhDs. And they do this to convince the populace that they are just "ordinary folk", who see danger in listening to intellectuals who don't have their best interests at heart.
A deliberate obscuring of the facts.
Betty Plewes recently wrote a column for the Mark News, the topic of which was Canada's abandonment of the Non-Profit sector. She mentions a speech given by Lawrence Cannon in Krakow, to the Working Group on Enabling and Protecting Civil Society. She found the speech enlightening and articulate, but was surprised that "a transcript of the speech was not posted on the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) website and is very difficult to obtain." (4)
She contributed that to the fact that Stephen Harper has no interest in charitable pursuits, but while that is true, there is another reason for this. Cannon's speech would contradict their image of "folks" and their notion that intellectuals are the scourge of society.
The Edmonton Journal recently asked: What would Harper Fellowship look like a decade after his departure? They suggested:
Some criteria for evaluating the body of work put forward for recognition might include: - -Best description and "proof" of a national social problem without the use of statistical analysis; - -Best policy proposal for the betterment of Canadian society based solely on anecdotal "evidence"; -Best application of the concept of "truthiness" to future Canadian policy directions. (5)
What would a Harper fellowship look like, when his political strategy is anti-intellectualism? Having his party play dumb to appear dumb? Only their leader has any smarts and that's why he has to exert so much control over them.
When the Reform Party had their first real electoral success in 1993, the media dismissed them, often asking "who are these yokels and who voted for them?" The Sun referred to them as a " ribald bunch of dung kicking rednecks", and Preston Manning with his squeaky voice was compared to a country preacher.
And yet Manning is a brilliant physicist and many in the party's hierarchy (now called the Conservative Party of Canada) have university degrees. So why did they not defend themselves against this belief? In a word: Obscurantism. If they appear to be country bumpkins, how could we possibly fear them?
And if anyone points this out, they become "elites", and are immediately silenced, to the cheers of their supporters.
Stephen Harper is a Straussian, and Leo Strauss a follower of the belief in the necessity of obscuring facts. And Strauss's beliefs came from the methods used by the Nazi party to earn and hold onto power. He escaped Germany, but several of his family members died in Concentration camps. As a result he felt that an authoritarian style government was the only solution to stave off a recurrence of Nazism. The ignorant masses only had to be controlled, in a large part by keeping secrets and obscuring the truth.
When political philosopher, and colleague of Strauss, Hannah Arendt, attended the trial of Adolf Eichmann at Nuremberg, she was surprised at how "Unimaginative, ordinary and unthinking" he was.
Others may have hoped to see Bluebeard in the dock, she wrote, but for her, the horror lay in the fact that "there were so many like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic ... [but] terribly and terrifyingly normal." (6)
She was one of the first to refute the "monster theory" of less-than-human Nazis. She called them "banal". But as Erna Paris, author of Long Shadows: Truth, Lies and History, points out. Many Nazis were well educated, and several had doctorate degrees.
So what would have made her think that they were banal?
Maybe their chief propagandist Joseph Goebbels, himself a PhD, explains it best.
"It would have been very unwise if we had given exact explanations to the Jews, prior to the Seizure of Power, of what we intended to do with them.... It was quite good that [they] did not take the National-Socialist movement quite as seriously as it actually deserved. . . ." (7)
We did not take the Reform "movement quite as seriously as it actually deserved." And while they are not planning a domestic genocide, they do have an aggressive foreign policy agenda, from a prime minster that Lawrence Martin claims sees the world as a "clash of civilizations" rather than as "one big family". (8)
Dalton Camp did not suggest that the Reform Party was stupid, but called them "intellectual dandies". He did however, suggest that they were dangerous, in part because of the company they kept. American Straussians.
Sources:
1. Obscurantism - Wikipedia
2. Whose Country is This Anyway? By Dalton Camp, Douglas & McIntyre, 1995, ISBN: 1-55054-467-5, Pg. 18
3. Stephen Harper, speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994
4. In Search of Canada's Non-Profit Policy, By Betty Plewes Former President and CEO of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation; member of the McLeod Group, The Mark News, October 18, 2010
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
In April of 2008, an article appeared in the UK Guardian entitled: The Canadian Nixon. Even then political observers noticed the similarity in styles between Stephen Harper and Richard Nixon. Both held a high level of contempt for their political opponents and in many ways, the people they were supposed to serve. They trusted no one.
Dimitry Anastakis and Jeet Heer noted their shared characteristics and modes of operation.
The historian Garry Wills once observed that Richard Nixon wanted to be president not to govern the nation but to undermine the government. The Nixon presidency was one long counterinsurgency campaign against key American institutions like the courts, the FBI, the state department and the CIA. Harper has the same basic approach to politics: attack not just political foes but the very institutions that make governing possible. The state for Nixon and Harper exists not as an instrument of policy making but as an alien force to be subdued.
If it's not the media, or the courts, or the Senate, or Elections Canada, it's the Wheat Board, the federal government's own spending power, the bureaucracy, the gun registry ... Canadians should rightly wonder why their head of government has such a problem with so many Canadian institutions. (1)
In the same week Kelly McParland wrote in the National Post of Harper's paranoia and what he described as a "siege mentality".
One of the many online encyclopedias defines “siege mentality” as “a shared feeling of helplessness, victimization and defensiveness” which “refers to persecution feelings by anyone in the minority, or of a group that views itself as a threatened minority.” If there’s anything that typifies the Conservatives under Mr. Harper, it’s the notion that anyone outside the party is to be viewed with suspicion, and even within the party trust is to be handed out sparingly. Beyond the fortified redoubt of the Prime Minister’s inner circle, everyone is on permanent probation. (2)
In 2008, 198 hours of recordings and 90,000 pages of documents were released by the Nixon Presidential Library, and what they revealed of the man, is quite telling. According to Dan Glaister: Recordings show Nixon urged staff to use all means to discredit his political opponents, both large and small.
"Never forget," he tells national security advisers Henry Kissinger .. and Alexander Haig in a conversation on December 14 1972, "the press is the enemy, the press is the enemy. The establishment is the enemy, the professors are the enemy, the professors are the enemy. Write that on a blackboard 100 times." (3)
This message could have come from Harper's own lips. But there's more.
Documents released alongside the recordings detail the progress made by his staff in carrying out a presidential order to remove all pictures of past presidents from the White House. An office belonging to a junior civil servant in which he had seen two photographs of Kennedy, one bearing a personal inscription, particularly offended Nixon. "On January 14," wrote White House staffer Alexander Butterfield in a 1970 memo, "the project was completed and all 35 offices displayed only your photograph." (3)
Stephen Harper had all portraits, many of them works of art, removed from the government block and replaced with photographs of himself. (4) Hundreds and hundreds of photographs of himself. I'll bet there's a memo somewhere stating that the "the project was completed."
And Luke Nichter, a Nixon scholar, says of the 37th president that his was: "One of the most secretive presidential administrations in American history." There's no denying that the Harper government is the most secretive we've ever had.
More recently Jeffrey Simpson is looking for parallels from Lawrence Martin's Harperland.
Simpson calls Nixon: "...the brilliant, brooding, socially awkward, intensely private, conspiratorial Mr. Nixon, who, more than any other U.S. politician, shaped conservatism from his entry into Congress to his resignation as president."
... the interesting comparisons arise between Mr. Harper and Mr. Nixon. By all accounts, and especially those in Harperland, the Prime Minister is not only a partisan, as all prime ministers must be, but he viscerally hates Liberals. His objective is not just to defeat but to obliterate the Liberal Party of Canada. For that purpose, the gloves are off all the time, from nasty attack ads against Liberal leaders to ritualistic, partisan punches from him and his ministers.
Mr. Nixon saw enemies everywhere: in the media, the “liberal elites,” the Ivy League colleges .... He carried enormous resentments, remembered many past slights, and bottled them up inside where they fed paranoid streaks in his character. He was a control freak, and demanded that his staff act accordingly. (5)
Some of the comparisons are abstract, like the episode of the threatening tapes. (6) But the key ones are fundamental. And perhaps there's a good reason for that. Wrapped up in their shared hatred of liberalism, academics and political opponents... And wrapped up in their shared awkwardness and paranoia, is the fact that they are both Republican*, schooled in Republican campaigning and indoctrinated in anti-government governance.
However, there is something else, that a lot of people are not aware of that helps to explain their "unique" political tactics. Both men were "Finkle Thinked".
Ouch! Did it Hurt?
Arthur Finklestein was** the man who worked behind the scenes for Richard Nixon and has been called one of the most secretive, but effective, political strategists who ever lived. His strategy was dubbed "Finkle Think". I've often thought that Guy Giorno tried to emulate him.
Jack Huberman includes Finklestein in his book: 101 People who are Really Screwing up America. And in a column for Huffington Post points out the hypocrisy of Finklestein's recent marriage to his male partner:
It wouldn't be worth mentioning if the consultant hadn't, through most of the 40 years of that domestic partnership, worked on behalf of some of America's most rabidly homophobic politicians; if he wasn't "the architect of Jesse Helms's political rise"; if he wasn't acclaimed as "the guy who slandered the term 'liberal' in American politics"; if he hadn't worked for presidents Nixon and Reagan; helped elect the likes of George W. Bush, New York Governor George Pataki, Senator Alphonse D'Amato, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "To the Right of Attila Sharon" Netanyahu; advised Sharon; helped the Swift Boat Smearers for Bush smear John Kerry's military reputation; and announced that he would be spearheading the "Get Hillary" campaign to defeat Senator Clinton's reelection campaign in 2006.
All that, and more, is on Arthur Finkelstein's resume. If you haven't heard of him before, it's because he made sure you didn't. As CNN reported in 1996: "He is the stuff of Hollywood: A man who can topple even the most powerful foes, yet so secretive that few have ever seen him." Finkelstein has been compared to criminal mastermind Kaiser Sose in The Usual Suspects, who lay so low that some doubted he really existed. *** (7)
And according to Gerry Nicholls who was Stephen Harper's VP when he was running the National Citizens Coalition, Mr. Finklestein also worked for them.
Arthur [Finklestein] was an American political consultant who worked for the NCC, he gave us political, media and fundraising advice. He was, in fact, truth-be-told, one of the chief reasons behind the NCC’s success. He was also the top Republican political consultant, if not the top American political consultant period.
He was also the guy who basically invented the negative ad. His nickname was the “Merchant of Venom.” Now you might be asking yourself, “If Arthur was so great, why haven’t I ever heard of the guy?” Well, let me tell you a secret about political consultants. The ones who promote themselves a lot, the ones you see on TV talk shows and speaking at seminars are not usually the top consultants. That’s why they need to get the public limelight. That’s why they self-promote. The really top consultants don’t need to do that. The insiders know who they are and they are always busy. Arthur fit into that category. If anything he did everything possible to avoid media scrutiny. (8)
So Stephen Harper is not that difficult to figure out. He is not that deep or complex. He is simply the product of Republican strategists, especially one who "invented the negative ad", and is following in the footsteps of a former Finklestein protege.
***When Guy Giorno had to appear before a commons committee, the media had to have him pointed out. No one knew then what he looked like. He was the same when he did the job for Mike Harris.
Source:
1. The Canadian Nixon: Stephen Harper's feud with Elections Canada is just the latest front in his war against government institutions, By Dimitry Anastakis and Jeet Heer, The UK Guardian, April 24, 2008
3. Recordings reveal Richard Nixon's paranoia: Recordings show Nixon urged staff to use all means to discredit his political opponents, both large and small, By Dan Glaister, UK Guardian, December 3, 2008
4. Harper gallery leaves MPs speechless: Citizens who really want a national portrait gallery in Ottawa can rest easy. The government already has one, By The Ottawa Citizen, January 29, 2008
6. PM threatens Ignatieff with old tapes`Every day that goes by he's more like Richard Nixon,' Liberal leader says after Harper, By Richard Brennan, Toronto Star, May 28, 2009
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
In January of this year, the BBC published an interesting article: Why do people vote against their own interests? It was a light bulb moment, and defines to a tee the basis of neoconservativism, as represented by the Republicans in the U.S. and the Reform-Conservatives in Canada.
They are both clearly parties representing the interests of their country's wealthiest citizens, yet most of their "base" support comes from the fringes and those who stand to lose the most if neoconservatism wins.
Last year, in a series of "town-hall meetings" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms. What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence ... But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.
Why is that? Political scientist Dr David Runciman is quoted as saying:
If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them. They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.
The Reform Party built an entire movement based on that theory. "So you don't trust politicians. Neither do we" they cried.
And across the border, when Republican Newt Gingrich watched those TV spots and read those ads he was inspired.
Indeed, Canadians became exporters of neo-con innovation in the 1990s. 'I would say Margaret Thatcher and Mr. [Preston] Manning are the two non-Americans we learned most from'', said U.S. Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich in 1995.'I know him [Preston Manning] because I watched all of his commercials. We developed our platform from watching his campaign.' (1)
And using the techniques and talking points honed by Manning and the Reformers (Stephen Harper was chief policy advisor at the time), Gingrich's team created their "Contract with America".
It is thus not difficult to understand why the Republicans, in the run-up to the mid-term elections of last November [1994], made such a point of dissociating themselves from Washington and identifying instead with popular sentiment on such issues. The dividends of defining Washington as the source of false values are seen in the results of the elections, which gave the Republicans control of both the House and the Senate. (2)
It's ironic that so many people accuse Stephen Harper of being a Republican (including myself), but the Democrats in the U.S. should be calling the Republicans 'Reformers', and accusing them of copying Stephen Harper.
Proud to be a Racist and a Redneck
Vancouver - On his small square patch of Canada, surrounded by a nine-foot fence of English laurel, Reform Man is railing against the Frenchmen who run the bloody government, and dropping remarks about Chinese drivers.
"I admire a lot of those other cultures, but in their own country," said Sid Blanchett, a diesel engine mechanic. Mr Blanchett lives in north Vancouver, a hotly contested riding in the 2 June election. There are two signs outside his fence: one for the Reform Party, and another that says "No More Prime Ministers from Quebec". He's proud to be a racist and a redneck, he said, if that means defending his own culture, religion, and traditions.
Covering Reform can be like waking up in a Monty Python sketch, as one Vancouver journalist said this week. Old-fashioned caricatures pop up and say the most extraordinary things. Members belt out Oh Canada at party meetings, and while they drop clangers about blacks, gays, or Sikhs, the race they really detest is the French. (3)
Preston Manning and the Reform Party played on those prejudices:
Having a clear critical dynamic, focused on the corrupt Ottawa establishment, was of the first importance to Reform's recent success. In this, as in so many other ways, this party has a similar focus to the United States Republican Party in its present mood ... Part of its appeal is to anti-Quebecois sentiment "let Quebec either secede", Reform says in effect, "or, preferably, stay in Canada but without any of the special privileges it seeks." Outside Quebec this message is extremely popular. It might be noted that Reform did not bother to run candidates in Quebec.
Preston Manning is a smart guy and I have no doubt that he is not racist. But in the same way that his father's Social Credit party fed off anti-Semitism, Preston knew how to feed off people's insecurities. And when his MPs were quoted making racist remarks, he'd simply say that the Reform Party does not condone Racism, but rarely did anything else.
This explains his handling of the Jan Brown/Jim Silye incident.
The cases of Jan Brown and Jim Silye were typical. Among the most progressive and cosmopolitan of the Reform MPs, they also became known for their ability to shine in Question Period. Both were urban moderates and excellent communicators who developed positive relationships with the media and, in the case of Brown, a degree of national name recognition. Both were often unhappy with the "racist redneck" element in their caucus, and endured much criticism from other caucus members for their continuing attempts to broaden the base of Reform policies.
[Then] when [Reform MP] Art Hanger announced he was going on a "fact-finding mission" to Singapore to explore the use of caning and other forms of corporal punishment in the penal system, most Canadians were astonished and amused. Brown and Silye were humiliated, and said so publicly. "I don't want to be campaigning for caning and whipping," said Silye, a millionaire Calgary businessman and former Stampeders star. Brown, another Calgary MP and a corporate consultant with two degrees, agreed with Silye and suggested Reform would lose mainstream voters if it did not shake its extremist image. For their comments the two were raked over the coals at a lengthy caucus meeting in which one MP after another took the floor to lambaste the two, accusing them of betrayal ... (4)
And:
Barely two months later, during debate on the government's proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act protecting homosexuals from discrimination*, the Reform caucus erupted again. When B.C. MP Bob Ringma** told reporters he would move gay or visible-minority employees to the back of the shop if they were costing him business, colleagues such as Dave Chatters, Leon Benoit and Myron Thompson agreed. In fact, Thompson went further, saying "If they were costing me business, I would remove them." Asked for her comments, Jan Brown replied, "I'm so saddened by this..." (4)
In response, Manning did reprimand Ringma, but also suspended Jan Brown. Instead she quit.
We might wonder at the logic behind this, but it goes back to the party's basic philosophy of "us against them". The Jan Browns did not fit into this, but the Rob Ringmas did. They were the people who kept the party faithfuls motivated to call themselves The Reform Man and display a sign on their lawn touting the party line "No More Prime Ministers from Quebec".
This Brings us Back To Why the Most Disadvantaged Oppose Those Wanting to Raise Them Up
Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas ... believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.
The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking. Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. [my emphasis] The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.
Watch the following video and listen to how many times the Fox News personality uses terms like "elites in the media and academia", "academic circles" in a piece suggesting that Obama is a socialist.
And in condescending language, make any notions of offering a hand up, as a socialist plot. "These people believe that folks are poor because other people are rich." "Wealth redistribution" "drawing emotion from guilt, jealousy and envy" (all sins). So if God and the Republicans want to ignore the poor, it's only for their own good.
This guy even goes so far as to say that history has buried more bodies from the envy of socialism than the greed of capitalism, which of course is completely false, but they are playing to their "base". The people who should be demanding better from their government as equal citizens, instead are being led to believe that they should not be demanding anything at all.
"Glen Beck and the American people". They are on an even plane. Forget that Glen Beck works for a multi-national corporation, and earns 50 million dollars a year. He is still one of them. And those socialist academics, who are advocating for the lowest levels of society, are "elites". They don't belong to the club. It's "Glen Beck and the American people". Wink, wink.
At the Reform Party's opening assembly, many people left, especially seniors; when they realized what their policies, wrapped in a veil of ambiguity, really meant. An end to subsidies for farmers. An end to public health care. An end to unemployment insurance, Canada Pension and Old Age Security. (5) Those who stayed never really thought it through.
It was "us against them". They spoke their language. And if they felt any tinge of doubt, the Rob Ringmas would come out to remind them.
And while the Reformers preached that everyone was responsible for their own destinies, it enabled them to promote policies that hindered those destinies. The end to things like public health care and public education.
At the 1991 Reform Party Assembly, a guest speaker was William Gairdner, author of the book The Trouble with Canada, which journalist Murray Dobbin stated ".. helped lay the groundwork for Reform Party policy." (6) Reform Party policy which was then being drafted by Stephen Harper.
The Reformers gathered in Saskatoon saved perhaps the loudest cheers, whistles, and applause for Gairdner's last shot: 'And my favourite proposal, by the way, is returning choice to education by privatizing every school in the country'.(6)
Of course making all schools private, would ensure that the disadvantaged remained disadvantaged, and the country's wealthy would remain at the top, while "the poorest citizens continued to serve the interests of its richest."
Gotta' love neoconservatism, which has been dubbed "the revolt of the rich", who use the poor and disadvantaged as their foot soldiers. Brilliant. Wrong. But still brilliant.
Sources:
1. Slumming it at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, Gordon Laird, 1998, Douglas & McIntyre, ISBN: 1-55054 627-9, Pref. xiv-xv
2. Policy from the People: Recent Developments in the USA and Canada, By Philip Ayres, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of The Samuel Griffith Society, April 2, 1995
3. Racists, rednecks and the reform of Canada: With a poll imminent, reactionaries are out in force, By Tim Cornwell, May 26, 1997
4. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, By Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 318-319
5. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
Leo Strauss, with the help of his friend Karl Schmitt, was exiled to Paris, thereby escaping the Holocaust. In June 0f 1933 he married Marie (Miriam) Bernsohn, a widow with a young child, Thomas Petri, whom he adopted.
They managed to escape to England when Paris fell to the Nazis, but his family in Germany were not so fortunate.
Leo Strauss's father, Hugo Strauss, died in the spring of 1942 just before the deportation of Kirchhain's Jewry. His stepmother and the rest of his immediate family that stayed in Germany were soon killed after being deported to death camps in the east. (1)
Strauss's only sibling, Bettina Strauss moved to Cairo where she married Paul Kraus in 1936.
Kraus was a Czech-born Jewish scholar of medieval Islamic philosophy, science, and medicine as well as the Bible and archaeology. Leo Strauss and Paul Kraus became acquainted in the late 1920s and early 1930s in Berlin.' Bettina and Paul traveled to Palestine, Lebanon, and Egypt for research and possible academic appointments. Bettina died in January 1942 while giving birth to Jenny Ann Kraus in Cairo. Just two years after Bettina's death, Paul Kraus committed suicide.' Strauss adopted his four-year-old niece, Jenny, and raised her as his own daughter in the United States . (1)
Ironically, Leo Strauss had once wanted to join the Nazi Party, though he would blame the fall of the Weimar Republic, and liberalism in general, for the ruination of Germany.
The Weimar never really had a chance. The monarchy fell during the war, leaving the country in disarray. Trying to rebuild and remake Germany into a democracy, at a time when the German people were looking for someone to lead them out of the darkness, proved impossible, making the time right for the image of a powerful leader: Adolf Hitler.
Strauss moved to the United States in 1937, becoming a citizen in 1944. In 1949, he became a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he received, for the first time in his life, a good wage. And as part of this infamous Chicago School, he would help to reshape American politics, and create a movement now known as Neoconservativism.
And perhaps without realising it, Ernest Manning had ascribed to the philosophy.
The Republicanism of Ernest Manning
Since the Leduc oil gusher, of 1947, Ernest Manning abandoned Social Credit principles and moved Alberta to the right. Inspired by the Americans, he adopted a Republican style political system, that fit with his moral and religious views.
The United States — its culture, political institutions, and doctrine of individualism — also had an enormous impact on political life and attitudes in Alberta. That influence is strongly demonstrated in the history and development of the Social Credit Party, which Ernest Manning ran for so many years: a free-enterprise party extolling the virtues of individual liberty, the traditional family, and the supremacy of God. (2)
Time magazine began referring to Alberta as Texas North.
Social Credit had been pretty close to socialism, with an attempt to fight against "poverty in the midst of plenty". Manning, on the other hand, abhorred and feared socialism, and believed that capitalism and the free market were the best defenses.
This belief would channel to his son Preston, when he started the Reform Party and on to his lieutenant, Stephen Harper.
And though Leo Strauss died in 1973, his legacy lives on in a movement that is fueled by deception, religious fervour and unbridled nationalism. The key elements that Strauss suggested were necessary, for a government to be successful.
Sources:
1. Leo Strauss and the Politics of Exile, the making of a Political Philosopher, By: Eugene R. Sheppard, Brandeis University Press, 2006, ISBN: 978-154865-600-5, Pg. 82
2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 1
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
The image to the left is of Stockwell Day, two years before he and Jason Kenney decided they would like to make him prime minister, to push a new constitution based on the Old Testament.
It is taken at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the group Jason Kenney left when he decided to run for the Reform Party, to help carry out the mandate of the Canadian Christian Coalition, and infiltrate all levels of government.
Mark Milke took his job but is now with the Frontier Centre, another prop for the Harper government.
These guys move in and out of these so called "non-partisan", "non-profit" backdrops so often, that they are never quite sure who will be giving them a pay cheque in any given week. Could be the Fraser Institute. Could be the Frontier Centre. Could be the Canadian Taxpayer Federation. Or it could even be Stephen Harper, which means us.
But back to the flat tax.
You can't read a bloody bio of Stockwell Day without someone singing his praises over coming up with this wonderful system of taxation. But if you read the caption under the photo upper right, it states. "Marke Milke meets with then Alberta Treasurer Stockwell Day to present a single rate tax proposal ... The proposal was adopted almost verbatim."
It was the brainchild of Kevin Avram, after attending a conference in Austin, Texas where he met a representative of the “Association of Concerned Taxpayers” which was then headed up by Grover Norquist. The association was "established to promote a flat income tax..." And if you want to know who benefits by it, they get a lot of their funding from Exxon.
In 2005, Milkes wrote an article on the flat tax, something he's still flogging. In it he mentions:
Think back 20 years. Any suggestion that eastern and central Europe were desirable economic models came only from Western socialists, university professors and others with an eternal grudge against free markets. What a difference perestroika, McDonald's in Moscow, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact makes. "New Europe" moved on, saw the future, and decided not to include in it tax regimes that punish wealth creation. The region is now something of a darling for tax reformers.
In January, Romania scrapped its multiple-bracket system with marginal rates as high as 40% for a single 16% tax rate on personal and business income. Romania, once home to one of the most repressive communist regimes, was country number nine to jump on the flat-tax express. Existing riders include Estonia (first, in 1994), and Georgia (also in January), Latvia, Lithuania (wages and salaries only), Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, and Ukraine. But it's not just Europe. Alberta added itself to this list when it switched to a single rate of provincial income tax in 2001. (1)
Fast forward to 2009:
Over the last decade, Eastern European countries became darlings of the far right by instituting free-market economic policies designed to break convincingly from their Communist past. The so-called Baltic Tigers—Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia—garnered worldwide plaudits for a number of free-market reforms, led by the imposition of a flat-rate income tax, especially from the American right. "The flat tax is making a comeback," trumpeted the conservative National Review. The three nations are "leading a global tax reform revolution," said the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.
... Too bad for them that it hasn't worked out. Latvia, which has a flat tax of 25 percent, and Lithuania and Estonia, which have 21 percent tax rates, are all in deep economic trouble. They all have huge government budget deficits, a sign that they took in too little in tax revenue to cover their costs, primarily state expenditures to provide a generous welfare state. Conservatives might argue that they didn't slash welfare benefits enough, but there is no dispute that the flat tax didn't provide the expected revenue. (2)
That's why the neocons love this system, because it gives them an excuse to "slash welfare benefits" .... again. And I don't mean corporate welfare ... bite your tongue (or a neocon will do it for you). Just the country's most vulnerable.
And if you still think there's a very slim chance that it might work, the tea baggers have added it to their battle cry.
So the biggest dream of any of these nut job Tea Party folks is a flat tax, of about 15%. That's the number I see most often as being a "fair" tax. So this idea is that everyone, no matter what they make (except those below the poverty line I assume) pays x% for my purposes I will use 15%.
... But where this "brilliant" idea falls flat on it's face is when you realize what is left over and what can be afforded with it. It turns out that this "fair and flat" tax actually turns out to be regressive, not in that it puts the burden of funding the government on the poor but those hurt most by it, are the lower income. So poor people have less money then wealthy people, this is obvious. Though they are not rich, they still have to live: buy food, pay for electricity and phone, pay for medical bills, and yes taxes.
Because these less fortunate people make less money, a greater percentage of there income goes towards those necessities. So what this means is that if the poor are paying the same as the rich, the hit being taken by them is still much greater then it is for the wealthy .. Now I know, these people are entitled to their wealth they worked hard... BLAH BLAH BLAH. But lets remember here so did the poor man, and yet they are the ones who suffer from taxes. The rich are the ones who most complain about taxes and yet many of them do not even pay. They shelter it in Swiss and Cayman bank accounts. (3)
The flat tax is a bad idea. But even if it were a good idea, the next time someone credits Stockwell Day with this initiative, set them straight. Or do what I do and scream.
2. The Flat Tax Is Flat-Lining: The meltdown of Baltic countries shows what a bad idea this gimmick always was, By Charles P. Wallace, The Big Money, March 31, 2009
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
"Nothing has done the electoral and moral credibility of liberalism more harm than the failure to take this attack seriously" - Michael Ignatieff, University of Toronto, 1998
The final part of the documentary: White Power USA: The Rise of Right-Wing Militia in America, is simply an interview with the filmmaker and author of the book Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, Chip Berlet.
Berlet relays the same message that Michael Ignatieff did more than a decade ago. There is a great harm in not taking this attack seriously.
When the Reformers first hit the Hill in 1993, the Toronto Sun referred to them as a "bunch of dung kicking rednecks" and the media asked "who are these yokels and who voted for them?"
We; myself included, never took them seriously. Every horrendous remark and action just left us shaking our heads. When the party was infiltrated with the Neo-Nazi Heritage Front, no one was surprised, except the Heritage Front themselves.
"The expulsion enraged the Heritage Front, which saw the Reform Party's policies as very similar to, if not indistinguishable from, its own. How could a party that went on record opposing immigration policies that "radically alter" Canada's ethnic make-up turn around and shun a group like the Heritage Front, Droege asked, when the Heritage Front supports the very same approach? Privately, spokesmen for B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress admitted that Droege had a good point." (1)
My gut reaction is often to laugh, but I'm not laughing now. The Religious Right, the Conservatives (Republicans and CPC), and the far-right have created a volatile and toxic mixture. We have to start taking them seriously.
I've been writing about this and a new youth movement that is carrying on many of the same activities, and included a posting on Kyle Bistrow. My initial reaction to Kyle was that he was a hate monger, but after reading more about him and watching an interview, I saw something else.
Kyle emailed me and we corresponded a bit, and I think he's a smart kid with so much potential. He's now considered to be an up and comer in the Republican party and I hope by the time he wins a seat, and he will; that he's softened a bit. He's not a neo-Nazi, and not really even racist. He's just fighting for what he believes in. And I think for many people in all of these movements, their motives are just as genuine.
But it's the people who are exploiting them, and tapping into their fears, who really need to be exposed.
Murray Dobbin wrote a posting on Harper's new Fox News, and the thought that Canada will now have a station like that is appalling. The Glenn Beck's of the world are the real threat because they legitimize this stuff.
...The man in charge of developing the network – and getting it past the CRTC – is Tory* Teneycke – formerly Stephen Harper’s junk yard dog in charge of intimidating and manipulating the media.
You might recall seeing him on the CBC which shamefully hired him as a “commentator” less than a year after he left Harper’s employ (in violation of CBC rules). Like most of the communications types in Harper’s stable he specializes in bullying and attack-dog tactics, the very same approach honed over years on Fox news in the US.
Don Newman, CBC columnist and former host of Newsworld’s ‘Politics’attacked the idea characterizing Fox news in the US as “hugely polarizing.” Fox “mainly spews out propaganda that is dangerously misleading and often factually wrong….It specializes in drive-by attacks and misrepresentations, and is positively Orwellian at times, claiming to be ‘fair and balanced’ while implying that its competitors aren’t. (2)
Sigh.
Footnotes:
* Should be Kory. He was a "storm troop' for Preston Manning, part of a group that went around raising hell at Liberal campaign offices.
1. Web of Hate: Inside Canada's Far Right Network, By Warren Kinsella, 1994, Harper Collins, pg 243-244
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada It was always a strange alliance: The Religious Right, the Republican/Conservatives and the Libertarians. But the more ridiculous and narrow minded the fundamentalists became, the more the Libertarians tried to distance themselves.
Now we find in the U.S., a crack in the armour as several high profile Conservatives are breaking ranks and supporting GOProud, a group of Gay Republicans.
Yes, I said it. Gay Republicans.
We knew they had them, but their voices were being drowned out by the rants of the 'holier than thou'.
And with all of these non-profit groups that marginalize children not from their view of what families should be, what will they do now? If this is the start of an attempt at normalcy after years of insanity, where will they go?
Today, GOProud, the only national organization of gay conservatives and their allies, announced that conservative leader Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, and Fox News contributor Margaret Hoover are joining the GOProud Advisory Council. “Grover Norquist and Margaret Hoover are two of the most respected names in the conservative movement,” said Christopher Barron, Chairman of GOProud’s Board. “We are honored to have them as part of the GOProud team.”
“GOProud is an important part of the conservative movement,” said Norquist. “I am proud to join GOProud’s Board of Advisors and to help in advancing their common-sense conservative agenda of limited government, lower taxes and individual liberty.”
Grover’s move to join the ranks of those who perpetuate the gay agenda, which has in its crosshairs the destruction of marriage, is as dishonoring to the movement he claims, as it is disheartening. Historically, conservatism has been built on a 3-legged stool of traditional social values, economic conservatism, and a strong national defense. So when Grover said that he “shares GOProud’s commitment to ‘core’ conservative values,” he’s obviously leaving out a key component that many in his cause hold dear.
Traditional moral values—such as marriage between a man and a woman—are as much a part of longstanding, conservative philosophy as Grover is vital to fiscal conservatives. It is worth noting that the importance of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman cannot be separated from the discussion of limited government and fiscal conservatism that Grover holds dear.
I was somewhat surprised to see that Americans for Tax Reform's president, Grover Norquist, has decided to join the Advisory Council of the homosexual group GOProud. Grover is usually a masterful Republican strategist and coalition builder -- but in this case, he seems prepared to compromise a unified conservative movement in order to appease a tiny minority of the overall population. GOProud is not a conservative organization that happens to be gay. It's a homosexual organization that's marginally conservative. GOProud's own website explains just how radical its priorities are. This is a group that opposes the death tax and ObamaCare -- not because they aren't sound economic policies -- but because they "discriminate" against "gay families."
And the platform doesn't end there. One of the group's top 10 "principles" is to create "enterprise zones" for homosexuals, despite the fact that the average income for gays and lesbians is higher than most everyone else. At least two other of its "principles" call for the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act. Among their other priorities: allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military and defeating any attempt to protect one-man, one-woman marriage. They even ran ads criticizing President Obama for not doing enough for the homosexual community!
I credit many of the diligent Americans who wrote constantly on the threat that the Religious Right imposed. We are seeing a similar movement in Canada, especially since Marci McDonald's book, the Armageddon Factor.
We still have a long way to go, but I think Norquist made an important first step.
I also just learned that Darrel Reid is moving on. Thank gawd.
Darrel Reid, an evangelical Christian who once led Focus on the Family, had been Harper’s deputy chief of staff and has played a key role in developing policy since joining the PMO in 2007. He’s moving to join the Manning Institute for Democracy.
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
"Borrowed in part from the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, Canadian neo-conservatism owes much of it's character to the right-wing populist tradition of the West.
"Indeed, Canadians became exporters of neo-con innovation in the 1990s. 'I would say Margaret Thatcher and Mr. [Preston] Manning are the two non-Americans we learned most from'', said U.S. Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich in 1995.
'I know him [Preston Manning] because I watched all of his commercials. We developed our platform from watching his campaign.' Like cowboy culture, Canadian neo-conservatism is a growth industry, spawning a whole generation of Will James outlaws in hot pursuit of political power." (1)
The political cartoon above first appeared in the Alberta Report Magazine on March 27, 1995, under the caption 'Preston Manning and Newt Gingrich dancing in newt suits'. The two men formed a lasting friendship as they worked out ways to promote combative style politics.
Republican pollster Frank Lutz had been working with Stephen Harper and the gang since 1991, and he also handled Gingrich's campaigns.
It might surprise people to know that at least some of the Republican ugliness was made in Canada.
"Newt Gingrich was no Ronald Reagan. A career politician, he was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1978, at the age of thirty-five, and became the Republican Whip in 1989. Despite this measure of success, however, he was never part of the Republican inner circle, largely because of his extreme views ... (2)
Ronald Reagan had left a mess and George Bush Sr. did little to clean it up, so by the time Bill Clinton arrived on the scene, Americans were a little fed up. But just as with Obama, they expected immediate results, and just as with Obama, the Republicans constantly hammered away at their competence.
By the time the mid-term elections rolled around in 1994, a series of mini-scandals (Monica still in diapers) caused people to question the Democrat's ability, paving the way for a conservative victory. Since many of the scandals resulted in the resignation of several veterans, it was a perfect opportunity for the Republicans to replace them with hard right thinkers.
"By February 1994, many Republicans ... were upbeat about their chances of doing well in the mid-term elections scheduled for November ... An optimistic group of members of the House of Representatives met in Salsbury, Maryland, to discuss their platform ...
"Overwhelmingly male, middle-aged and white, with a large contingent from rural and southern states, they could hardly have claimed to be representative of the American people, but they were certainly indicative of the constituency that elected them." (3)
Taking tips from the Reform Party, they were ready to tap into anger and righteous indignation, by creating a platform based on five principles, they called the 'basic philosophy of American civilization'.
With racial overtones, they were not looking to generate votes from the blacks or ethnic minorities. They appealed to middle-class whites, with initiatives that sound very much like the Reform agenda. Strengthening families, tough on crime, selective immigration, the end of public welfare, weakening of public education, etc.
They then read out their manifesto in a highly publicized media event, close enough to election time that no one really had a chance to investigate them further. But it worked.
From his viewpoint as the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, a smug Newt Gingrich surveyed the battlefield and declared that the election was 'the most shattering one-sided Republican victory since 1946.'
"No one disagreed with him. Certainly not Canada's Preston Manning, the leader of the like-minded Reform Party, which a year earlier had taken the fifty odd seats in the federal election. Not only had Manning visited Gingrich for a photo opportunity, but Gingrich now attributed his electoral success to techniques he had learned from Manning and his Reformers.
"Amoung these organized religion was clearly uppermost in Gingrich's mind. The role of the evangelicals in assuring Gingrich's victory was far greater than it had been for Reagan. As Rosalind Petchesky points out in an article on anti-feminism and the New Right, this heightened emphasis of moral conservatism in the American neo-conservative movement was unprecedented. It was also producing a situation in which the party's platform was being increasingly designed to meet the requirements of these supporters.
"'What has given the New Right both ideological legitimacy and organizational coherence,' she wrote, 'has been it's focus on reproductive and sexual issues. If there is anything new about the current right wing in the United States, it is the tendency to locate sexual, reproductive and family issues at the centre of it's political program.' This was an unusual development in Canada as well ... " (3)
Newt and Preston had a lot to dance about, because while their most ardent supporters saw an end to abortion and homosexuality, they only saw dollar signs. The 'revolt of the rich' had scored a victory.
Sources:
1. Slumming it at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, Gordon Laird, 1998, Douglas & McIntyre, ISBN: 1-55054 627-9, Pref. xiv-xv
2. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 32
"The Reform party is much closer to what you would call conservative Republican ... The Reform party is very much a modern manifestation of the Republican movement in Western Canada; the U.S. Republicans started in the western United States. The Reform Party is very resistant to the agenda and the demands of the secessionists, and on a very deep philosophical level." Stephen Harper Speech to Council for National Policy 1997
The Reform party and in particular, Stephen Harper, have been accused by their critics of being too American. Or more accurately, too Republican-American.
So it's important to understand the close connection to the American Republican Party that transcends everything else. Preston Manning believed himself to be Abraham Lincoln. I don't mean that he thought of himself as the reincarnation, but he had read his biography and the Lincoln-Douglas debates and believed that the situation in Canada was not unlike the situation in the U.S. that brought on the Civil War.
And he fancied that he was the only person who could "get tough" with Quebec and lead the "new" Canada. And he didn't rule out a 'Civil War' if that's what it took.
Preston Manning is not averse to raising the spectre of violence when he discusses the Quebec issue. He does not raise the possibility of violence often, but when he does, he does not elaborate on what he means — another use of deliberate ambiguity. He has, however, planted the seed, evoking the image of violence often enough to establish it in the public mind.
... At the November, 1989 Reform Party Assembly, Manning staked out his tough stance on Quebec, ending his speech with the following words, in reference to his terms for accepting Quebec in Canada: "Such terms will be judged satisfactory if they are fair and advantageous to Canada [and] if the new relationship can be established and maintained without violence ... " No one in Canada was anticipating violence over Quebec at this time, and there was little evidence that the Meech Lake impasse was about to dominate the politics of the country.
Preston Manning was already positioning himself as the man who would, in his own words, "call Quebec's bluff."
Manning raised the possibility of violence again at a time of maximum national media exposure — the 1991 Assembly in Saskatoon. This time he used his favourite analogy: the conditions which led to the Civil War in the U.S. While clearly establishing that his way, "the Canadian way," of dealing with Quebec, was through negotiations, he once again tossed out the spectre of violence, asking the rhetorical question, "Surely no Canadian wants our secession crisis to come to this [civil war]?" No one but Preston Manning had suggested it might.
Preston Manning's fondness for quoting Abraham Lincoln in reference to Canada's "secession" crisis is well established: in speeches to businessmen in Toronto, at the Americas Society in New York, in his address to the 1991 Assembly, and in many interviews. He is fond not only of the compelling parallels; he is an admirer of Abraham Lincoln and has repeatedly suggested that the Reform Party under his leadership might accomplish what Lincoln did under the Republicans: displace one of the old-line parties.
Some — like the Edmonton Sun's Don Wanagv have suggested that Preston Manning sees himself as the future prime minister of a Canada that does not include Quebec. But ill the speech he made to the 1989 Assembly, there are echoes of Abraham Lincoln. On "behalf of western Canadians," Manning), said, "We do not want nor do we intend to leave this house ourselves. We will, however, insist that it cease to be divided." (1)
And even now when Stephen Harper's political life is threatened, he will bring out the separatist/secessionist card, like a silent dog whistle to his base supporters, who immediately draw battle lines.
This despite the fact that former Harper insider Tom Flanagan has admitted that in 2004, Stephen Harper himself attempted to form a coalition with both the NDP and Bloc, that had the full support of those separatists/secessionists.
Of course, Manning's devotion to Lincoln, was based on revisionist history, that glorifies past leaders. Lincoln's actions did end slavery, or at lest start the process, but his motivation was political, to please the 'abolitionists.' He said the right things to them, but also stated:
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races...I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, not of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people." (2)
Lincoln was also very dictatorial, which wouldn't have been an alien concept to Manning or Harper as their governing style was fashioned, at least in part, by that of William Aberhart and Social Credit. According to Time Magazine in 1935 (3), Aberhart emulated Adolf Hitler in terms of propaganda and heavy handedness.
Lincoln extended the powers of the presidency further than any president before him. Upon learning of the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln immediately declared an ‘insurrection’, federalized state militias, blockaded many of the South’s largest ports, and spent $2 million on the Union Army. He did all these things without the consent of Congress. Lincoln also disrupted the democratic process by arresting 31 members of the Maryland State Legislature who were expected to vote in favor of secession from the Union.
Lincoln’s dedication to fighting a war for unity led him to strictly enforce his will against those who disagreed with him. "The unity was weaned by rhetoric and enforced by arms. It was a war proclaimed as a war for liberty, but working people would be attacked by soldiers if they dared to strike, Indians would be massacred in Colorado by the U.S. army, and those daring to criticize Lincoln’s policies would be put in jail without trial-perhaps thirty thousand political prisoners." Lincoln’s iron fist gained him many enemies in both the North and the South. (2)
He also opened mail and shut down newspapers. Dissent was definitely forbidden in Lincoln's United States and if Manning studied Lincoln as he and others have boasted, he surely knew that.
Abraham Lincoln has also been used to justify the marriage of church and state. According to David Brooks:
On Sept. 22, 1862, Abraham Lincoln gathered his cabinet to tell them he was going to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. He said he had made a solemn vow to the Almighty that if God gave him victory at Antietam, Lincoln would issue the decree.Lincoln's colleagues were stunned. They were not used to his basing policy on promises made to the Lord. They asked him to repeat what he'd just said. Lincoln conceded that "this might seem strange," but "God had decided the question in favor of the slaves."
I like to think about this episode when I hear militant secularists argue that faith should be kept out of politics.(4)
Another reason why we should not 'glorify' past leaders. Abraham Lincoln is not the embodiment of everything that is good and holy. Using success in battle as a message from God is not what I want to hear from a political leader.
An interesting choice of term 'militant secularists'. No war should eve be given a holy purpose or be justified as a divine mission.
The Reform movement very much encompasses that, believing that Christianity should affect every aspect of our lives. That's fine for Christians, and I applaud them, if their motives are humane and sincere.
But it's the Christian extremism that becomes a problem for me. And in government when Christian extremists determine policy for a country made up of a vast number of religions, including atheism, it becomes totalitarian.
Canadians are not anti-American, though many oppose American Imperialism. We are also, if given a choice, usually supportive of the Democrats, especially since the Republican Party has been hi-jacked by the Religious Right. And I think that's why mainstream Canada never really embraced the reform Party or their morphed Alliance Party.
It wasn't until they hijacked the Conservative brand, that we were lulled into a false of security. But in the words of Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time".
Footnotes:
1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party. By: Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 218-219
2. Abraham Lincoln, Tyrant or Hero? By: Rob Helmer
3. Messiah, Major, Money, Times Magazine, September 2, 1935
4. Stuck in Lincoln's Land, By: David Brooks, New York Times,May 5, 2005
