Don't Blame Stephen Harper, Blame Edmund Burke

"If a sociology professor applies a day before a medical doctor, the professor's application gets processed first ... I mean, we don't really need a sociology professor. ".  Jason Kenney

Stephen Harper's recent refusal to call a public inquiry into missing and exploited Aboriginal women, should not come as a surprise to Canadians, given his background and the ideology of the Conservative Movement.

Modern Conservatives do not believe in sociological phenomenons, viewing them as too grey an area, in a world that is black and white, right and wrong, left and right.  Everything in between is simply minutiae, and therefore, not worthy of attention.

Jakeet Singh,  an assistant professor in the Department of Politics & Government at Illinois State University; addressed this issue in an excellent op-ed piece, published in the Toronto Star:  The ideological roots of Stephen Harper’s vendetta against sociology

Singh suggests that the roots of this belief system can be traced to Margaret Thatcher, and quotes her now infamous line "there is no such thing as society".

However, we have to go back a little further than that.

Conservative author and journalist, Yuval Levin, outlines the origins of this thought in his new book:  The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left

The inspiration for many modern political struggles, can be traced to the philosophies of Burke (1729-1797) and Paine (1737- 1809) and their views on revolutions.

The American Revolution may not have taken place, had it not been for Thomas Paine.  Initially, most colonists  viewed the anger over taxation without representation, as an issue for the wealthy elites, who simply didn't want to pay their share.

However, Paine's pamphlet Common Sense, stirred up a passion for liberty.

The pamphlet begins by establishing some principles for distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate rule: that government exists to secure the freedom and security of its equal citizens and that any government that fails to do so is not worthy of the name, regardless of its pedigree. (Levin p. 35)

It's rather ironic that the GOP and the new U.S. Tea Party, see themselves as a direct lineage of the founding fathers, when in fact, America was built on liberalism, in direct opposition to conservatism.

Edmund Burke did support the American Revolution, however,  but only because he was constantly seeking a balance, to avoid tyranny.  He saw the King's refusal to address the legitimate concerns of the colonists, as tyrannical, and suggested that if he continued in his stance, than they certainly had the right to self governance.

He did not, however, see this as a basic "human right", as Paine did, but simply as a solution to a problem.  Burke never dealt with metaphysical distinctions and had no time for anyone who did.

Because of that, he opposed the French Revolution and its philosophical Rights of Man.  An elitist, he believed that the masses were ill equipped to decide who should govern them, but that that task should be left to a chosen few.  Otherwise, decisions would be based on what citizens wanted or thought they wanted, and not on what they needed.

" What is the use of discussing a man's abstract right to food or to medicine? The question is upon the method of procuring and administering them. In that deliberation I shall always advise to call in the aid of the farmer and the physician, rather than the professor of metaphysics." — Edlund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790

In other words, "...  we don't really need a sociology professor. ".

I watched a documentary on Ronald Reagan, and his son told the interviewer that his dad could never really grasp the idea of abstract notions , like "the poor".  Harper is no different.

"These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.”  Stephen Harper,  The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997

There is no such thing as "child poverty", but if you see a child who looks hungry, simply feed it. There is no epidemic of murdered and missing aboriginal women, but if you know of someone who murdered them, call the cops. Again, simple solutions to complex problems.

The Starting Point- 1789

In a radio broadcast on April 1, 1933, Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, proclaimed it clearly : with the Nazi revolution "the year 1789 has been expunged from the records of history."  It was obvious to all why Goebbels compared 1933 to 1789.  Any contemporary, whether schooled in history or not, instinctively knew that the French Revolution was the measure of things in the modern world. "We want to eradicate the ideology of liberalism and replace it with a new sense of community"  (Foundational Pasts: The Holocaust as Historical Understanding, By Alon Confino, Cambridge University Press, 2011, ISBN 978-0-52173-632-9, p. 6)

The National Socialist Party of Germany, in 1933, saw a classic struggle between right and left.  They had a visceral hatred of communism and the liberalism that allowed communism to flourish.

And in the Edmund Burke tradition,  believed that only they knew what was good for the German people, and so dealt with those who tried to convince them otherwise.  This meant the expulsion of not only Jews (who they suggested were part of a communist plot to take over the world), but everyone with liberal ideas and "mystical" views of human rights.

They would create a new kind of socialism, in direct contrast to the Marxist or Paine idea of socialism; for the people, but not by the people, and certainly not for all the people.

The French Revolution has been seen as a defining moment in democracy, despite the fact that it failed, only giving power to the Bourgeoisie, and the eventual dictatorship of Napoleon; but it has inspired many revolutionary changes around the world.

The late 18th century public debates between two great thinkers, Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine, live on in the conflicting ideologies of today's conservatives and liberals.

The question is, what side of this new revolution do we want to be on?

The one where basic human rights are simply philosophical or one where those rights are achievable and necessary?

One where "poverty" is merely an "idea" or one where the visual, and yes sociological studies, are proof that "the poor" do exist, and society has an obligation to help them?

One where government should only address the needs of the top 1%, or one that addresses the needs of all citizens?

Edmund Burke or Thomas Paine?

Stephen Harper or anyone with a heart and soul?

Conservatives like to quote Edmund Burke:  "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” .  The only problem is that Burke never said that.  If you pick through things he actually said, you could perhaps create the sentiment, but not find the direct quote.

The closest researchers have come to citing the remark, might be to John Stuart Mills, who in an 1867 inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews, said:

"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."

Mills was a liberal.

However, you can quote me on this ""The only thing necessary for Stephen Harper to continue his ruthless revolution, is for good Canadians to do nothing.”

As good Canadians we can all do something.  Vote him out.

Right-Wing Media Moguls and the Buying of Politicians

In the unfolding scandal of Rupert Murdoch and his media empire, aside from phone hacking and the buying off of cops, there is another question emerging.

How did these media moguls gain so much political power?

The BBC asks: Who is more powerful - Murdoch or Parliament?

If ever there were a symbol of the uneasy balance of power between national governments and large multinationals companies, it is the spectacle of the British Parliament being poised to vote overwhelmingly (it seems) for Rupert Murdoch's News Corp to abandon its bid for British Sky Broadcasting - but being powerless to force him to abandon that takeover.

If Parliament is sovereign, there is something slightly odd about the idea that the vote can be passed and that Mr Murdoch can choose to ignore it.

Maybe Mr Murdoch will eventually abide by the revealed will of the elected representatives of the British government. But as of last night, Mr Murdoch appeared unimpressed that the prime minister and the deputy prime minister decided to throw their weight behind the leader of the opposition's motion calling on him to drop the takeover.

British prime minister David Cameron really has no choice but to at least give the appearance of standing up to Murdoch, but he would not have been as successful had it not been for this man's support.

The relationship between politicians and the press has always been a topic for debate, but simply supporting a candidate or party, through spin, has transcended to something far more alarming.

They are now being groomed by the media and even purchased.

Margaret Thatcher had a very close relationship with Murdoch editor Larry Lamb. He would even visit her home, giving her communication advice.

Says Murdoch biographer William Shawcross:

Thatcher was persuaded by advisers that tabloids like the Sun, the Mirror and the Daily Mail were far more important than the more serious papers in influencing voters. The Mirror would always be pro-Labour, but she was advised to cultivate the editors of both the Sun and the Mail.

... Mrs. Thatcher came to Bouverie Street. Lamb said she "accepted a glass of whisky, kicked off her shoes and engaged us all in spirited debate for several hours. We were all impressed, not least by the fact that she listened." Lamb also went to see her at her house "to talk about the kind of campaign she planned, who she felt might emerge as the star performers, and which members of her team we should stick close to.

... On Election Day, May 3, 1979, the Sun's massive editorial., covering the entire front page and continuing inside, was headlined "VOTE TORY THIS TIME. IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THE ROT." ... The editorial asserted that the Sun as a radical paper was urging a vote for the Conservatives.

Murdoch's papers appealed to what Shawcross called, "the lower-income group", and their massaging of the campaign was effective.

The biggest swing to the Conservatives was among the lower-income group, known to market researchers as Us, which included many Sun readers. A victorious Thatcher wrote Lamb what he called an "affectionate" letter and thanked him for his help.

It's rather ironic given that Thatcher's policies hurt the low-income group the most, but it didn't matter. Lamb was able to paint her as a champion of the lower class. (Source: Rupert: Ringmaster of the Information Circus, Shawcross, 1992, P. 153-155)

And he was later rewarded with a knighthood.

In Canada, Conrad Black was ringmaster of the media circus, before he went to prison for fraud.

Not only did he shift Canada's media to the right, but he also provided "communication" and financial backing to the neoconservative movement.

As a member of both the National Citizens Coalition (who ran an ABC: Anyone But [Joe] Clark campaign. (Loyal to the Core, Gerry Nicholls, 2009)) and the Fraser Institute, he helped to make sure that they stayed on track. He even allowed an employee, Peter White, to work with Brian Mulroney, to help capture the support of the Conservative youth movement.

Disillusioned with Mulroney, who he deemed not to be right wing enough, he switched his support to Reform, donating $20,000.00 to their 1993 campaign. According to the infamous James Keegstra, Preston Manning was often seen riding around in limos with Black, making him suspicious of the true intentions of the party.

Seeing perhaps more promise in Stockwell Day, as someone who could be manipulated, Black then went to work to create a charismatic leader. According to Trevor Harrison, in his book, Requiem for a Lightweight: Stockwell Day and Image Politics, Black hosted $1000 a plate dinners and allowed Ezra Levant to hold party fundraisers in his home.

Levant was a boyhood friend of Day's son Logan.

With a right-wing media firmly in place in Canada, thanks to Conrad Black, Rupert Murdoch trumped him after a luncheon with Stephen Harper, giving us the vile Fox News North.

So how did the media become so powerful, that they can defy governments, and yet so powerless, that journalists are not allowed to write the truth?

Wow! Isn't neoconservatism grand?

The Politics of Conceit: "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better"

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

In September of 2009, journalist and author, Murray Dobbin, wrote for the Tyee:

It seems irrefutable to me after 20 years of analyzing the career of Stephen Harper that he is incapable of providing democratic governance. Harper arguably shows some traits of what psychologists refer to as malignant narcissism, a dangerously heightened sense of self importance. Otto Kernberg, a leader in the study of personality disorders, describes malignant narcissism as "extreme self-absorption and insensitivity that often result in a trail of victims -- emotional wreckage left in the narcissist's wake." The victims Kernberg refers to are, of course, individuals, but in our case the principal victim is the Canadian nation -- its humanist accomplishments, its art and culture, the foundation of its science, its international standing and its democratic governance. (1)

At the time I agreed with his analysis, but only superficially. Harper's arrogance was revealed in everything he did, but I didn't really view it as a possible illness.

Then I came across a piece by Green Party leader Elizabeth May, that showed Harper's love of self in a different light. She had been acting as Speaker of the House for the Queens University Model Parliament, and had an opportunity to visit the Government Lobby.

The Government Lobby was a frequent work space when I was Senior Policy Advisor to the federal Minister of Environment back in the mid-1980s ... [but] it did not strike me until I walked into the Government Lobby to await my turn as Speaker that I had not been in there since Stephen Harper became Prime Minister. It used to have some paintings on the wall. Past prime ministers, certainly a formal portrait of the Queen. Landscapes. I know there was the occasional photo of current Prime Ministers, but when I walked in this time, I felt chilled to the bone.

Every available wall space had a large colour photo of Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper at Alert. Stephen Harper in fire fighter gear. Stephen Harper at his desk. Stephen Harper meeting the Dalai Lama. Even the photo of the Queen showed her in the company of Stephen Harper. None were great photos. None were more than enlarged snapshots in colour. They didn’t feel like art. The student with me said it was the same in Langevin Block, the Prime ministers Office. Photos of Stephen Harper everywhere. I will advance no theories as to what this means. ... The one thing I know is that it means something. (2)

This was later confirmed in the Ottawa Citizen. (3)

I bring this up often, because it kinda' freaks me out. I'm a fan of shows like CSI and Criminal Minds, and it reminds of a stalker's lair. Only he's stalking himself. Creepy.

I just finished chapter two of Lawrence Martin's new book, Harperland, and while he is doing a very good job at keeping balance, there are some revelations that help to unravel the complexities of Stephen Harper.

And what's interesting is that the most compelling statements come from insiders. People left in the "emotional wreckage [of] the narcissist's wake", but remain for the most part supportive.

Martin says that Stephen Harper has tried to emulate Pierre Trudeau, not politically, but by replicating the things he used to stay in power for so long. He fails to understand that we liked Trudeau in spite of those things, because he was moving us in the right direction. His legacy is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But even with those whose politics he agrees with, Stephen Harper has always been more concerned with how they achieved and held onto power. In William Johnson's book Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, he speaks of Harper's fondness for Margaret Thatcher.

And yet the story was not "let's study her policies and adopt them". But instead he and his friend John Weissenberger, read all of her election speeches looking for the right phrases to "win". (4)

But there is something else that goes back to the notion of Stephen Harper being the clinical definition of a malignant narcissist.

His friends and colleagues when speaking to Lawrence Martin, used terms like "cold", "He doesn't have human warmth", "sunless", "an emotionless robot". A former classmate called him "aloof" and said that "If there was a social event going on, he'd be the guy in the corner; pen and paper in pocket, looking at us in a kind of condescending way." (5)

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines narcissism as a:

Mental disorder characterized by extreme self-absorption, an exaggerated sense of self-importance, and a need for attention and admiration from others ... narcissism is characterized by an unusual coolness and composure, which is shaken only when the narcissistic confidence is threatened, and by the tendency to take others for granted or to exploit them.

Stephen Harper is his happiest when he's at a photo-op. You can see it. He's not acting, so his robotic nature is gone. He's in his element. All of these people focused on "him". All dedicated to making "him" look good. All paying "attention" and filled with "admiration" for "him". His "unusual coolness and composure" are gone, even if only for that brief moment in time.

And we've seen him "shaken" when his confidence was threatened. Look at how he acted in the House of Commons during the coalition threat. Or when Michael Ignatieff was challenging him and he suggested that he had been pouring over old tapes. His confidence was gone and it was visible. What we witnessed was panic.

And there's no argument that he has a "tendency to take others for granted or to exploit them". A common complaint from insiders. Look at how easily he can exploit religion, or the immigrant population for political gain. A man who is not religious and has referred to multiculturalism as a "weak nation strategy", can turn himself into a supporter so easily. He's like a Chameleon, changing colours to suit the situation.

So while he learned the art of the attack ad from Arthur Finklestein, and was indoctrinated by the anti-liberalism, anti-communist crowd; his real passion is power. The ultimate aphrodisiac for the malignant narcissist.

And with that I've come to realize something else. While he does follow the neoconservative principles adhered to by people like Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Roger Douglas, I also sense a bit of contempt.

While all three of those people did a great deal of damage, and widened the gap between rich and poor irrevocably, they also had something else in common. They all failed to finish the job they started.

I think that Stephen Harper believes in his condescending, narcissistic way, that he will win. That he will be the first to reach the ultimate goal. He will no longer be a "follower" of Thatcherism, Reaganomics or Rogernomics. Future neocons will follow him, and "Harperism" will be their battle cry.

He may be delusional, but no one has ever accused him of being sane.

And who knows. Maybe if he can hold onto power long enough ....

Previous:

The Politics of Contempt: The Nixon-Harper Ticket

The Politics of Hate: Where Will it Lead?

Sources:

1. Stephen Harper, Unfit to Govern: Few are thrilled to have another election, but we must put it to good use, By Murray Dobbin, The Tyee, September 10, 2009

2. Model Parliament, By Elizabeth May, Green Party, January 26, 2008

3. 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

4. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3, Pg. 49

5. Harperland:The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 8

Starving the Beast. The True Nature of Neoconservatism

Our 'neoconservatives' are neither new nor conservative, but old as Bablyon and evil as Hell. Edward Abbey (author)

There is a lot of confusion over the new conservative movement, and what it all means.

I suppose the first thing you need to understand, is that they are not conservative at all. They've simply hijacked the old conservative parties, and rebranded them into a radical movement, while exploiting the comfortable name recognition.

I came across a poster on-line the other day, that read:

Liberals Love People
Conservatives Love Money
Neoconservatives Love Power.

All of that is true, I suppose; but it's what neoconservatives are willing to do to gain power, and what they will do once they have it, that makes it, in the words of Edward Abbey above: Evil as Hell!

Starving the Beast and Understanding the Principles of Neoconservatism:

There was an op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday by Paul Krugman, that discusses one of the ideals of the neoconservative parties. He calls it starving the beast, a popular term when describing this movement.

O.K., the beast is starving. Now what? ... For readers who don’t know what I’m talking about: ever since Reagan, the G.O.P. has been run by people who want a much smaller government. In the famous words of the activist Grover Norquist, conservatives want to get the government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

In the video with this link, you will hear Reform-Conservative Patrick Brown discussing how Stephen Harper will not allow economic growth, but is committed to removing the government's involvement in our lives. What does that mean?

It means that they want to remove government from most aspects of our lives, including important programs like public health care and public education.

Yet polls have consistently shown that Canadians want those things, and other social programs to remain intact, and in fact would like them to be improved upon. So how do they meet their goals, when they run contra to ours? Krugman explains:

The idea — propounded by many members of the conservative intelligentsia, from Alan Greenspan to Irving Kristol — was basically that sympathetic politicians should engage in a game of bait and switch. Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans [conservatives] would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit.

The Harper government has already starved the beast with cuts to the GST, excessive corporate tax cuts and over spending during good times (remember that they inherited a thirteen billion dollar surplus, yet we were already in a deficit before the economic crisis hit.

The timing of the recession couldn't be better for them, as economists Philip DeMont and Eugene Lang explain that running big deficits while squeezing revenue is a way of reaching goal of smaller government.

A new conventional wisdom has emerged. The Harper government has been labelled moderate, centrist – even "liberal." ... The Harperites have lost their way, abandoned their guiding philosophy, sold out to those soft-headed, big government political parties for which deficits are regarded as a normal part of governing.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Harper government has, in fact, remained very true to its ideology. But that ideology is not "conservative." Rather, it is "neoconservative," and this makes a big difference on the question of deficits and fiscal policy.

For neoconservatives – the denomination that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s – balanced budgets are not a first-order priority. The overriding objective is to cut taxes; balancing the books comes a distant second or even third on the to-do list.

So the next time someone calls the Harper government 'conservative', remind them that they are not conservative but neoconservative, and there is a HUGE difference.

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

**************************

My Other Postings on the Neoconservative Movement

I Was Right, I Was Right, I Was Right ... Damn, I Was Right. Sigh.

Harper's Concern is Not the Economy But How to Keep From Blinking

Jim Flaherty Made a Right Mess of Things This Time

We've Been Neo-Conned When We Should Have Been Punked

Stephen Harper, Leo Strauss and Stating the Case Against Democracy

Can Stephen Harper Continue to Control the Ignorant Masses?

Stephen Harper, Social Darwinism and the Pioneer Fund

Conservative MP Patrick Brown Admits That Harper Will Not Encourage Economic Growth

Neo-Conservatism is Failing Canada and Failing us Badly

Why Did Harper Sit on Almost 2 Billion Dollars For Social Housing?

Neo-Conservatism Leaves us Swimming in a Sea of Red Ink

A Great Idea to Fight Neo-Conservatism and Restore Democracy in Canada

Stephen Harper Creates 'B' Movie for Preston Manning

It's interesting researching Harper's Reform Party roots. Though it's been more than 20 years since he helped the National Citizens Coalition and a group of wealthy executives start the radical movement, much of what took place back then we still see today.

Since 1967, Ernest Manning, and his son Preston, had a vision for uniting the right, as a formidable force against what they believed was rising socialism, that threatened their path to eternal salvation.

Harper and the NCC's main goal however, was to dismantle the Canadian government, eradicate the 'welfare state', and create a complete free-market political system. Their wealthy backers said that money was no object, so they fired up the bulldozers and we've been under attack ever since.

However, what's interesting, is that the economic theories they emulated, have been complete and utter failures. Mind you, they only failed their country's citizens, while the chosen few continually achieved greater wealth.

This part of Stephen Harper's story deals with his repackaging of Preston Manning, in the image of Ronald Reagan, but with the ... hmm ... balls of Margaret Thatcher.

'The Life of Ronald Reagan' Starring Preston Manning

"What I want to see above all is that this remains a country where someone can always gets rich" - Ronald Reagan

Stephen Harper was openly critical of Brian Mulroney for not reining in the deficit, and failing to make the tough choices required to do so. As an economics student, he was influenced by Margaret Thatcher and Roger Douglas, who both adopted a slash and burn style, come hell or high water. He had his friend John Weissenberger, research Ms Thatcher's successful election platforms to determine how she was able to sell her ideological plans to the voting public.

But to really package his boss, Preston Manning; he needed more than 'get tough' rhetoric. For the next step in his strategy he turned to then U.S. President, Ronald Reagan. Though Reagan was clearly on the side of the corporate elite, his handlers had been able to package him as a 'folksy' caricature who would have mass appeal to a discouraged nation.

"As many people have remarked, Reagan was the perfect man for the times, a media star for the emerging phenomenon of the media based election ... Reagan's stint in Hollywood seemed more relevant by the minute as the Great Communicator demonstrated how to reach millions of viewers and manipulate the broadcast media to suit his purposes .. Reagan kept his message simple and his look sincere. His homey style and genuine conviction touched a chord with the viewing public, so much so that, for some, the message hardly mattered." (Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 19-20)

But Preston Manning was no Ronald Reagan. For one thing he was an intellectual, with a background in physics, who had spent a great deal of time engaged in top secret research for several agencies, including the U.S. military. Ronald Reagan was never anything more than 'B' movie actor, who had just landed his biggest role.

"This representation of Reagan as a citizen leader reluctantly performing his civic duty and not a professional politician .. has been the fundamental stock line for more than twenty years" (Jeffreys, 1999, Pg. 20)

Manning's squeaky voice and country preacher demeanour, seemed perfectly suited to attract the discontented masses in the West, who had been let down by the Tories under Mulroney. Riding the anger of the National Energy Program and a growing feeling of alienation from Ottawa; Manning arrived on the political stage at just the right time.

He was able to convince his followers that he was one of them, despite the fact that he had grown up extremely wealthy and in the limelight of Alberta politics. His father had been Premier for 25 years and the Manning name was very well known, and highly respected.

So despite the fact that this was clearly not a populist party, and Preston Manning clearly not a non-political figure, he was able to convince his flock that they were his leaders, while what became dubbed the 'Calgary Clique' (which included Stephen Harper) made all the important decisions.

However, there was something else that Harper and the Reform Party learned from the Reagan team. How to harness the energies of anger and religious fervor, and turn it into votes. At the Reform Party assembly they voted in favour of allowing extremists into the party, even Doug Christie.

But the Reagan campaign team, was able to bring it to a science and some of the following strategies they devised, are still being used by Harper's Reform-Conservatives today. From Hard Right Turn:

"As the percentage of Americans who voted in federal elections continued to decline to dangerously low levels in the 1970's, it was possible for the Republican strategists to separate voters into categories, and then target those whom they believed would not only buy their message, but go to the polling booth and support them" (pg. 22)

Despite the fact that Stephen Harper claims that he is not a social conservative, and has no problem with homosexuality, this video shows how he is able to whip a crowd into a frenzy, pretending that he will put an end to same-sex marriage if they can get him a majority. I'd be willing to bet that everyone there that day, voted, and everyone there that day, voted Reform-Conservative.

The constant attack ads that the Reformers launch today, are driving Canadians away from the polls. Last election we saw the lowest turnout in this country's history, yet they continue to poison the well.

"With Reagan's outspoken opposition to the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Republican strategists knew that they would have to write off the black vote. But although 90 per cent of black voters cast their ballots for the democrats, only 30 percent of eligible black Americans voted"

Republican strategist Paul Weyrich stated "I don't want everyone to vote ... our leverage in the election quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down. We have no moral responsibility to turn out our opposition." (pg. 22)

"According to one analysis; 'by appealing to married women, and especially those between the ages of 45 and 65, on a pro-family platform, Reagan maximized the electoral value of gender politics'. The issue for the Republicans was not the female vote, but the female voter." (pg. 23)

Reagan also exploited the Religious Right, who were "... anxious to reinsert religion and 'family values' into the public education system."

Like Margaret Thatcher, Reagan's policies were a disaster. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer and his administration created the largest number of homeless people in the nation's history.

Something to think about before we hand Stephen Harper a majority.

Margaret Thatcher and What a Stephen Harper Majority Would Look Like

Stephen Harper has always been a fan of slash and burn leaders and politicians, including Margaret Thatcher. She and others became the driving force behind his Reform Party's financial policies, which fit in well with their plans to tear down the 'welfare state' and foil what they deemed to be a 'socialist conspiracy'.

Like Thatcher, he was a devotee of Friedrich Hayek, the libertarian economist who believed that free-market capitalism was the best defense against socialist and collectivist thought.

However, the Reform Party also brought fundamentalist Christian dogma into their party platform, not simply because they firmly believed in theocracy, but knew that they could tap into religious fervour which would naturally gain them votes. Many policies were intentionally ambiguous to appease both the moderates and the extremists.

So when they said that issues on things like abortion and same-sex marriage would be determined in a 'free vote', the extremists heard that they would be abolished, while the moderates felt good that the people would decide. However, to Preston Manning 'free vote' only meant the free vote of his caucus, not the grassroots, on contentious issues.

However, from Ernest Manning's Socreds, to Preston Manning's Reformers, to Harper's Reform-Alliance- Conservatives - Northern Foundation - National Citizens Coalition; the ultimate goal is the abolishment of the welfare state in favour of free-market capitalism; with an evangelical twist. And they were going to do it, whether we liked it or not.

Ernest Manning stated that "The will of the people is bound to come into conflict with the will of God" and according to Murray Dobbin: "Throughout his political career, Ernest Manning was motivated by religion, and more specifically, by anti-Socialism: 'Socialism, to Manning, is a system which largely prevents the individual from attaining the state of grace and hence salvation ... Giving to the individual societal benefits such as free medical care ... breeds idleness... causing a break down in his relationship with God'."Manning argued that 'where the state imposed a monopoly on a service ... the sinful philosophy of state collectivism scored a victory'. (Preston Manning and the Reform Party. Author: Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 9)

Preston Manning stated when he was a member of the Youth wing of the Social Credit Party; "We (socreds) believe that Canada is drifting towards socialism even when the majority of Canadians are opposed to collectivism and the welfare state..." (Dobbin, 1992, Pg. 24-25)

And of course Stephen Harper weighed in: "Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it."

Margaret Thatcher and the Welfare State

"There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

"Harper asked Weissenberger to dig up the Conservative Party manifestos under which Margaret Thatcher had fought ... They admired the clarity with which she nailed her theses to the wall. 'No one who has lived in this country during the last five years can fail to be aware of how the balance of our society has been increasingly tilted in favour of the State at the expense of individual freedom.'" (Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada by William Johnson ISBN 0-7710 4350-3, 2005, Pg. 49)

Like Harper and all his various parties, lobby groups and think tanks; Ms Thatcher believed that all economic problems are a result of social programs, that created the welfare state.

This term was actually used to describe a series of programs aimed at reducing the hardships of the entire population, by providing services such as national health care, pensions and social assistance; with a redistribution of wealth. There was also a strong feeling after WWII, that if a nation was asked to sacrifice at a time of war, they should be taken care of during a time of peace.

But Margaret Thatcher was having none of it, and with traits which have often been used to describe our current PM; "... one of her (Thatcher's) own supporters described her as having 'a certain impatience with subtlety of feeling, a lack of sympathy with people unlike her..." (Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 8)

She arrived on the scene at a time when Britain was experiencing growing deficits and slow economic recovery, so her promises to turn the country's economy around were welcomed at first.

"The 'crisis' of the welfare state provided Margaret Thatcher with her opportunity to seize control of the political agenda and take the Conservative Party sharply to the right. In doing so she altered the course of British politics for decades and influenced political development in many other Western democracies .... she was crystallizing her thinking, largely through intensive reading of the works of Friedrich von Hayek .... with high unemployment and inflation fuelling the anxiety of Britain's middle class, Thatcher was ready to present her ideas for public consumption in a Conservative party policy document entitled 'Right Thinking.'

"This was not a manifesto for the faint of heart ... What Thatcher was proposing was nothing less than the dismantling of much of the infrastructure of the modern liberal democratic state. Government was the enemy (Harper feels the same way) ... The woman ... wanted to privatize, deregulate and otherwise reduce state intervention in the economy ... Most of all, she wanted to break the power of the unions, whom she loathed." (Jeffrey, 1999, Pg. 10-12)

Those in her own cabinet who opposed her revolutionary style, she referred to as 'wets' and one of her MPs, Julian Critchley once said "She cannot see an institution without hitting it with her handbag." From then on her demolition of the British system was referred to as 'handbagging.'

"In addition to the middle class, luck was on her side ... Many of her most drastic measures were implemented during the economic recovery, minimizing their impact in the short term . When she got into difficulties with the electorate and her party ... it was as much for her imperious leadership style as her draconian policies. There were many direct and violent confrontations with labour, and various groups whom the prime minister dismissed as 'special interest'. Society became visibly more polarized as the winners and losers of Thatcehrism emerged.' (Jeffrey, 1999, Pg. 14)

We have to remember that Thatcherism failed. She privatized everything, and since profit was now the trigger, it resulted in higher costs and less services. While these enterprises were raking in record profits, unemployment rose, resulting in the select few making significant gains at expense of the majority. We've seen the same thing under George Bush, resulting in one of the worst economic crises in recent history.

And of course her removable of controls left citizens vulnerable to health risks. The same thing happened under Mike Harris, when he reduced the number of water inspectors: Walkerton. Stephen Harper allowed the meat industry to inspect their own plants: Listeriosis.

We have to think long and hard before we give this man a majority. In fact we should think even longer and harder about giving him another mandate at all. With the size of Canada's debt and deficit, he will be able to implement the failed economic policies of Margaret Thatcher, fulfilling his career dream of dismantling the government of Canada.

Mike Harris and the American "Common Sense" Revolution

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

The popular lore surrounding the Common Sense Revolution of Mike Harris, was that someone on their "whiz kid" team suggested that their platform be based on "common sense", and eureka, the title was born.

Sounds lovely. Unfortunately it's a load of bunk.

It was actually borrowed from south of the border, and as with everything else related to Canada's neoconservative movement, came from a Republican strategist.

Tom Long and Mike Murphy

Between 1990 and their abysmal showing in the election, to 1995 when they were swept to victory, the young ideologues or "whiz kids" worked tirelessly to create a platform and persona for Mike Harris. The platform was easy, most of it borrowed from Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. But selling it was going to be the obstacle.

How do you tell an electorate that you are going to drastically cut funding for health care and education and make it palpable?

First off, you don't. Instead you follow the advise of Gerry Nicholls, then heading up Ontarians for Responsible Government, part of the National Citizens Coalition. You look for an enemy. And in this case the enemy was "taxes".

When Stephen Harper was trying to figure out how to sell his Reform Party's neoconservative platform, he had his friend John Weissenberger "dig up the Conservative Party manifestos under which Margaret Thatcher had fought her first elections as leader of the opposition." (1)

But the Harris team instead turned to Republican strategist Mike Murphy, who was a close personal friend of Tom Long's. Long had spent a great deal of time in the United States and had even worked on Ronald Reagan's campaign, so he knew how the game was played.

Just learning that Mike Murphy was part of the Harris team made the opposition nervous. (2) His reputation was and still is, well known as a details man. (3)

He had just come off a successful campaign for New Jersey governor, Christine Todd Whitman:

One of Tom Long's closest friends happened to be Mike Murphy, an American political consultant who later ran right-wing extremist Lamar Alexander's unsuccessful bid for the Republican presidential primary. In 1993, however, Murphy was advising another Republican, Christine Todd Whitman, in her successful campaign for the governorship of New Jersey. Whitman defeated a popular Democratic incumbent, Jim Florio, primarily on the basis of a Murphy-inspired campaign using a "common sense" slogan and pledging a 30 per cent tax cut. Since her victory, the activities of her government in implementing this plan had been carefully charted by Harris aide Bill King. In March 1994, Harris actually travelled to New Jersey to meet Whitman and discuss strategy. Two months later, the "Common Sense Revolution" with its 30 per cent tax cut was unveiled. (4)

When the Harris government's tax cuts were implemented, so too were user fees and the reduction of money going to municipalities, meaning no real savings. These were the same complaints heard by New Jersey residents under Whitman. She did follow through on the 30% tax cut, but was forced to raid the state pension fund to balance the budget. She also cut 4,000 jobs from the public service and reduced money going to municipalities, resulting in higher property taxes. So again, no one really gained. (5)

What's interesting is that Whitman's 1997 campaign was "Promises Made. Promises Kept" This became the rallying cry of the Harper government, so they too must have tapped into Murphy's messaging. Unfortunately it was just hot air after breaking his promise on Income Trusts.

" ... if you go to a Harper rally, you can’t hear yourself think for all the Tories chanting “promise made, promise kept” over and over again like a herd of demented Moonies. Some of them get so excited they smack themselves in the forehead over and over again while they chant it. During the last election Jason Kenney was forced to apply liberal amounts of pancake makeup above his eyebrows to hide the bruising.

Well thank God that’s over. Because the next time Stephen Harper or any of his minions chant “promise made, promise kept,” you might want to step back, because if there is a God, the forecast calls for lightning." (6)

Sources:

1. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, Douglas-Gibson, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3 6, Pg. 49

2. Right Turn: How the Tories Took Ontario, By Christina Blizzard, Dundern Press, 1995, ISBN 1550022547, Pg. 3

3. G.O.P. Attack Dog And Chief Hand-Holder; Lazio Adviser Has a History of Making Ads Snarl and Politicians Feel Confident, By Eisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, July 13, 2000

4. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2 4, Pg. 166

5. Conservative hopes for off-year elections, by Bernadette Malone, Policy Review No 85, 1997

6. Promise Made Promise Kept, By Rick Mercer, November 6, 2006

Fate Brings Anthony Panayi to Canada With Fateful Consequences

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

Tony Panayi arrived with his parents to Canada when he was just four-years-old. Of Middle Eastern descent, his father a Greek Cypriot and his mother a Canadian. This was 1965 and by 1972, his parents had separated, and he would spend the rest of his childhood in a high-rise apartment in Toronto.

He cut his political teeth campaigning door to door with his mother for her boss, Ontario Tory MPP Bill Hodgson. However, he was never a Progressive Conservative at heart, and in fact his political beliefs were what is now called neoconservative.

"What I saw on the front of Time magazine, which I read religiously every week, was this failure of the American democratic impulse," he remembers. "Around us was the fall of Vietnam, the emasculation of American power, Watergate .... What I remember was the frontal assault on American power, and the encroachment by communism all over the world. And in Canada, there were the failed experiments of Pierre Trudeau. His economic experiments were a shambles, his anti-Americanism wasn't getting us anywhere, the increasing role of the state in all aspects of our lives was, in my view, creating more problems than it was solving. And then in 1978 you had this woman named Margaret Thatcher, who proved you could turn back some of the awful things done by socialism and set things right again. And then in 1980 you had this guy Ronald Reagan. They showed you could have conservative principles and still win." (1)

Unfortunately, Clement was misguided by his heroes. Margaret Thatcher was a train wreck:

When Margaret Thatcher was elected I started my first year at university. Very quickly in the face of her Reagan-inspired "hard economics" and austerity treatment I saw every possibility of employment at the end of my course evaporate. 3.3 million were unemployed with no hope of a job. The economy went into recession and the dole was being withdrawn unless you could "prove" you were actively searching for work. It ruined millions of people's lives and put millions more into unproductive boredom and hardship. It cost the country £40b in lost productivity and the only thing Margaret did was make it worse. (2)

And Ronald Reagan, while he preached small government, actually expanded the government and his horrible economics made the rich richer and created the most homeless people in the history of the United States. (3) He also increased the debt by two trillion dollars, while increasing federal spending and federal staff. (4)

Nonetheless, Panayi "... arrived at the University of Toronto in 1979 filled with missionary zeal to bring the faith of Thatcher and Reagan to the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario ..." (1)

But he also arrived with something else ... a new name. His mother had just married former MPP John Clement, and though already an adult more or less, Tony decided to take his stepfather's name, reinventing himself as Tony Clement.

The same year, 1979, another young man would enrol at the University of Toronto, but would only stay for two months, opting to move to Edmonton to take a job in the mail room at Imperial Oil, the company his father had worked for. This would be his only real job outside of politics. Also an avid fan of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, Stephen Harper would go on to help found the Reform Party, lead the Alliance Party and eventually become the movement's first prime minister. (5)

It's unlikely that Clement and Harper met at the school, but Tony did find willing accomplices in fellow students Alister Campbell, Tom Long and Mitch Patten, all sharing the same ideology.

"At a time when the rest of the country was enchanted with the charismatic prime minister [Trudeau] and his vision of Canada, simply being a Conservative was an unusual choice. To be committed to the neoconservative agenda of Thatcher and Reagan during this period was nothing short of suicidal, politically speaking." (6)

And yet this small group of young radicals were able to take over the campus Conservatives, increasing it's membership from being almost nothing to 500, with gimmicks (Clement once dressed in a penguin costume), and aggressive marketing. Did they change minds? It's difficult to know, but they presented a platform that was anything but the status quo:

They believed that governments needed to cut taxes in order stimulate spending and increase individual choice, that they needed to balance their budgets in order to escape the trap of escalating deficits, that they needed to get out of most economic regulation in order to let the market reward winners, punish losers, and generate wealth for everyone. Most important, governments needed to abolish most of their social programs, which took money from people who earned it and gave it to people who hadn't. Such a doctrine was anathema to moderate Conservatives, who felt, as former federal leader Robert Stanfield argued, that the market should not be trusted more than was necessary. (7)

And not content with simply drawing in the conservative minded they also sought to change the views of the left:

Eventually the young PCs at the University of Toronto also decided to take on their left-wing enemies on campus, launching a campaign against a proposal to double the compulsory fees levied against each student in support of the Ontario Federation of Students. The Tories accused the federation of wasting money on a bloated administration, and of worrying more about helping the Sandinistas than representing student interests. (Among other things, the Tories put up a sign in an Engineering building proclaiming "Three dollars will get you the Ontario Federation of Students or seven beers at the Brunswick House. Take your pick.") They won a referendum on the issue in a landslide. (7)

They quickly became a force to be reckoned with:

By the early 1980s, as Mike Harris was first finding his feet as a young MPP, the neo-conservative youth were an increasing power within the provincial Conservatives. Long—a bit older than most of the others, passionate and uncompromising—led the troops. "There were huge fights over who was going to control the campus wing of the party," Long remembers. "That got settled in the late seventies, and for about ten years or so my faction controlled the campus wing." In 1982, Long managed the campaign that secured control for the neo-cons of the executive of the Progressive Conservative Youth Association. Both the campus and youth wings of the party were now firmly led by ideologues of the far Right. These wings were important to the party, both for the influence they wielded at leadership conventions, and for the legions of indefatigable volunteers they supplied during campaigns. (7)

But they would soon move on to bigger challenges as they steered toward taking over not just a university campus, but an entire province.

Sources:

1. Promised Land: Inside the Mike Harris Revolution, By John Ibbitson, 1997, ISBN: 0136738648, Pg. 30

2. 1979: Looking back at the Thatcher era, By Mike Rumfitt, May 4, 2005

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

4. Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy, By Will Bunch, Free Press, ISBN: 978-1-4165-9762-9

5. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3

6. Jeffrey, 1999, Pg. 164

7. Ibbitson, 1997, Pg. 31-32