Redefining Populism: Think Tanks, Foundations and Institutes, Oh My!

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

The Tea Party in the United States is being called a grassroots movement. The voices of the people.

But like the Reform movement, this is just another vehicle for the corporate world, who risked losing their scheduled "Bush tax cuts".

So working through the Republican Party, they have managed to shift the United States even further to the right. To a spot just right of sanity.

But while the Tea Party may be steeped in Orange Pekoe, those funding and benefiting from the clinking teaspoons, prefer champagne and caviar.

According to Linda McQuaig:

Back in 1980, when Ronald Reagan launched his campaign for a right-wing revolution in America, David Koch was a disgruntled billionaire who thought Reagan wasn’t far enough to the right. Today, Koch is still a disgruntled billionaire and still convinced the Reagan revolution hasn’t gone nearly far enough in cutting taxes on the rich, dismantling the welfare state and gutting government controls on business.

But today, as Americans vote in their mid-term elections, Koch is no longer in the political wilderness. After pumping more than $100 million into arch-conservative political organizations over the past 30 years, he (and billionaire brother Charles) now appear close to pushing U.S. politics significantly further to the right — even though the wealthy elite is already richer and more powerful today than it’s been since the 1920s. Through their Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the Koch brothers have micromanaged the rise of the purportedly grassroots Tea Party movement. (1)

And that's not all the Koch brothers have been behind. When an organization founded by one of Harper's MPs, John Weston, and former Stockwell Day supporter, John Carpay, launched attack ads in the US against Obama's healthcare plan, the Koch Foundation, through their Americans for Prosperity, helped to pay the bills. You can read all about it here.

These so-called grassroots movements have been called astroturf, but fake or not, the Tea Party is here to stay.

And using foundations to fund these movements is clever, because it means that while they warble against "taxes" the donations these foundations contribute is tax deductible, so those warbling taxpayers are funding their own demise.

We have the same thing in Canada. The Griffith Foundation for starters, donated $ 100,000.00 tax deductible dollars to the Fraser Institute. (2) The same Fraser Institute that helped to launch the Reform party. Jason Kenney and Rob Anders are both alumni.

And when Stephen Harper came to power he immediately changed the rules to make it even easier for these groups to benefit from our tax dollars.

Just a year after the Fraser's anniversary, Harper was prime minister and it was payback time. Buried in his first budget was a provision to exempt from capital gains tax donations of stock to charity. Adding this new exemption to the existing tax credit for donations to charities means that the donor pays only 40 percent of the dollars he donates. Taxpayers pick up the rest. (3)

In his book Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, Trevor Harrison speaks of the assorted think-tanks that helped to advance neoconservatism in Canada. When we were still allowed to call it neoconservatism.

The Fraser Institute was founded in British Columbia in November 1974 by Michael Walker, the son of a Newfoundland miner. Walker, holder of a doctorate in economics from the University of Western Ontario, started the institute with the monetary support of BC's business community, which was still reeling from the NDP's election in 1972. By 1984 the institute was operating on an annual budget of $900,000, funded by some of Canada's largest business interests, including Sam Belzberg of First City Trust, Sonja Bata of Bata Limited, A.J. de Grandpre of Bell Canada, and Lorne Lodge of IBM Canada.

The Fraser Institute also boasts impressive conservative credentials. The institute's authors include Milton Friedman [Ronald Reagan's economic adviser] and Herbert Grubel, while its editorial board includes Sir Alan Walters, former personal economic adviser to Margaret Thatcher. Finally, William F. Buckley Jr, brother-in-law of BC Socred bagman Austin Taylor, is a favourite guest speaker of the institute.

In short, the Fraser Institute is a conservative think-tank heavily funded by the corporate sector. Like the National Citizens' Coalition [Stephen Harper was president of the NCC when he left to run for leadership of the Alliance Party] , the Fraser Institute has steadfastly used its position to advance the neo-conservative agenda, an agenda liberally sprinkled with such Reaganite buzzwords as fiscal restraint, downsizing, and privatization. (4)

We are funding our own demise.

And these "think-tank" "astroturf" groups are growing. Dennis Gruending revealed several new ones, all with ties to Stephen Harper.

· the Manning Centre, created by Preston and his wife Sandra to train people how to succeed at conservative politics;

· the Ottawa-based Institute for Canadian Values, which has as its executive director Joseph Ben-Ami, a former political organizer for Stockwell Day.; and

· the Ottawa-based Institute for Marriage and Family, created by Dr James Dobson’s powerful US Focus on the Family (Canada), to provide socially conservative research and advice.

. the Hamilton-based Work Research Foundation (WRF), vice-president of research, Ray Pennings, was an unsuccessful Canadian Alliance candidate in the
2000 federal election.

The emergence of all these organizations might indicate that Canada is now seen as fertile territory for the think tank industry. If so, we all (and unions especially) should brace for an onslaught of “free market” propaganda. The challenge for progressive groups is provide better information and to distribute it widely within the community. (5)

And then there's the Frontier Centre, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Montreal Economic Institute (Maxime Bernier), the Civitas Society, the Canadian Constitution Foundation. The list is endless.

Yes Folks. We are funding our own demise.

Sources:

1. Fortunes fertilize grassroots, By Linda McQuaig, Toronto Star, November 2, 2010

2. Behind Closed Doors: How the Rich Won Control of Canada's Tax System, By Linda McQuaig, Viking Press, 1987, ISBN: 0-670-81578-7, Pg. 57

3. Harperstein, Straight.com, By Donald Gutstein, July 6, 2006

4. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, Pg. 48-49

5. Conservative think tanks multiply in Canada, By Dennis Gruending, Pulpit and Politics, November 10, 2007

Redefining Populism and a Battle for Religion

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

In 1963, The Anglican Congress sought out Pierre Berton, to write a book on Christianity in Canada.

Inspired by Vatican II, a modernizing of the Catholic faith, they wanted to also change focus, and become a "listening" church, "hearing" things the world around them was saying. (1)

They chose Berton because he was an agnostic. They didn't want another religious text, but an articulate and honest account of the Church at the time.

And Berton delivered. The resulting book; The Comfortable Pew became a best-seller and a topic of conversation for some time.

But not everyone was impressed.

Ted Byfield and the Opposition of Fundamentalists

Ted Byfield was a controversial journalist, publisher and author, perhaps best known for his cult-like disciplinary school, the Company of the Cross. He was responsible for the gruelling canoe trip that resulted in the deaths of twelve boys and one instructor in 1978.

When Berton's book hit the shelves, Byfield, then an Anglican, was outraged. In response, he wrote his own book: Just Think Mr. Berton (A Little Harder).

A die-hard fundamentalist, Byfield was opposed to any modernization of the Anglican Church. Sin was sin. You can't modernize that.

“If adultery or homosexuality is wrong in the sight of God, then all the task forces in Christendom aren’t going to make it right. If God is timeless and changeless, then human conduct considered wrong in the eighth century is just as wrong in the twentieth” (2)

And if Berton's book was a call for the Church to become socially relevant, Byfield's was the exact opposite, and he became a man on a mission.

The book defended traditional religious morality and practice and denounced the increasing attempts of Christian churches to become socially 'relevant.' This foray into journalism reawakened Byfield's appetite for the news business, and in 1973 he convinced the other members of the Genesee board to begin publishing a weekly newsmagazine, St. John's Edmonton Report. Edmonton Report was followed into production four years later by St. John's Calgary Report. In 1979 both magazines were merged into Alberta Report. By 1986 an identical but renamed version of Alberta Report ...

Articulate and controversial, the Alberta Report has been, since its inception, western Canada's most prominent and consistent organ for the dissemination of conservative values. In articles and, more especially, editorials and columns (written by Ted and, in recent years, his son Link and other guest writers), the magazine has stood firmly for corporal and capital punishment, the teaching of fundamentalist Christian religion in schools, the rights of the family (that is, the parents), and free enterprise, while espousing an often virulent hatred of metrification, pro-choice advocates, feminism in general, public school curriculums and methods of discipline, divorce, human rights commissions, 'mainstream' Christianity, homosexuality, penal reform, sex education, unions, public ownership, teachers' associations, and rock music. (3)

And the Alberta Report would help to launch the Reform movement.

The Merging of Ideas

After two years of Brian Mulroney, the West was once again ready to rise up. Ted Byfield was part of a group discussing a new party, where the only thing the government would legislate was morality. Another group of wealthy oilmen wanted to remove any impediments to their industry, and Preston Manning really wanted to be prime minister. He felt that the time may finally be right to launch the party that he and his father had envisioned in their Political Realignment.

A socially conservative party.

The oilmen provided the capital, Manning the political platform and Byfield the propaganda, by writing a series of articles calling for the need of a new party to represent the west. In fact it was Byfield who came up with the party slogan: "The West Wants in".

He also provided free advertising for any party events, making sure he attracted the "right" people. Those who read his magazine and shared his views. They provided the much needed "populist" base, for an AstroTurf party representing corporate interests.

Sources:

1. The Comfortable Pew Revisited, By Michael Creal, Catholic New Times, January 16, 2005

2. The Wisdom of Ted Byfield, The Van Maren Traditionalist Views, December 22, 2009

3. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada. By Trevor Harrison Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, pg. 50-51

Redefining Populism as a Matter of Convenience

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

When Trevor Harrison wrote Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, in 1995; the party had already achieved it's first real electoral success. It was also creating a great deal of concern among Canada's traditional ruling class.

Bursting onto the scene at the same time as another populist movement turned party, the Bloc Québécois; the political landscape of Canada was about to change dramatically.

And not for the better.

Was the Reform Party Really Populist?

Harrison starts out by examining the party from a populist perspective. But was it really a populist party? It had many elements of populism.

A belief system forged out of the conjunction of nationalism with ethno-cultural, religious, and/or racial prejudice." Nativist attitudes are most likely held by people in social groups that have the same racial, ethnic, and/or religious characteristics as the dominant class, but not the economic or political power. (1)

There's no argument that the party saw themselves as the voice of the white English speaking population, who opposed what they felt was forced multiculturalism and of course bilingualism, and concessions to Quebec. They saw themselves as being in the majority and yet the minority in terms of representation.

Such attitudes emerge most frequently during periods of social, political, or economic crisis, the latter form of crisis suggesting that nativism also may be linked to a feeling of 'relative deprivation."' However caused, the crisis nonetheless results in the emergence of a sense of 'calling' among the heretofore-identified social groups to defend the country against perceived internal threats posed by various minority groups." (1)

The most common complaints at the early conventions included turbans in the RCMP, destabilizing immigration, and government funding to "radical feminist" and homosexual groups. They saw moral decay and a threat to their way of life. Ward Cleaver was being recast.

An essential feature of populist movements is their mass-organizational nature, a view elaborated upon by others who have stated that the core notion underlying populism is that of 'a people' defined by its historic, geographic, and/or cultural roots.' Perhaps the clearest definition of populism, however, is provided by Peter Sinclair.' According to Sinclair, a populist movement frequently 'stresses the worth of the common people and advocates their political supremacy,' rejects 'intermediate associations between the mass and leaders,' and directs its protests 'against some group which lies outside the local society.'

The Reform Party had all the elements of a populist party but there was a big difference.

Reform Party populism was contrived.

It was not about a popular person championing a cause and garnering followers to that cause. Nor was it about common people being led by one of their own. This was a deliberate intent to incite anger, and to turn that anger into political success.

And the ultimate goal was to create a new ruling "elite", drawn from the corporate world, who would manipulate the common people into believing that they were in fact, the ones calling the shots.

In Lawrence Martin's book of former Bloc leader, Lucien Bouchard; The Antagonist, he refers to him as probably "the greatest threat to unity Canada has ever known", and suggests that Bouchard is a complex man, who "spends most of the time trying to keep his aggressiveness in check." (2)

In Martin's new book Harperland, he paints a similar picture of Stephen Harper.

Bouchard was a threat to unity, while Harper is a threat to democracy. Both men dangerous. Both volatile and driven.

The only difference between them is that Bouchard's agenda was always known. We're still unravelling Harper's.

Continuation:

Redefining Populism as a Political Alternative

Redefining Populism and the Creation of Social Conservatism

Sources:

1. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995, ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6 3 7, Pg. 5-7

2. The Antagonist: Lucien Bouchard and the Politics of Delusion, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 1997, ISBN: 0-670-87437-X, Pg. VII

Redefining Populism as a Matter of Convenience

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

When Trevor Harrison wrote Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, in 1995; the party had already achieved it's first real electoral success. It was also creating a great deal of concern among Canada's traditional ruling class.

Bursting onto the scene at the same time as another populist movement turned party, the Bloc Québécois; the political landscape of Canada was about to change dramatically.

And not for the better.

Was the Reform Party Really Populist?

Harrison starts out by examining the party from a populist perspective. But was it really a populist party? It had many elements of populism.

A belief system forged out of the conjunction of nationalism with ethno-cultural, religious, and/or racial prejudice." Nativist attitudes are most likely held by people in social groups that have the same racial, ethnic, and/or religious characteristics as the dominant class, but not the economic or political power. (1)

There's no argument that the party saw themselves as the voice of the white English speaking population, who opposed what they felt was forced multiculturalism and of course bilingualism, and concessions to Quebec. They saw themselves as being in the majority and yet the minority in terms of representation.

Such attitudes emerge most frequently during periods of social, political, or economic crisis, the latter form of crisis suggesting that nativism also may be linked to a feeling of 'relative deprivation."' However caused, the crisis nonetheless results in the emergence of a sense of 'calling' among the heretofore-identified social groups to defend the country against perceived internal threats posed by various minority groups." (1)

The most common complaints at the early conventions included turbans in the RCMP, destabilizing immigration, and government funding to "radical feminist" and homosexual groups. They saw moral decay and a threat to their way of life. Ward Cleaver was being recast.

An essential feature of populist movements is their mass-organizational nature, a view elaborated upon by others who have stated that the core notion underlying populism is that of 'a people' defined by its historic, geographic, and/or cultural roots.' Perhaps the clearest definition of populism, however, is provided by Peter Sinclair.' According to Sinclair, a populist movement frequently 'stresses the worth of the common people and advocates their political supremacy,' rejects 'intermediate associations between the mass and leaders,' and directs its protests 'against some group which lies outside the local society.'

The Reform Party had all the elements of a populist party but there was a big difference.

Reform Party populism was contrived.

It was not about a popular person championing a cause and garnering followers to that cause. Nor was it about common people being led by one of their own. This was a deliberate intent to incite anger, and to turn that anger into political success.

And the ultimate goal was to create a new ruling "elite", drawn from the corporate world, who would manipulate the common people into believing that they were in fact, the ones calling the shots.

In Lawrence Martin's book of former Bloc leader, Lucien Bouchard; The Antagonist, he refers to him as probably "the greatest threat to unity Canada has ever known", and suggests that Bouchard is a complex man, who "spends most of the time trying to keep his aggressiveness in check." (2)

In Martin's new book Harperland, he paints a similar picture of Stephen Harper.

Bouchard was a threat to unity, while Harper is a threat to democracy. Both men dangerous. Both volatile and driven.

The only difference between them is that Bouchard's agenda was always known. We're still unravelling Harper's.

Sources:

1. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995, ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6 3 7, Pg. 5-7

2. The Antagonist: Lucien Bouchard and the Politics of Delusion, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 1997, ISBN: 0-670-87437-X, Pg. VII