Dog Whistle Politics and the Return of Old Dance Partners

 "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." (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)

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 Luntz, was then working with Canada's Reform Party, but took his leave to help Newt draft his Contract With America. Ralph Reed of the U.S. Christian Coalition wrote a corresponding document Contract With the American Family, to bring in the Religious Right.

Jason Kenney and company travelled to Washington in 1995 to attend a Christian Coalition conference, and soon after:

... Even more ominous for democratic rights in [British Columbia] is the recent hatching of the B.C. clone of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. With 1.7 million active members and a $25 million (US) annual budget, the U.S. organization has become a formidable lobbying force in American politics, installing its anti-choice, anti-gay agenda and candidates at all levels of government, from school boards to Congress .... the Christian Coalition of Canada materialized after dozens of conservative Christians in this country thronged to Washington, DC, last fall [1995] to attend a major convention of the U.S. organization.

"Advisors" to the new CCC reportedly include Ted and Link Byfield (owners of the ultra-conservative B.C. Report and Alberta Report magazines), Jason Kenny (head of the Canadian Taxpayers Association), and Alex Parachin (head of the Christian Broadcasting Associates in Toronto, the Canadian branch plant of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network).

The B.C. chapter is sure to be a factor in the upcoming election, giving a boost to Reform Party candidates and any others who will go on record opposing abortion ... While Don Spratt may be telling readers "Nobody has anything to fear from the Christian Coalition," progressive activists and journalists will have to make sure the electorate knows better." (The Christian Coalition Comes to Canada, by Kim Goldberg, The Albion Monitor, May 5, 1996)

"Journalists will have to make sure the electorate knows better"? Yeah. Good luck with that. A decade and a half later and they still don't get it.

Even Kelly Block's recent attack on our aboriginal communities, stems from American neoconservatism. She's working on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, described as a pyramid scheme. And CTF is a spin-off of Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform.

Both traverse the country with their debt clocks and force conservative politicians to sign pledges not to increase government revenue. Jason Kenney had Mike Harris sign it in 1995. Enough said.

I now watch American political commentary programs, because it's the only way I know what Harper's next move will be. And it is also the only way to understand the politics of the Conservative Party of Canada. They are part of the Conservative movement that began in the U.S. in the 1940s, imported by Ernest Manning, and they have been in lock step ever since.

We just didn't notice until they came to power in 2006. It has been said that the Harperites introduced Western style politics, but in fact, it was American style Conservatism.

Listening to someone like Evan Solomon, is like having a hockey commentator call the plays at a baseball game. He's not even in the ballpark.

Dog Whistles and Playing to the Base

A letter in Time magazine this week, discusses why many Republicans don't trust Mitt Romney. "They are distrustful of his recent public conversions on abortion, gun control and gay rights, or turned off by his Massachusetts health care law." (November 18, p. 20)

Those conversions of course, refer to the fact that he used to respect gay rights and women's reproductive rights, feared guns, and was committed to improving the health of his constituents, or at least assuring that all had access to good health care. All of these things are now kacky poo poo to the Republican base.

How did they let it get this far?

It's because they only played to that base with dog whistle politics. Saying the right thing to stir up the ignorant and now they are forced to draft policy to appease the ignorant, or risk being unelectable.

On Chris Matthew's Hardball this week, they discussed the rise of Newt Gingrich, who now has the perfect blend of ignorance and moderation, to make everyone happy. At least for now. Newt used to be deemed too right wing. His politics haven't changed, only the expectations of the conservative base.

One panelist on the program, Chicago Tribune columnist, Clarence Page, said that segregation is making a comeback. Instead of signs reading "Blacks to the back of the bus" or "Whites only", Anglo Republican politicians are simply ignoring the concerns of black communities, and turning others against them by suggesting that they are demanding too much.

Be more like the Huxtables and not depend so much on us white folks. You had it better under slavery, so go with that.

Michelle Obama was booed recently by NASCAR fans, prompting Rush Limbaugh to praise them for going after the "uppity" first lady. It was blown out of his dog whistle as "uppity n.....", and the base sang Hallelujah.

Our own Fox News North painted First Nation struggles as being against "white people and Indians" with another banner "we're on your side". The "Indians indulged" makes it pretty clear whose side they're on.

Harper government policies are also a promotion of the new form of segregation. He doesn't attack women, but instead removes the word "equality" from the Status for Women mandate, puts an end to affirmative action and pay equity initiatives, closes 12 of the 16 Status for Women offices and eliminates their research funding.

His government doesn't overtly attack minorities, but closes down Human Rights Commission offices, so that those suffering from discrimination have no place to address their concerns.

Gawd, I wish our media would catch up. Maybe we should send them all dog whistles for Christmas, because they sure as hell are not trying to communicate to us.

When it was discovered that neo-Nazis had infiltrated the Reform Party, Preston Manning fell back on his father's tired line, when the media exposed his extremist elements.

"A bright light attracts bugs."

But as my own father might say: "So does shite."

The Canadian Manifesto 6: To Every Action There is a Reaction. Cough, Cough!

Isaac Newton may not have had neoconservatism in mind when he wrote his laws of motion, but it seems fitting when discussing the multitude of think tanks and AstroTurf groups that back up the movement.

Most were created in reaction to an action that went against their ideology, or to bolster a policy being implemented by a neocon government. They are also important to industry lobbyists, since all are financed by large corporations hoping to dictate public policy.

If you want to follow the money I suggest you read Donald Gutstein's Not a Conspiracy Theory: How Business Propaganda Hijacks Democracy. Well researched and informative.

Beginning in the 1980s and throughout the 1990s, many books and papers were published detailing Canada's neoconservative movement, courtesy of the Chicago School and Uncle Sam.

This was back in the day when we were allowed to call Stephen Harper and his entourage neocons, without having to face a verbal firing squad.

I've began rereading several of my books from that time, now that we've had a federal neocon government for five years, and in Ontario Tim Hudak's neoconservatives have a good chance of retaking Ontario. (Mike Harris was the first to advance the interests of the American Neoconservatives)

The authors, journalists and pundits who were sounding the alarm back then, may take little comfort in knowing how right they were, but their words can still be used to educate Canadians today, especially the media.

The late Dalton Camp, former president of the now defunct federal Progressive Conservative Party (folded in 2003), wrote many columns on Preston Manning's* cozy relationship with the American neocons, including Mr Manning Goes to Washington ((did his then lieutenant, Stephen Harper, carry the luggage?), that was reprinted in his book, Whose Country is This Anyway?

However, another column he wrote, helps to reveal how these think tanks/AstroTurf groups work: Luntz of Luch With Newt (first appeared on March 17, 1995).

In it he discusses Manning's appearance with Newt Gingrich on National Empowerment Television in the U.S.. The Newt was rewarding Manning for helping him to storm Washington in 1994.

As a bit of background (I have a lot more on this which will appear in another element of the Canadian Manifesto), NET was the brainchild of Paul Weyrich, the man who helped Stephen Harper in 2006, by demanding that his flock stay silent on Harper's involvement with the American Neoconservative/Religious Right.

The late Weyrich was also a key strategist for the paleoconservative movement (white nationalism), that includes early Reform Party inspiration and Harper's favourite author, Peter Brimelow; and founder of The Christian Coalition**,  Pat Robertson.

That's Why he Makes the Big Bucks

According to Camp:

Most of the questions addressed to the Reform leader came from Newt's co-host on the show, Heather Higgins ***, a woman with a ful­some, incandescent smile sufficient to melt the polar ice cap. Also present as interlocutor, and lending a little verisimilitude, was Frank Luntz, president of Luntz Research, who, according to Higgins, was "very much involved" in helping the Reform Party in its recent Canadian electoral success in 1993. Luntz is something of an over­achiever in the polling and consulting business; his clients have included not only Gingrich and Manning, but also Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan.

A little cross border back scratching.

It was Frank Luntz who advised Stephen Harper to talk about hockey every chance he got, tapping into a national symbol.

"If there is some way to link hockey to what you all do, I would try to do it."

Luntz also inspired several of Harper's counterparts, like William Kristol, son of the late Irving Kristol. Back to Camp's column:

As made clear in a recent magazine piece, Luntz is a neo-conserv­ative of Gingrichian proportions. He favours the immediate elimina­tion of public funding for the arts, the humanities, and the Public Broadcasting Service. Before eliminating farm subsidies, Luntz would prefer them to be included in a wider range of cuts. "If every­one is giving up something at the same time, it's okay," he is quoted saying. "But if we make the farmers go first, we're going to get killed in the farm community. We've all got to go together."

This sort of pragmatic counselling excites Luntz's colleagues, such as William Kristol, who explains, "That's why Frank gets the big bucks."

If you can make a fortune with that drivel, perhaps we could all be rich.

Instead of stealing one woman's purse, steal the purses of all women. Instead of kicking one man in the shin, kick the shins of all those around him. How can anyone demand sympathy, when so many are squealing with the same pain or loss?

Yet that is why "he gets the big bucks"? Frightening.

Now to My Point.  Cough, Cough!

The above may seem irrelevant, but in fact it is enlightening, for other reasons than a simple blast from the past, since it helps to explain how organizations like Canada's Fraser Institute function.  When Stephen Harper was  helping to create the Reform Party, he visited the Fraser, to see what they could do to help.  When named prime minister,  he rewarded them with new beneficial tax polices.

To give some idea of how the Fraser works, we can compare them to the group who sponsored the Manning/Luntz comedy hour on Weyrich's National Empowerment Television.  Back to Dalton Camp:

I had been witness to a television production involving the second most powerful politician in America and the leader of the third most populous party in the Canadian Parliament and ... ? Well, it was a little hard to say—until the last words appeared on the tube, inviting viewers with questions or comments to write "The Progress and Freedom Foundation."

Every totalitarian or authoritarian movement in history co-opts the language of democracy in order to conceal its purpose. The Soviet commissars could scarcely draw a breath without invoking peace or liberty or freedom**** or progress. Even as the gulags were filling up with their victims, the regime celebrated its legitimacy by claiming itself to be the one true instrument of all the people.

The true instrument of the people wielded by big business.  From the New York Times, February 11, 1995:

"One source of financing of Mr. Gingrich's college video courses is the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a conservative advocacy group in Washington. Among the foundation's donors are half a dozen companies that do business with the agency, including two for which Mr. Gingrich has personally written letters urging approval of their products, [FDA] documents show."

The list of supporters in 1998, included tobacco giants Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds.  In a letter to PFF from then VP of Public Affairs for  Philip Morris:  "…Philip Morris is pleased with the exciting work you have done, especially in the area of deregulation, and are glad to continue working with you."

The Fraser Institute, which was established in reaction to the election of  NDP  Dave Barrett  as premier of B.C., also receives a great deal of funding from the American tobacco industry.

In fact, when they were establishing their Social Affairs Centre, according to Fraser Institute sources, money could not initially be found to start it, "so the staff went to New York and secured funding from Philip Morris."

As reward, the institute then released papers, suggesting that second hand smoke was not harmful, using crack medical teams from local bars opposing anti-smoking legislation.

I don't know if they copied their work from the American think tanks, but if you peruse them, you'll find many that challenge anti-smoking laws by again suggesting that second hand smoke is not harmful, including Paul Weyrich's Heritage Foundation.  (he was a busy man)

With NET now defunct, they used Fox News to sell it.  However, all of this was in reaction to the action of anti-smoking laws, that ban lighting up in public places.  (You should hear them huff and puff over the new ads on cigarette packages).

A Perfect Example

All of these right-wing think tanks and AstroTurf groups have several things in common, not limited to their funding.  One of them, is the easy movement of staff from their offices to the government offices, and vise versa.

The directors of The Progress and Freedom Foundation, included not only heavyweights like Kenneth Starr, the man who worked to impeach Bill Clinton, but also people like Jeffrey Eisenach, who worked as a senior policy advisor for the Federal Trade Commission under Reagan and Bush, senior and junior.  Kenneth Ferree, who spent time with the Federal Communications Commission under G.W. and several others who worked directly for Dick Cheney.

One of the best tests for Newton's Theory in Canada, relates to Ridley Terminals in B.C.

The first action was to clean up the books of the federally owned terminals, and determine whether or not they could be made profitable.  The first reaction was the hiring of Dan Veniez, to do a bit of house cleaning.

The next action was Veniez' s recommendation that they sell the terminals, since they would always be a cash cow.  The reaction was John Baird's, who immediately flapped his way to Vancouver, to fire the highly competent Veniez.  This was in response to the American Coal industry, who needed those terminals to remain subsidized.

When Veniez went public with the reasons why taxpayers were being bilked, the AstroTurf groups started kicking up divots.  Said Terrance Corcoran in the Financial Post:

In the great scheme of Canada’s economy, Ridley Terminals Inc. is no big deal. With annual revenue of just under $25-million, the Crown corporation operates a bulk-commodity handling facility off Ridley Island in Prince Rupert, B.C., 1,000 kilometres north of Vancouver. FP Comment’s editorial team has never been to Ridley Terminals, and wouldn’t know a bulk handling facility from the Coney Island Cyclone Ride. What we do know, when we see it, is big time corporate subsidy seeking, backroom politics, scheming lobbyists and cabinet ministers throwing their weight around to satisfy the big time corporate interests.

He nailed it. 

One of the AstroTurf groups working for corporate interests, was the Ridley Terminals Users Group, funded by Houston based  Global Public Affairs, lobbying reactionaries, who have worked with  George W. Bush.

With slight of hand, Stephen Harper removed Erin Wall as administrative assistant to his MP Brian Jean, then Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities (aka John Baird) and sent her to work for Global Public Affairs as a registered lobbyist for their affiliate, International Commodity Export Corporation, the largest beneficiary of government subsidies to the Ridley terminals.

On the same day, June 19, 2009, just before the firing of Dan Veniez, ICEC underwent a name change  to give it the appearance of a Canadian company.  You'll notice that they altered the date of this name change in June of 2011, but I believe I still have a screen shot of the original in my files.

Regardless, you get an idea of how this works, resulting in the Canadian taxpayers subsidizing the American coal industry.

And that is not the only example.  There are many, including Josh McJannet who was the contact person for the AstroTurf group The Canadians For Afghanistan.  McJannet was a former staffer of both Conservative Jay Hill and Rahim Jaffer, who registered as a lobbyist for Summa Strategies, an Ottawa government-relations firm that counts some defence contractors, including U.S. aircraft manufacturer Boeing, among its clients.

For every action there is a reaction, with the motion being the flow of our tax dollars to corporate interests, on both sides of the border.

And you wonder why Paul Weyrich wanted to protect Stephen Harper.  He is pure gold to the American neoconservatives.

Footnotes:

* Manning was the first leader of the Reform Party which became the Alliance Party, which became the Conservative party of Canada

**The same year that Manning went to Washington, Jason Kenney and others from Canada's Cristian Right attended a conference there, importing Robertson's 'Coaltiion', thus creating the Canadian Christian Coalition.

*** Higgins would also write for the godfather of the Neoconservatism, Irving Kristol's The Public Interest, and become involved in the Independent Women's Forum, and anti-feminist organization that dispute the notion of a gender gap. Similar to our REAL Women of Canada.

**** The National Citizens Coalition, that Harper once headed up, hand out a Medal of Freedom every year.  Both Stephen Harper and Preston Manning are past recipients of this prestigious (?) honour.

Since I Can't Comment on My Blog I Must Explain Jack Layton Post

After posting my piece yesterday: Jack Layton Needs to Spend the Summer Taking "Speech" Lessons I received a couple of comments in defense of the Layton strategy.

I'm still unable to respond on my own blog, so I thought I'd explain myself. I don't want to see the NDP destroyed. They were always my "go to" party if the PCs screwed up. However, as someone who has been following and studying the neoconservative movement, I see how easily it was for Harper to set up the NDP.

In 2004, when he arranged a meeting with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton, he convinced them that they must help him destroy the Liberals, so they should both attack the Sponsorship Scandal with all the gusto they could muster. And they did.

The Liberals were attacked on all fronts, despite the fact that the stage was set for the Sponsorship Scandal by Brian Mulroney, who hired all the cronies, and introduced them to the 'culture of entitlement' (see Stevie Cameron's On the Take) Every name is there.

Jack Layton's father was a cabinet minister in the Mulroney government, and since Layton tries to paint all Liberals with the Adscam brush, I guess turnabout is fair play.

Harper's strategy worked and he now has his majority. But what's interesting is the way it played out. He knew he couldn't beat the Bloc in Quebec, because his ideology is the complete opposite to what most Quebecers believe.

So instead he allowed the NDP to destroy them, getting his majority without Quebec. He never felt comfortable "sucking up to them" in the first place. (see Lawrence Martin's Harperland)

And it didn't take long for the right-wing media to rile the West with the Layton/Quebec match up.

I'm thoroughly convinced that the NDP "surge" was contrived, because the headlines appeared before the actual surge. But it is what it is. Harper couldn't have written the script better himself.

He will spend the next four years polarizing Canadians into a right/left divide. His plan all along.

Although it wasn't even originally his plan, but that of Ernest Manning's, the long serving Social Credit premier of Alberta. He set out to destroy the Liberals by working within the Conservative Party of John Diefenbaker.

Dief toyed with the idea of an alliance until a member of his caucus, Jim MacDonnell, whose father was a friend of Sir John A. MacDonald, exclaimed that the party founder "would now turn over in his grave!" (see One Canada by John Diefenbaker)

So Manning's next strategy was to have the head of the federal Social Credit Party, Rob Thompson, run for the Conservatives, hoping he would then be in a position to merge the two parties from the inside. That also failed.

With corporate financing, he wrote his little book: Political Realignment, and sent his son, Preston Manning, along with friend Erick Schmidt, to the PC convention, again to encourage a merger. But Robert Stanfield, a Red Tory (Harper called Red Tories "pink Liberals") was chosen, and the two young men sent on their way.

The Mannings knew they would have to wait, so wait they did. Political Realignment drew the attention of the National Citizens Coalition, and a marriage was sanctified. To complete the new strategy, the NCC hired Arthur Finklestein, who took liberal bashing to a new level. Finklestein also created the idea of Independent Expenditure Campaigns, in response to a tightening of political contributions after Watergate.

He helped to turn the NCC from a simple protest group, into a full blown, corporate financed, purveyor of Independent Expenditure Campaigns (third party advertising), while Manning advised that they become designated non-profit, to enjoy the tax breaks.

The next wave came with western anger over the National Energy Policy and Mulroney's decision to give a military contract to Montreal, that was promised to Winnipeg, and the Reform Party was born.

David Frum attempted another merger when Jean Charest became Conservative leader, but soon realized that the two parties were polar opposites, so they again bided their time.

Finally, with Peter MacKay at the helm, and a $500,000 loan hanging over his head, he sold out to Harper and the PC Party was no more. Harper claims to know who paid MacKay's loan but refuses to divulge the information. Possibly Karlheinz Schreiber, a close friend of MacKay's father. ( MacKay's financial secret safe with Harper: No conflict, party leader says, by Stephen Maher, The Halifax Herald Limited, May 13, 2004)

That was 2003, and in 2004, the next phase to destroy the centre began.

It's important for Jack Layton to understand just how this movement began and how deeply entrenched it is, if he hopes to survive.

And using language like "brothers and sisters", only fuels the right-wing noise machine.

So I stand by my opinion that he needs to develop a new language, if he hopes to make his party palpable to the average Canadian, who gets all their messaging from Harper's communications team.

We know how important trade unions are, but at the beginning of the debate over the back to work legislation, Canadians were split down the middle. By the end, they were 70% against the postal workers. Why? Because the Conservatives sold their side better.

Layton's rhetoric only helps the right-wingers paint him as a communist. A "red threat". Completely irrational, but this movement is anything but rational. Have you read the comments sections at the end of on-line articles? Harper's supporters defend his purchase of the F-35s, because the communists of Russia and China are threatening our Arctic sovereignty.

And it doesn't matter how many experts claim that these planes are no good for the Arctic, you will not budge them. Why do you think the government is building a monument to the victims of Communism?

Personally, I don't think commie plots are our biggest threat. I don't even believe that terrorism is. The biggest threat we are facing today is ignorance.

For heaven sake, Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin are both thought by some to be the next president of the United States. In fact, other Republican hopefuls, are dumming down their message to compete with their stupidity.

Can you imagine if one of these women had access to the metaphorical red button?

Oye!

So hopefully, when Parliament resumes in the fall, Jack Layton will have learned something from this. He needs to change his strategy or he's doomed, and unfortunately, so are we.

So Who's the Elitist Now?

Rhys Kesselman, Canada Research Chair in Public Finance and a professor at Simon Fraser University’s School of Public Policy, has an op-ed in the Globe and Mail discussing the Harper government's new tax policies, clearly designed to benefit the highest wage earners.

Neoconservatives love to talk about "lower taxes", but they don't really mean lower taxes for everyone. They have designer tax cuts, allowing claims for gym memberships. We can expect fitness centres to tout this tax break, locking more and more people into expensive contracts.

They design "family" tax benefits, to only target their version of the "family", no single parents allowed.

And while they move toward a zero tax for corporations, they raise taxes on workers with a payroll tax, and implement user fees. Most of these fees are again a transfer of funds from the public, to the private sector, who take over services once provided by the government for free.

Jim Flaherty has tapped into George Bush's favourite line of "tax relief", using a median figure, but when broken down, only the wealthiest citizens reap any real benefit.

The wonderful Linda McQuaig, again reminds us that this systematic transfer of wealth to the top, is hurting everyone. And yet to hear the neocons talk, those who are suffering the most, are the ones hurting the economy.

I watched Bill Maher this week, and one topic of conversation was Republican rhetoric, that not only defies logic, but also defies history.

Sarah Palin suggested that Paul Revere rode to the British camp and told them that they must uphold their second amendment right to bear arms, despite the fact that there was as of yet, no such amendment on the books, and indeed, no constitution.

Another Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, suggested that U.S. soldiers fought in WWII so that Americans wouldn't be forced to have healthcare. Silly Obama. He should have known that before touting his socialist ideas.

But as Maher reminded his audience, they are the kind of people who would probably get elected, because despite the fact that what they spout is pure nonsense, they spout it with conviction, never changing their story.

The Conservatives just keep chanting "low taxes, low taxes, low taxes" and we believe them, even if logic and the increased difficulty of stretching our pay cheques, prove otherwise.

Another argument made by the neoconservatives, is that cutting taxes for the wealthiest, drives down the price of consumer goods (that's the "job creation" part - jobs in Third World countries).

And yes we can now buy cheap TVs and DVD players, but the cost of housing is on the rise and food through the roof. We can buy cheap crap but basic survival is getting very expensive.

The Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party was never a populist party, but perhaps the most top down party in the history of Canada. They tapped into the populism of social credit for support, but their platform was written by Stephen Harper, right from the National Citizens Coalition handbook (Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3).

It is a party run by and for the corporate sector.

But darn it all if they don't sound convincing when they pretend that they work for us.

Stephen Harper Did Not Bring Alberta and Ontario Together. Do Your Homework.

On March 27, 2000, the Canadian Alliance Party was formed. Many mistakenly believe that it was just a reinvention of the Reform Party, but they couldn't be more wrong.

The concept was to bring together all of the neoconservatives in the country, to oust the Liberals, and turn Canada sharply to the right.

This concerted effort helped to unite Mike Harris's government in Ontario, Ralph Klein's in Alberta and of course the Reform Party, primarily from the Western provinces.

Candidates for leader of the new Alliance Party would be selected from the three groups. It was thought that Tony Clement would be a front runner, but he declined, so it eventually came down to three men: Tom Long from Ontario, Stockwell Day from Alberta and Preston Manning from the Reform Party.

Stockwell Day of course won, but failed to lead, so was forced to resign. It was only then that Stephen Harper joined the fray.

So the suggestion after this election victory, that he united Ontario and Alberta is giving credit where none is due. This began more than a decade ago, and the work done by others in the movement.

In 2003, Harper bought out the assets of the Progressive Conservative Party, that folded in December of that year, putting an end to a 150-year-old tradition.

This election was a continuation of work began by others, and part of the broader neoconservative movement. Has anyone else noticed how many new Ontario MPs and candidates were friends of Jim Flaherty's? Even his first cousin.

So if we plan to build a Progressive movement, we need to understand fully, just what we're up against. The Conservative Party of Canada is not merely a political party, but the head of a broader movement that includes not only Canada's neocons, but more alarmingly the U.S. Republicans, the Tea Party, and the Religious Right.



We are really on the cusp here.

Danielle Smith's Wildrose party, created by old Reform Party activists, like Link Byfield, Barry Cooper and Tom Flanagan, has a good chance of ousting Ed Stelmach's progressive Conservatives in Alberta.

Tim Hudak, former caucus member of Mike Harris, and husband of one of his chief operatives, Deb Hutton, is expected to win Ontario. Neocon Rob Ford is already running Toronto.

With a majority Harper will push through his bill to add 30 new ridings that he feels he can win, so unless we start now building a progressive movement, we could be looking at a Neoconservative dynasty.

And the first step is to demand that the media stops calling Harper's party 'Tories'. He himself, claims to hate the term. Canadian conservatism became a battle between [Red] Tories and Republicans. Republicans won, let's move on.

I'm currently working at putting all of my research on the Neoconservative Alliance, into a book and will make it available in PDF format. (I just have to figure out how) I'm at about 100 pages now, and that's just on the 'Alliance'.

Before we can wage a progressive war, we have to know our enemy. Not the contrived notion of a centre right party, but a hard right revolution.

When I'm done I'll post a link on this blog. We must all become Davids to the Neocon Goliath. What's that they say? The bigger they are the harder they fall.

Our task is enormous, but not impossible. Are you in?

It Now Comes Down to the Battle Between Two Little Books

The common misconception about Stephen Harper is that he brought Republican style, divisive politics to Canada.

That's certainly true. His connections to the American Tea Party/Religious Right/Republican movement, are vast and well recorded. But this brand of conservatism originated in Canada when Harper was just a lad, pulling wings off butterflies, or whatever he did to pass the time.

And it started with a battle between two little books, both written by Conservatives, in the same era, but with completely different visions.

In 1965, scholar George Grant, wrote Lament for a Nation, fearing that the fall of Diefenbaker, would spell the end of Canada as a sovereign state: "To lament is to cry out at the death or at the dying of something loved. This lament mourns the end of Canada as a sovereign state." George P. Grant (1).

The book was an instant best seller and though written by a conservative, became the new battle cry for the left. And as an expansion of Diefenbaker's "One Nation" philosophy, it also, in many ways, became a thesis for the Red Tory.

However, at about the same time, another Canadian conservative was writing a little book, called Political Realignment: Challenge to Thoughtful Canadians. It was a bit controversial at the time, because its publication was funded by a group of wealthy businessmen, but Ernest Manning with the help of his son Preston, laid out their vision for a Conservative Canada. It became the framework for a party of the right-wing, that would be based on pure ideology and the 'will of God'. (2)

Manning's book caught the attention of Colin Brown, founder of the National Citizens Coalition, that Stephen Harper would eventually head. In fact, it was Manning who suggested that the NCC incorporate, and he would be on the advisory board.

I've read both Lament and Realignment, and could find no common ground.

Ron Dart, professor of Political Science, Philosophy and Religious Studies at University College of the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford, BC, wrote a book The Red Tory Tradition: Ancient Roots, New Routes.

The recent decision by the Progressive Conservative party [2003] and the Alliance party to fold into and become the Canadian Conservative party does raise some interesting and important questions. What does it mean to be a Canadian conservative? Who defines the term? Why, at this juncture and point in Canadian political life, is the more republican interpretation of the term trumping, censuring out and banishing the older Tory interpretation of what it means to be a conservative?

Those with little or no sense of the Canadian political journey will not even realize there was and is a Tory tradition that has, in many ways, been the backbone of Canadian conservatism. It is this High/Red/Radical Toryism that needs retrieving and remembering at this point in history. The right of centre, republican read of conservatism is before us night and day. This needs little comment or commentary.

And he also saw the clash of the books:

The 1960s in Canada (and in many other parts of the world) were an unsettling and turbulent time. Much was up for redefinition. Two important political tracts for the times were written, in Canada, in the 1960s. Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism (1965)and Political Realignment: A Challenge to Thoughtful Canadians (1967). As we briefly unpack and unravel these missives, we will get a feel for how Canadians have, in our history, understood the meaning of conservatism in different ways. It is as these two traditions lived in tension, there was some degree of political health. It is as these two traditions have fragmented, the republican brand of conservatism has redefined Canadian conservatism in a right of centre manner. (3)

Two Conservative visions for Canada. One Republican the other Tory. Why is the Republican version winning?

Money probably. Manning's movement has been very well financed and never changed direction. Pure ideology. While the Tory tradition was more organic, changing with the times and the needs of Canadians.

In fact, there was often little difference between the PCs and the Liberals, so elections were always about the platform.

Isn't it funny how things come full circle?

Four decades ago did either man see that their books would do battle, literally and figuratively?

Because you see, George Grant is Michael Ignatieff's uncle, and of course Stephen Harper not only headed the 'Realignment' inspired National Citizens Coalition, but was Preston Manning's lieutenant in the Reform Party. He also wrote it's policy:

Harper said that “the agenda of the NCC was a guide to me,” while then NCC President David Somerville crowed that Reform “cribbed probably two-thirds of our policy book.” (4)

So in many ways this election has been about the clash of "conservative values". Republican or Tory? And the clash of visions. American or Canadian.

And I'm afraid I'm now feeling like one of those authors almost 50 years ago "To lament is to cry out at the death or at the dying of something loved. This lament mourns the end of Canada as a sovereign state." George P. Grant (1).

Republican is winning. Are we going to let it?

Sources:

1. Lament For a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, By George Parkin Grant, McClelland & Stewart, 1965

2. Political Realignment: Challenge to Thoughtful Canadians, By Hon, E. C. Manning, McClelland & Stewart Limited, 1967, Kingston Public Library call no. 320.971 M31

3. Ernest Manning And George Grant, By Ron Dart, ViveleCanada

4. Stephen Harper vs. Canada, By Scott Piatkowski, August 8, 2005

The Art of Ambiguity and Preston Manning's Bait and Switch

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

Many politically engaged Canadians are now fully aware that the Conservative Party that Stephen Harper currently heads, did not descend from Canada's traditional Tory Party, but from the Reform movement, and even further back than that, Social Credit.

As early as 1967, the Mannings, Ernest and Preston, envisioned a new national party, and they laid out the platform for such a party in a book called Political Realignment.

Ernest Manning had been approached by a group of wealthy businessmen who told him that money would be no object, if he would be open to starting a party representing corporate interests, but he instead suggested that they simply work through the existing Progressive Conservative party, and swing it to the right.

But the PCs at the time wanted nothing to do with them, so they opted instead to wait for the next wave of anger.

It would take almost two decades.

And the anger would come over several moves by the Trudeau government. An attempt to close tax loopholes and make Canada's rich pay their share, the National Energy Program and official bilingualism.

This was sold to Westerners as an attempt to make them support the rest of the country by syphoning off their oil profits, and a pandering to Quebec. They never mentioned the "fair taxes" initiative, or they might not have received the same support.

Not that Western grievances weren't real, but they were definitely inflated and exploited.

The movement (which includes the new Republicans and Tea Party) has so many layers, that if you try presenting them to someone, their eyes glaze over. It is so overwhelming. "Neoconservatism", "Leo Strauss", "Religious Right".

But if you take it down to a few important points, it all makes sense, beginning with the fact that it is a movement based solely on lies. And to sell the lies, those on both sides of the border, have succeeded because they have been able to finely hone the art of ambiguity.

Utilizing intellect and emotion, they craft their messages so that they mean different things to different people. The basis of Leo Strauss's thought.

The wonderful Murray Dobbin had already figured this out after attending early Reform assemblies. When Preston Manning or Stephen Harper were speaking, it was clear that their messages were not clear at all.

Dobbin referred to it as "calculated ambiguity".

Manning took all the grievances he could find, put them in a big box and tied them up with a green bow. Then he began making "promises" based on what was in the box. They were empty but they were passionate.

He would end special favours for Quebec, bilingualism, multiculturalism, turban wearing in the RCMP, the Charter of Rights, abortion, gay rights, the gun registry, the "patronage" position of the Governor General. It was a long list.

But he was able to join together all of the right-wing fringe groups, who finally saw hope, no matter how outrageous their demands. It didn't matter. He never intended to meet their demands only dangle them like a carrot to keep them running.

... the fringe parties were a genuine, albeit extreme, reflection of a right-wing resurgence in the West during the early 1980s. To the extent that extremism is succinct and clear, these parties provide a useful analytical prelude to the later emergence of the Reform party. (1)

Manning had them all transfixed. But he had to move slowly.

The biggest issue was Quebec and as such, while the ultimate goal was a national party, he postured, and vowed to stand tough when prime minister. If Quebec didn't like it they could leave.

And while expanding Eastward into Ontario, this still had all the markings of a Western protest party. At least until the hierarchy pulled a fast one.

Though the party remained constitutionally and politically a western party after the 1989 Assembly, the policy book based on that assembly was completely purged of any mention of "the West." Manning's foreword in the 1988 edition talks of the likelihood of a divided Parliament after the next election in which "Western Reformers would be in a powerful position to pursue our agenda." The booklet is peppered with phrases like, "A fair shake for the West," "Reform MPs will look out for Western interests," and numerous derogatory remarks about "Central Canada" and "Central Canadian interests," "Central Canadian terms" as well as "Quebec-centred" biases of Mulroney.

Virtually all of this western, anti-central Canada terminology was purged from the 1989 edition of the booklet. In Manning's two-and-a-half page foreword, entitled "The New Canada," there is not a single reference to the West or westerners. Gone, as well, was the "Declaration of Adoption" in the 1988 book, which recognized "the supremacy of God."

The sanitizing of the policy book was done by the Party Policy Committee (PPC), without any mandate from the assembly. It was a body which would play a major role as Manning guided the party away from its western orientation towards national party readiness. Appointed by the party's Executive Committee, and chaired by Preston Manning, its key members were Stan Waters and Stephen Harper. Harper was the Chief Policy Officer of the Party and the only other person, besides [Deb] Grey and Waters, whom Manning trusted to speak for the party.

With a policy book completely cleansed of any reference to the West and most of its specifically western policies, plus the assembly's authority to take the Reform message to the East, the stage was set for the next phase in Preston Manning's plan to create a new conservative party. (2)

The old bait and switch.

Stephen Harper will still play the Western grievances/Quebec card when necessary, as he did with the "separatist" cries during the 2008 coalition crisis. Or more recently with the Edmonton Expo bid and the Quebec arena.

David Staples in the Edmonton journal, under a photo of Harper in Quebec, discusses Jean Charest's promise of funds for the new NHL arena: Premier Jean Charest announced he was willing to put $175 million from his budget (a.k.a. transfer payments from Alberta) towards a Quebec City arena.

"a.k.a. transfer payments from Alberta"?

In the end, they won't blame Harper, but will instead blame Quebec.

This is why Stephen Harper will not give in to too many demands from his "base", because if he does he loses the passion of discontent, that has gotten him to where he is now. What he instead implies is that he will only grant their wishes, if they can grant him his. A majority.

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, Pg. 80

2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7 4, Pg. 85-86

The Success of Neoconservatism is Based on Emotionally Fuelled Ambiguity

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

There are many arguments about Leo Strauss and his position as the father of Neoconservatism. He has been blamed for everything from the Iraq War to the economic collapse, but how justified is that?

I admit that I've had to rethink some of my earlier assessments, but I've come to the conclusion that many self proclaimed Straussians, inadvertently learned something else from the German Philosopher.

The art of ambiguity. And they have indeed taken it to an art form.

In his review of the book, Leo Strauss and the American Right by Shadia B. Drury, Michael Lind writes in the Washington Review:

Straussian thought is hard to wrap your mind around, in part because Strauss and his disciples write in a highly abstract style that keeps trespassers out ... Strauss believed that many if not most philosophers, for fear of persecution, wrote in ways that concealed their views as much as they revealed them. (1)

In 2003, Strauss's daughter Jenny (actually his niece. He adopted her after his sister and her husband were killed in an accident), wrote an Oped piece for the New York Times, hoping to correct many of the misconceptions of her father. She had a little different take on this.

She discussed his love of reading, believing that it was not a passive exercise. Many people read the works of a variety of thinkers and only take from them, what validates their own opinion. And Strauss felt that this was not accidental.

The fact is that Leo Strauss also recognized a multiplicity of readers, but he had enough faith in his authors to assume that they, too, recognized that they would have a diverse readership. Some of their readers, the ancients realized, would want only to find their own views and prejudices confirmed; others might be willing to open themselves to new, perhaps unconventional or unpopular, ideas. I personally think my father's rediscovery of the art of writing for different kinds of readers will be his most lasting legacy. (2)

Maybe not intentionally vague, but ambiguous none the less.

And this is the most important weapon in the neoconconservative 'Reform' arsenal. If they told us what they really wanted to do, hand government over to the corporate world, they'd never stand a chance.

Canada's Reform (?)

Whether you want to call the Canadian 'Reform' a party or a movement is irrelevant. No matter what it is, the fact remains that it was behind the new Conservative Party of Canada. And to understand the secret to their success, you have to go back to a variety of right-wing players, that include media, think-tanks, foundations, federations and coalitions, all providing the infrastructure for the intentional change of our political culture.

How many people do you know who realize that this has been taking place for decades? Who saw it coming? Even Harper's critics believe that he came from nowhere, with an unquenchable thirst for power.

But Harper is just the latest face. He embodies everything that the leader of this movement requires. Malignant narcissism, a lack of empathy and an unflinching belief in the doctrine of corporate rule. And while he keeps everyone in line with an iron fist, he is not without his puppet masters.

David Somerville, the former President of the National Citizens Coalition, a corporate controlled AstroTurf group (Stephen Harper also acted as both the vice president and president of the NCC), told his followers that they must tap into both intellect and emotion (3), to achieve their goals.

They would create the story and use passion to sell it.

This is why it became so necessary to tap into religious fervour, though it is not exclusive. They also use the passion for guns, race and country, among other things.

I think one of the best earliest examples of the success of ambiguity and passion that drives this movement, took place in 1984, and involved the NCC, the pro-life movement, and Bill C-169.

Bill C-169 was designed to block spending in elections unless it was approved and accounted for by the party that stood to gain from the spending. Third party spending.

According to writer Nick Fillmore, until 1984 "the [National Citizens] coalition was very much an unimportant right-wing fringe group, paid little attention by most politicians, the media and even shunned by other right-wing lobby groups. The first breakthrough came in July, 1984, when the NCC successfully used the Alberta Supreme Court to overturn the federal government's bill C-169, a law aimed at preventing third parties from advertising a political position during an election campaign." Judge Donald Medhurst in striking down the law said there had to be proof that such spending undermined democracy before any government could impose limits on the freedom of expression guarantee in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms .... The NCC's court victory opened the door to virtually unlimited corporate spending in the 1988 federal election, arguably the most important election in Canada in decades. Advocates of free trade were able to far outspend opponents. (4)

This corporate funded initiative was a direct attack on our democracy because it gave power to money. But what I found interesting was how the righteous viewed the decision. From a pro-life publication: 'The Interim'.

It is a great pro-life victory that Bill C-169, the amendments to the Canada Elections Act, has been thrown out by the Alberta Supreme Court. On June 26, 1984, Justice Donald Medhurst of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench ruled that [out?] the changes made to the freedom of expression guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The National Citizens Coalition and its president, Colin Brown of London, Ontario had asked the court to strike down the amendments contained in Bill C-169. The decision means that individuals and groups (including pro-life individuals and groups) will again be free to oppose or promote political candidates during a federal election campaign. (5)

This was obviously sold to the pro-lifers by the NCC, as an assault on their "freedom of expression" and they were no doubt able to solicit a lot of funds based on that passionate plea. Would it have been as successful if they had called it a corporate move to set the government's agenda? Not likely.

The art of ambiguity. People saw what they wanted to see and I doubt that it was not intentional. It would be interesting to hear other groups opinions of Medhurst's decision. What they 'heard' from the NCC's campaign.

Preston Manning and Stephen Harper used that skill when creating the Reform Party.

... policies regarding agriculture, labour, tax reform, foreign policy, social policy, and immigration are so muddied by calculated ambiguity that they leave the Reform Party and its leader enormous flexibility in fashioning actual policy. (6)

And though this was supposed to be a populist, grassroots party, it wasn't long before some of the more aware members began to realize that it was being run by a 'Calgary clique'.

The "clique" which was being criticized in 1990 consisted of Manning and four of his staff members. One of the key members was thirty-two-year-old Stephen Harper, a founding member of the party, its Chief Policy Officer, and the man who became known as Manning's chief political lieutenant. Though only a staff member, he often made speeches and was one of the two people, the other being [Stan] Waters, whom Manning trusted to speak for the party .... The charges of elitism and control of the party by a Manning clique struck a very sour note in an otherwise spectacular rise in party fortunes. (6)

An "elite" group using ambiguity and emotion to tell their story.

Ambiguously, when I say "elite group" I could mean the NCC, the Reform Party or Harper's PMO. All one and the same, I'm afraid.

Can't wait to see how the "story" ends.

"Those who tell the stories rule society." — Plato

Sources:

1. Leo Strauss and the American Right, By Michael Lind, Washington Monthly, November 1997

2. The Real Leo Strauss, By Jenny Strauss Clay, New York Times, June 07, 2003

3. The Myth of the Good Corporate Citizen: Canada and Democracy in the Age of Globalization, By Murray Dobbin, James Lorimer & Company, 2003, ISBN: 1-55028-785-0, Pg. 197

4. Dobbin, 2003, Pg. 202

5. The NCC provides a Canadian pro-life victory, The Interim, August 29, 1984

6. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7 4, Pg. 215

7. Dobbin, 1992, Pg. 122

Redefining Populism as a Corporate Mind Game

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

MacKenzie King once said: "If some countries have too much history, we have too much geography".

Canada is a large land mass, with a diverse culture, making one nation from sea to sea, a challenge.

The Reform Party wanted less Canada, by giving provinces more autonomy. In a 1994 speech to the National Citizens Coalition, Stephen Harper claimed: "Whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or 10 governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be."

"Any future country"? Disturbing words.

And while the West, especially Alberta, has always been at odds with Quebec, they were also often in sync, sharing a feeling of alienation.

In his opening address to the federal-provincial constitutional conference in 1969, [Harry] Strom [leader of Alberta's Social Credit party] noted approvingly the role of French Quebecers in bringing to public attention their sense of inequality and injustice: 'We welcome the resurgent spirit and consciousness of our French-speaking citizens, and their understandable desire for a new cultural and economic role in Confederation.' (1)

The difference of course, was that Quebec, or French Canada, had been promised their rightful place as one of the founding peoples, but were all but left out at Confederation (as was the third founding people, Canada's First Nations).

They set out to right a fundamental wrong.

In his book on Lucien Bouchard, The Antagonist, Lawrence Martin reveals a childhood not unlike that of Stephen Harper and Preston Manning. Bouchard too led a very sheltered life, with little outside influence.

But while Harper grew up in a middle-class WASP neighbourhood, the victim of detachment; and Manning grew up under a strict but influential father, the victim of fear; Bouchard grew up in poverty, and was the victim of bigotry.

As a young man he was forced to work in the labour camps, long hours under horrific conditions, imposed by the small but wealthy Anglo population.

They constituted a tiny 2 percent of the population of 300,000 in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, but they ran one hundred percent of the major industries—pulp and paper and chemicals. (2)

The social conditions of Arvida, the neighboring community to Jonquière, where he was born and raised, define what life was like for many Fancophones during the period.

The Anglos didn't talk much to the "Frenchies" because it wasn't good for their reputations. It was a matter of pride that they spoke no French—even if they had lived in Arvida for decades. However, for young Francophones like Lucien Bouchard, it was important to know some English to get a job.

The housing in Arvida was all owned by Alcan and the French really could not rent in the high-class district, even if they had means. "The Anglophones considered the French to be second-class citizens, like Negroes in the South," said Joan Bell, who lived the town and later wrote a report on the conditions. "They were bigots."

The town "epitomized the two solitudes because there was no mixing between the Anglophones and the Francophones". There's emotional baggage being carried around from this time .... Lucien Bouchard's close-up view of this and other Anglophone pockets of privilege left a lasting memory. "Very early in my life," he recalled, "money and authority were English." It was a major factor, he would his reason, in the emergence of his region's nationalism. (2)

For Alberta, however, the alienation, while very real for many people, was actually the product of clever ad campaigns, bought and paid for, by what Trevor Harrison referred to as the "rising indigenous bourgeoisie, centred in the oil and gas industry". And this group sought a "release from the domination of central Canada", where decisions were being made that they felt hindered their ability to get filthy rich.

And most of them were from American stock, who had sailed into the area with the winds of an oil gusher.

The Carter Commission's attempt at tax reform, that would make the wealthy pay their share, and the National Energy Program, were catalysts to the western bourgeoisie, who spent enormous amounts of money to help shift public opinion their way.

And premier Lougheed used the politics of fear to rile the populace, by threatening job losses and the resulting decay.

To the extent that popular culture reflects public sentiment, the numerous anti-Liberal, anti-Trudeau, and anti-eastern bumper stickers, lapel pins, T-shirts, and other paraphernalia that deluged western Canada, particular Alberta, during this period provide additional evidence that many westerners were angry."' Nor is it a coincidence that John Ballem, a corporate lawyer with strong ties to the oil and gas industry and former law partner of Peter Lougheed, should in 1981 write Alberta Alone, a fictitious novel that revolves around Alberta's separation from Confederation."' (3)

And though the tax reforms would have helped the average westerner, and the NEP help to protect their jobs, the loudest voices were from those who did not have their best interests at heart. Yet it was those voices that guided the average westerner.

And it was into this environment that a young man from Toronto, a recent arrival to Alberta, would shape his political thought. Then going by Steve, Harper would be led to believe that only the corporate sector and it's money could stop the spread of too much Canada.

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, Pg. 39

2. The Antagonist: Lucien Bouchard and the Politics of Delusion, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 1997, ISBN: 0-670-87437-X, Pg. 6-7

3. Harrison, 1995, Pg. 61

Why do Minorities Work so Hard to Destroy Themselves?

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

"With [Ronald] 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." (1)

And of course we know that Ronald Reagan won not only that, but the following election, in part because black voters decided to stay home. I'm sure we could get into a lot of reasons for that, including the Democrats failure to inspire, but the story here is that bigotry was used as an election strategy.

And so was religion. Paul Weyrich* was one of the founders of the American Moral Majority which eventually became a mass movement now called the Religious Right. And the Moral Majority had little to do with their definition of 'morality'. They were not founded to oppose the abortion case of Roe vs Wade, as many believe, but to oppose moves to end segregation.

Evangelicals withdrew from politics for most of the last century until the rise of the religious right in the late 70’s. This rise was not in response to Roe v Wade, as their organizers would have us believe but in response to a civil rights issue, namely the Supreme Court decision that ruled that institutions that practiced segregation would forfeit their tax exempt status. This decision led to the withdrawal of tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University, who among other things, did not admit Blacks, and when they did, had a policy against interracial dating. (2)

Weyrich and co-founder Jerry Falwell, found an ally in Reagan, so they mobilized their forces to help get him elected.

With the rise of the Tea Party and "wacky" Republicans becoming the norm, it's interesting reading commentary from across the United States. But one thing I've learned as many of the more extreme candidates trash the United Nations, is that their main concern is that they are just so darned "colourful". They wrap this up in ambiguity, but you don't have to be a scholar to know what they're saying.

I used to think that Harper's base opposed the UN because they impeded their agenda toward Israel and Armageddon. But I think only a few of the really hard core believe that. They just don't appreciate this "colourful" group trying to dictate to them, on issues like spanking, women's rights, aboriginal rights, etc.

And while they continue to blame Michael Ignatieff for our losing the security seat, they are actually pleased, because it now means we can legitimately oppose a UN, human rights agenda.

Stephen Harper and His Anti-Immigration Policies

Did you ever wonder why the Reform Party hierarchy, like Preston Manning and Stephen Harper did so little to silence what former Reform Party MP Jan Brown called the "rampant racism of the God Squad"?

And why they aligned themselves with anti-immigration groups like Paul Fromm's C-Far and Peter Brimelow's V-Dare? Both of these men spoke at Reform Party conferences and those of the ultra right-wing Northern Foundation, of which Stephen Harper was a member? (3)

It was because they knew it would inspire this rock solid "base" to vote and contribute funds. They were the party of the white man. And they did nothing to discourage this belief.

But then they realized that if they wanted to advance and become more appealing to the rest of the country, they could no longer bash the immigrant population, but would need to exploit them instead. And exploit them they did, finding the perfect wedge issue: same-sex marriage.

Party officials concluded that the six-percentage-point drop for the Liberals was probably made up of small-c ethnic supporters, and decided at that point to begin running controversial newspaper ads opposing gay marriage. "We're the only ones who win under that calculation" ... Aside from the advertisements, which ask readers "Where do you draw the line?" the party leader began actively making his case at multicultural events, like at a Sikh meeting in Toronto a week ago. According to a senior party organizer, Conservatives believe they have potentially tapped into a well-spring of insecurity among ethnic groups, some of whose members feel the Liberal bill will force their clergy to perform same-sex marriage. (not true)

.... Mr. Harper drew criticism not only from within his own party, but from some of the very people he had hoped to attract. "Mr. Harper is ignorant about immigration issues, and his statement reflects that ignorance," said Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress, a grassroots group with a membership in the hundreds. "What he's saying is that people can only be gay if they're white Anglo-Saxons." (4)

And even if that angered the gay community, they didn't care. They knew they could never count on the gay vote. This is why they do little to silence homophobic remarks from their caucus, refuse to let John Baird "come out" and allowed Jason Kenney to remove the notion of gay rights from our citizenship guide.

It's all political strategy.

Gay rights activists continue to advocate, but they should be encouraging their members to vote. Every single one of them. Because there's no hope of reversing this trend until we get rid of this government. The Conservatives are the only party with an aggressive anti-gay agenda. But the good news is that the other four parties are not intolerant. Pick one.

Hold rallies not as gay Canadians where the Conservatives can use their "base" to ridicule, but as Canadians concerned with intolerance of any kind. Other minority groups must do the same, preferably together as a more powerful voice.

Latinos For Reform

Between April 2 and 3 of 2009, Canada Border Services carried out the largest workplace raids in Canadian history. One of those rounded up was a woman who had launched a complaint of sexual harassment against her boss. (5)

Last June, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney publicly questioned the legitimacy of refugee claims made by Roma coming from the Czech Republic, saying they faced no real risk of state persecution. And yet according to foreign correspondent Peter O'Neil:

[Roma] face a constant threat of neo-Nazi attacks and hateful demonstrations, where marchers head into Roma communities and call them "parasites," organized by increasingly sophisticated organizations such as the far-right Workers' Party."We are afraid for our lives" ... Growing neo-Nazi violence, as well as discrimination and even segregation in areas such as health, housing, education, criminal justice and employment, have been reported in numerous publications issued by the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the U.S. State Department and Amnesty International. (6)

And while promoting migrant workers to help the corporate sector, they are also further destroying our international reputation by siding with the "elite" oppressors:

Hundreds of Guatemalan migrant workers and their community allies marched through Guatemala City to the steps of the Canadian embassy on Wednesday, to protest the abusive treatment of migrants under Canada's Temporary Foreign Workers program. The workers at the protest had been fired and repatriated for defending their labour and human rights while working in Canada. (7)

Many of us wonder why the immigrant community is turning to a party that has always been anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism. Are they unaware or is it self-preservation? Don't make waves or they could be the next target.

Several people believe that again strategy is being used, where the Harperites go after those Canadians who belong to groups who are natural enemies of their Canadian counterparts. Many Czechs dislike Roma, so they won't lose Czech support because of this. Or at least that's what they hope. Divide and conquer mentality. (I'm actually working on a story that I believe will help to prove this theory)

Which brings us to the U.S. mid-terms and Latinos for Reform.

This group has been running ads encouraging the Latino communities not to vote. (You can watch the video below).

And to help accelerate this campaign, many Republican candidates are beefing up their anti-immigration rhetoric, obviously hoping to recapture the Paul Weyrich strategy of turning minority voters away from the polls to help their cause.

Univision, the Spanish-language network refuses to run the ads.

"Univision will not be running any spots from Latinos for Reform related to voting," Univision spokeswoman Monica Talan told Politico. "Univision prides itself on promoting civic engagement and our extensive national campaigns encourage Hispanics to vote."

So what is this really about? If this group cared about Hispanics they would encourage them to make sure that a party openly anti-immigration, and anti-Hispanic, never came to power.

It's political strategy.

The founder of this group, Robert de Posada, was the Republican National Committee's director of Hispanic affairs and worked for the Bush administration and a group founded by Tea Party leader Dick Armey. (8)

The TV ad is suggesting that after two years Obama has not kept his promises. And yet this same group was behind an attack in 2008 against the current president, before he was even president.

It's Weyrich all over again, creating a campaign where only 30 percent of eligible black Americans voted. "I don't want everyone to vote ... our leverage in the election quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

This is democracy?

Paul Weyrich, also co-founder of the horrible Heritage Foundation, is now deceased, but his words linger:

“Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now."

Again. This is democracy?

Footnotes:

Paul Weyrich is also a member of the Council for National Policy, a branch of the U.S. Religious Right. It was at one of their annual meetings, where Stephen Harper delivered his infamous "I hate Canada" speech in 1997. The CNP had already approved of Harper as one of them, so in 2006 when he asked Weyrich to do what he could to ensure that his people didn't speak to Canadian journalists trying to find out just how connected Harper was to this movement, Weyrich was more than happy to oblige.

A top U.S. conservative commentator now says he authorized an e-mail warning right-wing American groups not to talk to Canadian journalists before the election for fear of scaring voters and damaging Stephen Harper's chances. Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation, told The Canadian Press last week that the widely distributed message was the product of an overzealous staff member of the research group ... But in a commentary on the foundation's website this week, in which he calls Canadians too "hedonistic" to change course quickly, Weyrich admits he asked an associate to write the e-mail. (9)

Sources:

1. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 22

2. Yom Kippur Sermon 5769: A critical analysis of the Jewish alliance with the Christian Right regarding Israel, By Rabbi Caryn Broitman, Yom Kippur 2008

3. 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. 120-122

4. Harper uses same-sex to tap into ethnic vote, By Brian Laghi, Anthony Reinhart and Roy MacGregor, Globe and Mail, February 12, 2005

5. Jason Kenney's Doublespeak Exposed: Tories Unleash Canada Border Services on Migrants, By S.K. Hussan and Mac Scott, The Bullet, April 22, 2009

6. SAVING ROMA: Roma, once known as Gypsies, face discrimination, attacks in Czech Republic, By Peter O'Neil, Europe Correspondent, Canwest News Service, May 11, 2009

7. Migrant Workers Protest at Canada's Embassy in Guatemala: Migrant Workers in Guatemala Raise Their Voices to Denounce Abuse and Exploitation Under Canada's Temporary Foreign Workers Program, UFCW, September 1, 2010

8. Latinos for Reform Head Robert de Posada Defends Controversial 'Don't Vote' Ad, ABC News, October 21, 2010

9. Harper's U.S. neocon booster changes his story, By Beth Gorham, Canadian Press, January 27, 2006

Words of Wisdom That Should Not Have Been Ignored

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

In 1965 a young reporter with the Calgary Albertan wrote a piece on the history of the Social Credit party in that province, which was then celebrating it's 30th anniversary.

Created during the depression, when desperate people were looking for a saviour, it was both a blessing and a curse. And this is what he discovered in interviewing those who were around at the time of it's creation. Reports were either glowing or painted a picture of "hooligans, emotion run amok, and a stab of fear."

In the churches, the country churches where so long there had been unity, Social Creditors sat on one side of the aisle, and others on the other, and there was a hostile silence after the service. (1)

And this was actually encouraged by the party. Divisive politics played out well at the ballot box. And so did fear.

Meetings of the opposition were often disrupted by " a 'group of big fellows' who honked car horns, yelled and pounded logs against the walls and doors of their meeting halls. Reporters were barred from [Social Credit] meetings, and often made to feel unsafe upon the streets." (1)
And on his Bible program, then leader William Aberhart regaled against "Henchmen", "Bigshots" and "those who betrayed Christ". And if critics phoned into his radio show, they were "threatened with tar and feather, shooting and physical violence". Religious fervour and politics can create a dangerous climate.

So when this young reporter sat down in 1965 to file his story, he understood the dangers of this kind of political party. His name was Joe Clark and he would go on to become Canada's youngest prime minister.

Yesterday, someone posted a CBC clip from the 2004 election campaign, on Canadians Rallying to Unseat Stephen Harper. In it Joe Clark suggested that former PCers (the party folded in 2003) should vote Liberal, and called Stephen Harper "a dangerous choice for voters".

Naturally the Reform/Alliance members, now marching under the 'Conservative' banner, went on the attack, suggesting that Clark was just upset because he was on his way out.

However, if the media had dug a little deeper, they would have understood that Clark was speaking from decades of research, and experience with this movement, that began in 1935 as Social Credit under first Aberhart, and then Ernest Manning. It then passed to Ernest's son Preston under Reform and Preston's lieutenant Stephen Harper under Alliance, before becoming the 'Conservative Party of Canada'.

He knew what they stood for. He knew how they operated. And he knew that Stephen Harper was a "dangerous" man.

Schooled in Politics

Joe Clark and Preston Manning attended the University of Alberta at the same time and were members of the Youth Parliament. At the time Manning was considered to be a little odd.

At university in the early sixties he gave the impression of a rural kid completely isolated from the ways of urban society. He presented an odd image. "He was part of the Youth Parliament's Social Credit caucus at the same time Joe Clark, Grant Notley (the late, former leader of the New Democratic Party in Alberta), Jim Coutts (who became prominent in the Liberal Party under Pierre Trudeau), and others were representing their respective parties. He was a good speaker, but you never saw him on campus. People knew who he was, and the rumour was that his father didn't want him to hang around the university too much because it would be a bad moral influence on him," recalls Fred Walker, a student at that time. "He looked very out of place — odd enough in his mannerisms and physical appearance and dress to be the occasional subject of ridicule. He gave the impression of being a very serious and committed young man — but more an apologist for his father's party and policies. He didn't play a very prominent role." (2)

But during debate it was clear that his political thought was not only to the right, but also, like his father's, grounded in a fear of socialism.

"It was not simply that Social Credit was found ... to be wanting in areas of social policy - it was more that conservative ideas were being challenged by socialism. Left-wing thinking was influencing events and people ... 'We [socreds] believe that Canada is drifting towards socialism even when the majority of Canadians are opposed to collectivism and the welfare state...'" (3)

The idea that the majority of Canadians opposed the welfare state, came from party rhetoric, and was not based on fact, a pattern that continues today.

What Canadians wanted was more from their government. If they were expected to go to war in the name of nationalism, then they deserved to share in the resources of the nation that they had fought for.

After the war, public policy launched upon a prolonged process of social reform. It was as though the generation that had endured the Depression and fought the war had determined upon the establishment of a new Canadian society based upon compassion and caring and a gathered resolve that life could be made better for all Canadians by governments committed to principles of tolerance, fairness, and equity. (4)

They Meet Again

After the Reform Party was founded, Preston Manning decided to run against his old university nemesis Joe Clark in the riding of Yellowhead Alberta, for the 1988 election. This wasn't so much because of a personal grudge, but he felt that the publicity would be good for the party. With Mr. Clark's status, the press would be following this race closely.

There is a funny story about that campaign from author Gordon Laird.

"Like many Albertans Preston Manning knows how to dress cowboy ... Manning learned how to ride on his parent's farm near Edmonton where he once won northern Alberta's 4H livestock raising championship .... but it was not until 1988 that Reform's head cowboy formed his first posse. Campaigning against the incumbent Progressive Conservative, Joe Clark ... Reform's new leader hatched a publicity stunt before a debate in the town of Jasper. A 'Reform Posse' of riders, complete with Reform banners and saddle blankets, was organized to chase down the ex-prime minister, who was scheduled to arrive at the local train station. It was High Noon for Mulroney's token westerner. 'The posse and Sheriff Manning were in pursuit of the notorious Joe Clark' ....

"To the disappointment of the fifteen horses and riders looking for a political lynchin', Clark never showed; his train was delayed. The Reformers still had fun handing out 'Wanted' posters and posing for pictures with tourists ..." (5)

Manning lost and he lost soundly.

A New Party and a New Nemesis

From the time that Stephen Harper was made the leader of the Alliance Party, he started a war against Joe Clark and the Conservatives. He didn't try to negotiate an alliance but told Clark to "stop pissing around or get out of my way." He wanted to devour the PC party and Clark fought back.

This prompted an abuse of his franking privileges, when Harper sent out letters to PC party members suggesting that Clark was misleading his party.

And when Joe Clark fought desperately to hold onto what was started by Sir John A. MacDonald, never joining the "new" neoconservative spin-off, he knew exactly who Stephen Harper was, and he knew what this party represented.

Former PC member of parliament , Flora MacDonald called it "... the demolition of a historic 150-year-old institution that has done so much to build this country... and claimed that "The party's future lies not in some right-wing alliance that would violate the progressive and moderate traditions of its former leaders, but with a renewed emphasis on the values that the great majority of Canadians feel represent their views." (5 )

So when in 2004, Joe Clark called Stephen Harper "dangerous", it was not based on sour grapes, but on decades of fighting against a destructive movement, that promoted divisiveness, was run by "hooligans, emotion run amok, with a stab of fear."

Canadians should have listened.

Sources:

1. A Desperate People Turn to Social Credit, By Reporter Joe Clark, Calgary Albertan News Perspective, August 1965

2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 5

3. Dobbin, 1992, Pg. 24-25

4. Whose Country is This Anyway? By Dalton Camp, Douglas & McIntyre, 1995, ISBN: 1-55054-467-5, Pg. 17

5. The Toronto Star, November 14, 2003