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."

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.

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

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

Why Do Neoconservatives Hate Nelson Mandela?

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

By the late 1960's, many western nations began to take up the cause of the black South Africans, speaking out against apartheid. Nelson Mandela's story was not yet widely known, but human rights violations were.

In 1978, the United Nations officially condemned South Africa at the World Conference Against Racism, sparking a movement to end the practice. But what it also sparked was a larger movement to keep the status quo, backed by some of the world's wealthiest citizens. Their motivation was protecting corporations who would lose massive profit if they had to start paying the black labour force of South Africa, a reasonable wage. (1)

By 1980, a campaign was launched to encourage trade sanctions, but then president Ronald Reagan, a man with strong ties to the corporate world, instead introduced a policy of "constructive engagement", which promoted simply "encouraging change in the apartheid system through a quiet dialogue with that country's white minority leaders". Naturally it failed, and after a dramatic surge of anti-apartheid protest and political activism in the United States, the Reagan Administration was forced to impose trade sanctions, though they were very moderate. (2)

An Unwelcome PR Campaign

In 1985, South African Ambassador to Canada, Glen Babb, was touring Canada to gain support for the continuation of Apartheid.

At the time, Anthony Panayi, now calling himself Tony Clement, was leading a group of radical right-wing students at the University of Toronto. They had successfully managed to take over the Young Progressive Conservatives and turn it into a vehicle for promoting neoconservative ideology. When Clement (Panayi) heard of Babb's tour he went to the student organizations on campus to see if they would sponsor a debate. They flatly refused, so Anthony simply created his own society, and invited the controversial ambassador, as a way "to ensure that that advocates of Apartheid were heard in this coun­try." (3)

However, when Babb arrived he was met with violent protest and during the debate divestment activist Lennox Farrell, made an impassioned, emotional plea against Apartheid, at one point shouting, "Children are dying!" The reaction of the Ambassador was simply to smirk, causing Farrel to lose his cool. He picked up the heavy wooden ceremonial mace lying on the center table, and tossed it at the Ambassador, narrowly missing his forehead, but striking the hand of another university official. The debate was immediately stopped and Farrel was taken away, though no charges were laid. (3)

Another debate was arranged and this time, though Babb was able to complete his talk, 300 protesters chanted outside the auditorium, while another group of protesters dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan satirically rose up to applaud the ambassador whenever he paused during his presentation. At the end of the event, as his car whisked him out of the university, several other students shouted and threw snowballs. (4)

Let the Lobbying Begin

Angering university students was not the only controversy associated with Babb's tour. As a publicity stunt he arranged an invitation to visit the reserve of the Peguis in Manitoba. While there he pointed out the grim parallels between the practices of the two countries. He then arranged for “native” leaders to tour South Africa, courtesy of the South African Tourist Board, in August of 1987. This outraged other leaders who made it clear “that the Indian people of Canada will not go down in history as allies of racist fascism.” (1)

However, during his two-and-a-half year posting, Babb appeared on Canadian television more than 132 times and even more frequently on radio. He heavily lobbied politicians, journalists, intellectuals and universities in support of the Reagan Administration's policy of "constructive engagement" rather than sanctions or divestment. Babb referred to apartheid as a "benign policy" and a means of controlling "urbanization". (5) He also claimed that sanctions would harm South African blacks more than the white minority. (6) "Whether you shoot the zebra on the white stripe or the black stripe," he said, "you are going to kill the zebra." (7)

His efforts were successful, because while then prime minister Brian Mulroney originally supported sanctions, his party's position changed, with Joe Clark left to announce their new intentions, which were viewed as a "flip flop". You can watch the news clip here.

A More pro-Active Campaign:

One of the more aggressive champions of Apartheid within South Africa was Craig Michael Williamson, a man who went underground with the African National Congress, the party of Nelson Mandela, as part of a "Long Reach" operation, of what would be better described as "dirty tricks".

Williamson recruited journalists from around the world to help with a propaganda mission to discredit the ANC and gain support for the white African government. He found such a journalist in Canadian Peter Worthington.

The crudely racist, flamboyantly anti-communist and vividly right-wing journalism of Peter Worthington was a particularly prominent feature of this for anyone living in Toronto during these years, but those of us in the Canadian anti-apartheid network at the time were well aware of its broader reach. For example, a well-researched 1988 article in the western Canadian journal Briarpatch listed a host of right-wing and business-related groups hard at work defending apartheid: the Western Canadian Society of South Africa and the extremely well-connected Canadian-South African Society, for example. Indeed the husband of Canada’s then Governor-General, Jeanne Sauve, was actually a member of the latter until shamed into resigning in 1985. (1)

But there is something that Mr. Saul may not have realized about these pro-white South African groups. There was another one with strong ties to the Canadian-South African Society, called the Northern Foundation.

"‘The Northern Foundation was established in 1989, originally as a pro-South Africa group . . . lists among the founding members of the Foundation both William Gairdner and Stephen Harper ... " (8)

"... the Northern Foundation was the creation of a number of generally extreme right-wing conservatives, including Anne Hartmann (a director of REAL Women), Geoffrey Wasteneys (A long-standing member of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada), George Potter (also a member of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada), author Peter Brimelow, Link Byfield (son of Ted Byfield and himself publisher/president of Alberta Report), and Stephen Harper." (9)

Some of those names you may not recognize, but the last one on both lists seems to ring a bell, and he was then considered to be from the "extreme right-wing". The Northern Foundation also published a magazine:

"...The foundation's magazine carries a half-page ad in every issue for the Phoenix, a pro-white South Africa magazine, and regularly solicits support from members on special causes, from property rights to English language rights. Attacks on homosexuals and homosexual rights are frequent ..." (8)

But it gets better. These groups were operating within the Reform Party when Preston Manning and Stephen Harper were getting it up and running.

... Murray Dobbin has chronicled extensively the pro-white South Africa actions and sympathies of numerous people within the party, including Ted Byfield*** and Arthur Child. This support for white South Africa, a country whose political system was based on racial group affiliation, by many within the Reform party ... cannot be explained adequately unless one accepts the notion that many Reformers strongly identify with 'Anglo' culture ... (9)

And:

"There is good reason to believe that groups sympathetic to (white) South Africa have seen the [Reform] party as an ally, especially in the days when trade sanctions, strongly supported by Canada, were proving damaging to the South African economy and it's prestige. That was in 1988-89. And it was during his period in particular that a number of pro-South African groups organized efforts to undermine Canadian policy and to spread pro-South African literature across the country. All of these groups had some degree of contact with the South African embassy in Ottawa ... Key individuals in those organizations have also played and continue to play important roles in the Reform party.

... "Water's military background and his business connections got the attention of pro-South African activists long before he became external affairs spokesman for the Reform Party .. and that attention paid off ... Arthur Child the president of Burns Meats ... has openly supported South Africa for twenty years ... he is also on the board of Canadian-South African Society (CSAS) ... founded in 1979 and was involved says Child, in 'trying to counteract the anti-South African sentiment in Ottawa ... we distributed information on South Africa - mostly to MPs.

(CSAS) was founded to bring together Canadian and American subsidiary business interests in South Africa ...Their profit levels are high - often twice their returns in companies ventures in Canada - due to their ability to pay low wages and almost no benefits to black labour.' "Most of the thirty member board are from Ontario ... a few were from the west ... one of these was Norman Wallace of Saskatoon ... a founding member of the Reform party ... He set up Eagle Staff Import Export Ltd. to further business ties with South Africa. (8)

And of course this was the same Canadian-South African Society, mentioned in John Saul's article, (1) which included the husband of then Governor General Jeanne Sauve. But more importantly, through connections to the Northern Foundation and the Reform Party, included one Stephen Harper. Peter Worthington also belonged to the NF. (10)

Lights, Camera, Action

One of the projects that Craig Williamson had Worthington work on was a documentary film on Mandela's ANC: The red terrorist menace in South Africa - written by Peter Worthington, produced by Peter Worthington and starring Peter Worthington. (11)

It was a one-sided view of the conflict:

Worthington says. "It was done very quickly." He wrote the script one morning, then read it to camera that afternoon. And while he went about some interviews for his Reader's Digest piece (which in early March the magazine had neither received nor scheduled) a cameraman followed. The rest of the film was made up of file footage, some of it from the state-owned South African Broadcasting Corporation. Most of the editing was done in South Africa, with only the final cut, made in Canada. Worthington had the finished product in his hands, having spent virtually nothing out of his pocket. "If it cost me anything, it cost me a cab ride," he says. (11)

Mainstream media outlets rejected it, but he managed to find a distributor:

That was handled by Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform*, a tight-wing organization based in Toronto. CFAR agreed to the task after Worthington's attempts to get his taped views aired on public television got nowhere, says Paul Fromm, CFAR's research director. And while the television producers were saying no, CFAR's members were nodding yes, snatching up 4,000 copies of the tape and its 12-page companion booklet in five months. Members of Parliament were each sent a copy ... (11)

But CFAR were not the only ones to offer the film to their members:

Meanwhile, Worthington was also circulating copies to his friends, and this was how it caught the attention of David Somerville, a former employee of Worthington's at The Toronto Sun. Somerville is president of the National Citizens' Coalition**, another rightwing pressure group in Toronto. He offered the tape to his membership, which numbers 36,000, at $12 apiece ("at cost"). The NCC sold 600-more than double what it expected. Somerville calls the video a "journalistic effort at setting the record straight on the ANC." (11)

Meanwhile in Etobicoke:

Another young man would also become a follower of Peter Worthington. Guy Giorno, who was chief of staff for Mike Harris and is now chief of staff for Stephen Harper, became a devotee after hearing him on a radio program in the early 1980's. He would eventually attend St. Michael's College, where according to Ted Schmidt, his name was bandied about, as a contributor to the right-wing Catholic Digest:

Reading Giorno's neo-con rants I used to wince - 'Nelson Mandela was espousing violence, unions have too much power, doctors should have the right to double bill', the list goes on. "How could they give a guy like this space in a Catholic paper?" I remember thinking ... [now] Giorno is one of the most powerful insiders in the Ontario Tory government. (12)

And he is now one of the most powerful insiders in the Harper government.

Aftermath

Fortunately, Nelson Mandela would be released and become the first black president of South Africa, and has been the recipient of more than 250 awards, including the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize.

In 2001, the Canadian Parliament voted to make Nelson Mandela an honorary citizen. It would have passed unanimously, except for the vote of Harper MP Rob Anders, who refused by stating that Mandela was a communist and a terrorist. Rob Anders was a also a member of the National Citizens Coalition. I wonder if he still has his tape.

Stephen Harper has sued us several times, but one lawsuit launched in 2000, is aptly indexed Stephen Harper vs Canada.

I think that defines the neoconservative movement, because it goes against everything that Canadians stand for. We embrace men like Nelson Mandela. We embrace diversity and multiculturalism. We are proud of who we are and were never looking for this kind of radical change. Canadians are not moving to the right, as the Harper government would like to believe.

We are nice dammit, and recognize that a movement that would attack a man like Nelson Mandela, is not a movement we would support.

Some people tell me that Canadians, while they don't particularly like Stephen Harper, may go with devil they know. I have now made it my job to introduce Stephen Harper, the devil they may not know at all.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MR. MANDELA!

Footnotes:

*CFAR was allowed to sell memberships at the Reform Party convention.

**The National Citizens Coalition was started on the advice of Preston Manning's father: Ernest Manning, former premier of Alberta. Stephen Harper would eventually become president of the NCC and had been a member since 1980.

Sources:

1. Two fronts of anti-Apartheid struggle: South Africa and Canada, By John Saul, History Matters, Wed, May 13, 2009

2. South Africa: Why Constructive Engagement Failed, By Sanford J. Ungar and Peter Vale, Foreign Affairs Tuft University, Winter 1985/86

3. The Age of Dissent: Socialists, peaceniks, feminists, rabble-rousers: They came in search of an education. They left having taught the old school a thing or two, By Margaret Webb, University of Toronto Magazine, Spring 2002

4. Looking back at Carleton's divestment from South Africa, By Alroy Fonseca, January 22, 2010

5. "Apartheid on way out, Babb insists ", By Erica Rosenfeld, Globe and Mail, October 27, 1985

6. "Back Pretoria, envoy urges", Globe and Mail, November 18, 1985

7. "Envoy says South Africa hard done by, By Kevin Cox" Globe and Mail, October 17, 1985

8. Preston Manning and the Reform Party. By Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 100-107

9. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada. Author: Trevor Harrison Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, Pg. 121

10. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper demonstrates continued ultra right wing affiliations by blocking pro social justice Toronto candidate, by Dr. Debra Chin, Canadian National

11. Raw footage, By David Stonehouse, Ryerson's Review of Journalism, Spring 1988

12. The Man Behind Mike, by Ted Schmidt, NOW Magazine, January 8-14, 1998

Reform Has Come Full Circle as News is Being "Dished Out in Platters"

I was researching something else today and came across a site with archived Times Magazine articles.

The ones that I found interesting were from 1935, when William "Bible Bill" Aberhart was first named Premier of Alberta.

He wasn't elected premier, but was founder and leader of the new Social Credit Party, when they won 56 of 63 seats in the provincial election.

The new leader, William Aberhart, whose ancestors were German, followed the tactic of Adolf Hitler in not standing for election to a legislative seat but devoting all his energies to boosting the Social Credit Party into power. This accomplished, plain Mr. Aberhart accepted from one of his Party henchmen last week the seat he had to have before he could be named Premier. (1)

Now there were no negative connotations with comparing him to Adolph Hitler at the time. You've got to remember that the German leader was highly thought of then, and in fact was the 1938 Times Man of the Year.

But there was something else of Hitler's that Aberhart emulated, that is far more striking. His propaganda machine.

Without crudely borrowing the name of Germany's "Ministry of Propaganda & Public Enlightenment," Premier Aberhart announced that Alberta Government news will hereafter be "dished out in platters" by a bureau with exclusive monopoly of statements from the Premier & Cabinet so that ''there will be no more scoops." .... According to Alberta reporters they are going to be stuffed with Aberhart press handouts, barred from ferreting out real news. (1)

I've written on the history of Social Credit before, since they were the forerunner to the Reform Party. Ernest Manning, Preston Manning's father took over from Aberhart when he died, and the SC ran Alberta for decades. It was considered to be pretty radical back in the day, but started off slowly.

Adolf Hitler's first moves when he reached power were adroitly Conservative, and so last week were William Aberhart's. (1)

So while everyone is comparing Stephen Harper's tight message control to Adolph Hitler, which is so often dismissed as fear mongering; it would appear that Stephen Harper isn't copying the notorious German chancellor at all.

He's obviously researched the success of the Social Credit Party and is taking his lead from William Aberhart; who in fact did copy his style from none other than Adolph Hitler. How about that?

Bill Aberhart Radio Star

Anyone who has studied the Social Credit Party knows that Bill Aberhart had a popular evangelical radio show, but he was also the subject of another radio program.

Beginning in 1931, Times Magazine dramatized some of their news stories, called The March of Time and on August 28, 1935; they reenacted the story of none other than William "Bible Bill" Aberhart. This is how they billed it: A socialist has been elected to head the Alberta, Canada government. He plans to pay all citizens $25 per month. A 'socialist'? Oh, my!

Now I don't know who played his part, though two of the male 'voices' under contract at the time were Orson Welles and Art Carney.

Stephen Harper, Bill Aberhart and Pulpit Politics

So we now know, or can surmise, that Stephen Harper learned how to manipulate the press from the first leader of this party, William Aberhart, who learned it from Adolph Hitler; which explains a lot.

But that was not the only thing that contributed to Social Credit's success that our fearless leader has copied. He's also learned how to manipulate religious fervour.

In 1935 Times magazine dubbed Aberhart "The Messiah" and referred to him as "a Bible-babbling high-school principal ..." After pious rejoicing at the Prophetic Bible Institute and devout singing of Our God, Our Help in Ages Past, Messiah Aberhart announced that he was ready to accept the call to be Alberta's Premier. (2)

William Aberhart was able to own his people mind, body and soul.

Stephen Harper, William Aberhart and a Dictatorial Style

This new Social Credit movement was certainly controversial, and most people had their doubts that it could work at all. But Aberhart was going to make it work, no matter what. He would never accept defeat.

In Alberta it was freely predicted that Messiah Aberhart will never be able to make Social Credit work unless he makes himself a Dictator. Canadian jurists meanwhile believed that Social Credit as proposed in the Province of Alberta is "contrary to the North America Act" which is the fundamental law of Canada's Constitution.

... "They say what we propose to do is unconstitutional!" he snorted. "Just because an old paper was signed in the past doesn't say we can't do this. The British North America Act is a fool act. We can do what we want! (2)

Stephen Harper, William Aberhart and no Fraucus in the Caucus

Like Stephen Harper, Aberhart ruled his caucus, and it would seem everyone else, with an iron fist. Time referred to him as a " ... political bigot who makes his followers take vows to read nothing and listen to nothing uttered by anyone against either himself or Social Credit. (3)

He actually made them sign an oath that they wouldn't read anything against the party. This meant that they wouldn't have been allowed to read these Times articles.

An economic pontiff, William Aberhart makes his followers sign pledges that they accept Social Credit "on faith," forbids them to debate or argue its merits.(2)

And also like Harper, he knew how to utilize attack ads to get what he wanted. When then prime minister, R.B. Bennet was running for re-election:

As his most distasteful chore of the week, the Dominion Premier, who holds his House of Commons seat from Alberta, made a Federal loan of $2,500,000 to that Province's newly-victorious Social Credit Premier William Aberhart. Such seemed to be the price charged by Social Crediteers for withholding their attacks from Mr. Bennett personally in the election. (4)

Bennet lost anyway.

I think I may have actually read somewhere that Harper did study the history of the Social Credit Party to tap into their success, but I didn't realize that it was to this extent. And since Aberhart modeled his party, at least in the beginning, after Hitler's success, it's not that difficult to see where our new Messiah's style came from.

I'm definitely going to look into this a little more. Who knew that I may be able to figure out our little dictator from reading seventy-five year old issues of Times Magazine.

And yes, he also adopted the worst of the Republican system, but Newt Gingrich claims to have drawn on Preston Manning's success, by watching his television ads.

This is certainly a mystery, but I'm on it. (Forward to Part Two)

(1) Social Credit Improved, Times Magazine, September 16, 1935

(2) Messiah, Major, Money, Times Magazine, September 2, 1935

(3) New Viceroy, General Election, Times Magazine, October 21, 1935

(4) King or Chaos, Times Magazine, September 23, 1935

The Sacrament of Politics

The Canadian Manifesto: How the American Neoconservatives Stole My Country

Enthusiastic oilmen envision the Alberta of the future as a northern Texas whose oil and gas pipelines will fan out over the top half of the continent, driving the expanding industries of Canada and the northern U.S. as the oil and gas of Texas now power the South and East.  (CANADA: Texas of the North, Time Magazine, September 24, 1951)

As all that oil flowed out of Alberta, something else flowed in.  A new conservatism, then being thrust upon the Grand Old Party in the United States.

Premier Ernest Manning's close friend and confidante, J. Howard Pew, was a major player in the new Trinity of "God, Republicanism and the USA". 

Pew was a wealthy American oil tycoon and co-founder of Sun Oil (now Sunoco).  A Christian fundamentalist like Manning, he envisioned a North America run by the business elite, for the business elite, and based on the Supremacy of God.

We tend to dismiss this portion of our history, except as it relates to Alberta.  After all, the Social Credit Party is gone.  But in fact, it is now more important than ever, to study Ernest Manning's contribution to history, since it speaks to the time when Movement Conservatism first began in Canada.  Manning had abandoned the populism of Social Credit for the corporatism of the new American Right, and formulated his plans for a new Canadian Right, in the boardrooms of "enthusiastic oilmen", and financiers.

What was remarkable, was that they were able to turn a corporate takeover into a religious crusade.

Billy Graham and his Magical Kingdom

In 1964, Evangelical leader, Billy Graham, toured university campuses, speaking to students about God.  When appearing at Harvard, a young reporter for the school's newspaper, noticed that something was a bit off.  Or perhaps a bit too "on".

A question was presented to Graham from an audience member.  'How can I keep my intellectual integrity and believe in God?'  A good question, I suppose.  So good that someone else had made the same query at a press conference, held earlier that day.

In fact, it was identical to a question asked of Graham when he was speaking at Wellesley, Rindge Tech, Princeton and Michigan State.  The answers were also exactly the same, delivered with the same passion, and sense of revelation at such an obvious wringer.

The astute reporter for the Harvard Crimson, also noticed something else.  Graham's presentation reminded him of that of a Republican hopeful, who was also on a speaking engagement.  Said he:  "Billy Graham and Barry Goldwater have more in common than the initials they use." (1)

This would not have been such a surprise if the author had understood that both Graham and Goldwater were players in the movement conservatism that would soon be taking over right-wing politics.   Heavily scripted and rehearsed, nothing was left to chance.

When Billy Graham claimed to " believe every word of the Bible . . .", it was difficult for many in the audience to imagine how an ancient text could help solve the problems of the day.  Graham refused to address the Civil Rights Movement, only criticizing the demonstrations.

Harvard pastor, Rev. James R. Blanning, had been looking forward to Graham's appearance, but was disappointed.

Billy Graham was with us last week and it was a pleasure to have him in the Harvard community. Yet I think it should be clearly understood that he does not represent Protestant thinking and speaks only for himself. I say this because personally I have always felt that Dr. Graham combines a most appealing sincerity with an incredible understanding of Christian thought and theology. I say incredible because I don't know of any reputable Protestant seminary that teaches the kind of theology that he represented here last week.
 
For one thing, I am troubled by his insistence that the Bible was a kind of magical authority. His oft-repeated statement, "The Bible says," leaves the impression that a simple reading of the scriptures will provide all the answers to life. Never a word is said about biblical criticism or the contemporary understanding of textual material. In the matter of authority, the teachings of the Church or the development of theology are never mentioned. Billy Graham gives to the Bible a kind of authority that would make even Martin Luther uncomfortable. (2)

Other critics of Graham, suggested that he had taken religion back a century, something he would gladly claim to be true and intentional, though a century wasn't nearly enough.

Movement conservatism is a doctrine and their political actions a sacrament.  The infallibility of the Bible was necessary if they were going to build a set of principles around it.

But did Graham really believe it himself?  Perhaps not.

The late Charles Templeton (1915-2001), evangelical turned agnostic; wrote a book Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith. In it he describes his journey from a popular Christian crusader, and colleague of Billy Graham, to his eventual abandonment of organized religion.

At a stage in his life when he was beginning to have doubts about his faith, he went to his friend Graham, expecting some spiritual guidance.  He asked him how he could accept creationism as 'fact' when there was irrefutable evidence that the world had evolved over millions of years. Graham, an intelligent man, told him "I've discovered something in my ministry: when I take the Bible literally, when I proclaim it as the word of God, my preaching has power." (3)

It wasn't about what he believed but what he could sell.  He has built a  $100 million dollar empire and his own personal net worth is pegged at $25 million.  Former President Bush called Graham "America's pastor." Harry Truman called him a "counterfeit" and publicity seeker.

They were both right.

1964 was a pivotal year for movement conservatives.  They had taken over the Republican National Convention, bringing forth their own presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater.  Howard Pew had contributed to Goldwater's victory and financed Billy Graham's crusades.

When some in the mainstream media refused to run Goldwater's ads because they were too radical, they took down names.  When Harvard criticized both Graham and Goldwater, they dismissed them as "dupes, stupes and traitors".  And when Lyndon Johnson gave Goldwater a trouncing, they smiled. 

The battle lines were now drawn.  They had God and country on their side.  Let the crusades begin.

Perhaps the controversial Christian Crusader, Billy James Hargis said it best:

In the wake of the tragic events of November 3 [1964], and their fearful consequences on the course of human events in the years to come, Crusaders must most assuredly don their armor of Christian responsibility and face the rigors of the battle ahead. With the cross of Christ and the American Flag as our only standards, we must reconsecrate our efforts, regardless of the cost, to right the terrible wrong which has been done. (4)

Canada Begins Her own Crusade

While Billy Graham was crusading for Howard Pew and his "Oil Tycoons" in the U.S., there was an opening for a crusader in Canada, and they saw promise in Preston Manning, the young son of Alberta Premier Ernest Manning.

He had studied the Reformation and was ready to apply what he learned to Canadian politics.  According to biographer Frank Dabbs:

Preston Manning's first major research project after his convocation was to assemble a body of literature on the Protestant Reformation and the history of English evangelical "awakenings" and American revival movements. He studied this material intensively for several weeks, created his own synthesis, then wrote a paper and developed some speeches about spiritual awakening in the 1960s. (5)

He then tested his theories on his father's Back to Bible radio program.  The elder Manning was hoping to return to the reforming passion that had first brought Social Credit to power in the province, instilling a sense of mission that could spread to a federal government.

It would take forty years and three failed parties, but eventually his dream came true, though he wouldn't live to see it.

Sources:

1. Billy Graham Silhouette, By Donald E. Graham, The Harvard Crimson, February 20, 1964

2. Billy Graham, The Mail, Harvard Crimson, February 26, 1964

3. Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith, By Charles Templeton, McClelland & Stewart, 1996, ISBN: 0-7710-8422-6, p. 7-8

4. The American Far Right:  A Case Study of Billy James Hargis and Christian Crusade, By John Harold Redekop, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 67-28375, p. 201

5. Preston Manning: Roots of Reform, By: Frank Dabbs, Greystone, 2000, ISBN -13-97815-50547504, p. 59

Preston Manning and Images of Our Time

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

When Pierre Trudeau was first elected prime minister in 1968, I was just entering high school. I had already traded in my Beatle hairband for elephant pants and Janis Joplin, and though my parents were always politically engaged, I didn't give much thought to it.

My first memory is of two pictures that were taped to a cabinet in our dining room. Once was of an emaciated Biafran, and the other an almost life-size picture of Pierre Trudeau, that had come in our local paper.

My mom would point to Biafran child when we wouldn't eat our dinner, suggesting that he would be happy to get the meal, and no matter how many times we told her to "send the slop to Biafra", she was relentless.

But if the image of that child represented despair, the one of Trudeau stood for change. The world was changing and for many Canadians, he was leading the charge.

A Rock Star

About that time I visited an aunt in Michigan. She lived in a small community and since I would be spending several weeks there, she had a get together with the women in her area .. a kind of meet and greet.

But I was surprised that the only thing these women of all ages (even the teenagers) wanted to talk about was Pierre Trudeau. "He's so handsome" ... "You're so lucky" .. "Have you met him?"
I was so proud. He was like a rock star, and he was ours. He was taking us out of stuffy colonialism to now being "cool".

Not Everyone Was Impressed

But the Mannings didn't view Pierre Trudeau in quite the same way. They agreed that he represented change, but not the kind of change they were looking for. They wanted to take us back and he was moving us forward.

Trudeau envisioned a "Just Society". And he vigorously defended the newly implemented universal health care and regional development programs as means of making society more just.

To the Mannings, universal health care was socialism, which they equated to communism, and they continued to work with their corporate friends to eradicate the perceived threat.

Socialism was gaining ground because issues such as poverty and the treatment of women and aboriginal people were now prominently on the public agenda. While other politicians — from all the parties — were approaching the problem of how capitalism could be a means to the end of solving these problems, Preston Manning and his father saw capitalism as the end — and the means of saving it was to find a way to neutralize the socialist appeal.

While Preston Manning was obliged by conditions to put his and his father's political project on hold, the broad objective of defending capitalism from the socialist threat would still be pursued. It was to this broad objective — though not to it exclusively — that M and M Systems Research, the Manning firm, would turn its attention. Social conservatism was by no means exclusively a philosophy of government. In fact, it could be seen as just the opposite: a philosophy of anti-government. The supplanting of government by private enterprise in as many areas of social life as possible was the key objective of social conservatism. M and M Systems Research would pursue that objective, for the time being, from outside government and primarily with private enterprise. (1)

And the money continued to flow, waiting for the chance to turn a just society into a corporate society. But Trudeau was not going away anytime soon.

Sources:

1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 45-46

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

Much of the success of the neo-conservative movement in Canada is because we never took it seriously. The Reformers hit Parliament Hill enmasse in 1993, and we just shook our heads. Who were these yokels? They want to cane people? They want ten-year-olds to go to jail? Are we being punked?

We saw Reformer Darrel Stinson march across the floor with his fists in the air asking an opposition member if he had the 'gonads' to take him on, during a debate, and we laughed. That scene played over and over on our television sets, and while it was hilarious, we had to remind ourselves that this guy was a Member of Parliament. What just happened here?

Not believing they would last, the media mostly ignored them, every now and then repeating an outrageous remark they made, but c'mon. These guys were fools and we knew it. So how did these 'fools' end up forming a government?

It was because we weren't paying attention, in the same way that we're not paying attention now. Stephen Harper may keep them muzzled, but the fact that he has to should be our wake up call.

Not that Harper himself doesn't have a dark side he is taking great pains to conceal. As Linda McQuaig recently stated for the Toronto Star "If, as polls suggest, Stephen Harper is poised to win a majority, it's largely due to the media notion that his past reputation for extremism no longer holds."

The video above relates to Leo Strauss, the father of this neo-conservative movement and it's not too difficult to see how that relates to Harper's Reformers. The three basic principles are deception, religious fervour and unbridled patriotism through perpetual war, but an important strategy is to identify and exploit 'hot button' issues. We've been neo-conned! OUCH! But we can't say we weren't warned.

Following are excerpts from Hard Right Turn, by political science professor and author, Brooke Jeffrey.

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

Sins of Omission

Canada's neo-conservatives have relied heavily on their ability to manipulate a disgruntled and fearful middle class. The brilliance of their strategy, as former Ontario premier Bob Rae has noted, has been their ability "to convince the working majority that their fate lies with the wealthy and not with the vulnerable." Overturning the liberal ethic of community and collective responsibility, they have persuaded the middle class that they can survive only by saving themselves and throwing in their lot with the best interests of corporate Canada and the global business elite.

This argument in turn has only been successful because of the widespread and mistaken presumption of much of the middle class - in other Western liberal democracies as well as Canada - that they have been responsible for their own success. As Canadian economist John Kenneth Galbraith has described in painful detail in The Culture of Contentment, successive generations of middle-class voters have become too removed from the origins of the liberal consensus. Smug in their accomplishments and sublimely unaware that their success has been possible only due to state-sponsored education, health-care and labour programs from which they, of all citizens have benefited the most, they have lost their attachment to the social contract and the welfare state, a development which liberal politicians failed to recognize and correct in time.

Instead, with each generation more removed from the perils of the free market than the last, they prospered sufficiently to create their own reality, building suburban and exurban communities with private education, private medical care and, as American society in particular deteriorated, private security forces. When globalization took it's toll, many of the middle class sank into poverty and lost faith in the system, while those who survived not only prospered, but continued to believe it was due to their own foresight and ability. Either way, the state became less important in their lives.

"...the growing gap (between rich and poor)... described by noted economist and former (U.S.) Secretary of Labour Robert Reich is potentially even more dangerous to liberal democracy ...

"In Canada, with it's even more advanced commitment to the welfare state, the result has been the willingness of the suburban middle-class to allow the deterioration of the social safety net - in order to maintain their standard of living.

"All of these developments, of course, were only possible because of the abject failure of the liberal political elites to recognize the very real threat of the New Right and respond to it appropriately. Convinced that the liberal values and beliefs they had struggled to establish were now firmly entrenched for all time, they first ridiculed and then dismissed early neo-conservative efforts to modify or discredit them. As Canadian writer Michael Ignatieff warned in a speech delivered early in 1998 at the University of Toronto, 'Nothing has done the electoral and moral credibility of liberalism more harm than the failure to take this attack seriously.'

Astute as Canada's neo-conservatives have been, however, they have also been greatly aided by another factor which demonstrates the frailty of liberal democracy in the late twentieth century, particularly in Canada. Voter apathy, and voter ignorance, are phenomena that have boosted the fortunes of all three of Canada's leading new Right politicians immeasurably. (Like convincing Canadians that the coalition was a coup) Like Ronald Reagan, Canada's neo-conservatives were aware of the fact that they could seize power on the basis of a minority coalition of voters. The failure of some citizens to vote, and the failure of others to understand the consequences of the New Right's political agenda, played into the hands of those politicians counting on the 'deliberate ambiguity' of their message to attract sufficient voters.

"For Preston Manning this meant becoming the federal Opposition solely on the strength of his Western rural support. For Klein and Harris, it meant riding to victory on the coat-tails of the rural ridings and their provincial fundamentalist, social-conservative minorities (Strauss's 'religious fervour') For all three it meant appealing to a disgruntled and fearful middle-class, ignorant of the long-term consequences of the right-wing game plan.

In short, the success of the neo-conservative agenda in Canada must be attributed in part to the failure of the liberal politicians, the media and the educational system to perform the vital function of the political education. As Joe Pammet and Jean-Luc Pepin noted in their symposium on this subject more than a decade ago, the widespread absence of civic classes in the public school system, the failure of most politicians to recognize the importance of their role as educators, and the increasingly superficial coverage of political issues accorded by the unequipped media - emphasizing entertainment over information - have all contributed to this disturbing state of affairs."

Manning, Aberhart and the Stain of Eugenics

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

Francis Galton, a half cousin of Charles Darwin, was the first to establish the "science" of eugenics. In 1869, his book, Hereditary Genius, became the basis for the study of genius and greatness, the notion being that if animals could be bred to produce the best stock, why not people.

The book helped to launch a popular movement, that eventually spread to Canada. Surprisingly the feminists were the first to promote sterilization to prevent birth defects, and two of the biggest supporters were Nellie McClung and Emily Murphy.

Indeed, Murphy set aside her more celebrated battle to obtain recognition of women as persons under the law to tour Alberta in 1926 with fervent speeches and films taken from the province’s mental institutions. “We protect our public against diseased and distempered cattle,” she wrote in one of her many articles. “We should similarly protect them against the offal of humanity.” Mesmerized, women’s groups lobbied hard for legislation and in due course the United Farmers of Alberta government drafted the Sexual Sterilization Act. Under its provisions, an appointed board would be granted authority to order sterilization of any person suffering from mental defect ... (1)

In 1928 a four-member Eugenics Board was set up in Alberta and another soon followed in British Columbia. Initially, sterilizations could only take place with the consent of the patient, but in 1937, William Aberhart and Ernest Manning changed that.

The Social Credit government of William Aberhart, which came to power in 1935, and was keen on speeding up the works, expanded the board’s powers in 1937 by dispensing with the need to acquire consent for sterilization from mental defectives; five years later, another Social Credit majority broadened the net to include some individuals with epilepsy and Huntingdon’s chorea.

But even as Aberhart, the young Ernest Manning, and other Social Credit members were registering their endorsement of eugenics, other observers, such as the future NDP leader Tommy Douglas, were repudiating it in the wake of revelations from Germany, where thousands of mentally retarded citizens were being sterilized and later gassed, in the service of Nazi aster-race theories. It was the start of the Holocaust. By the late forties, in the forum at Nuremberg, the civilized world had judged forced sterilization a crime against humanity. (1)

And the place where the majority of these sterilizations took place was at the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives, in Red Deer.

Later court cases by individuals who had been stripped of their ability to procreate, revealed the horrors that took place at the facility, and the Alberta government was forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation. But it would appear that Manning was already aware that there was a problem, but ignored it.

In early 1952, a poignant ten-page letter landed on the desk of Premier Ernest Manning. Penned by a middle-aged Calgarian, it described in detail wheat had befallen the correspondent’s sixteen-year-old son, who was a resident of the Provincial Training School. It seemed that, a few weeks earlier, staff members had caught the boy talking alone with a female student behind one of the buildings. This was forbidden. The boy was according bundled off to one of the school’s quiet rooms, and there, a day later, an attendant had found him, lying dazed in a great pool of blood amid a litter of shards from an earthenware chamber pot.

The teenager was rushed to a Red Deer hospital, where he was treated for a five-centimeter deep wound to the groin. A week later he was still pale and weak from loss of blood. School authorities, however, brushed off the incident, intimating that the boy, “a confirmed masturbator,” was himself to blame. The father had a different theory. His son was a severe epileptic. With its chronic staff shortage, he suggested, the school had failed to detail someone to keep an eye on the boy. Locked in a hot, stuffy room alone, he had suffered a major seizure.

The writer took the opportunity to unburden himself to the premier about other disturbing school practices, clearly confident that the Christian preacher whose “National Bible Hour” broadcasts echoed over the airwaves each Sunday would be sympathetic. “It is easy to love children that are clever,” he concluded sadly, “but I think it takes grace to love these unfortunate ones.” Manning’s two paragraph reply is preserved in the provincial archives. Promising vaguely to improve educational facilities in the school, the premier sided squarely with the school’s administration. “I feel that the staff of the Training School is doing everything possible within existing facilities to give proper care to the youngsters at the Training School.” (1)

The school did not improve and the complaints continued. Then in 1960, Manning surprised everyone by sending his own son to the facility.

Then, around 1960, the premier committed to its care his eldest son, Keith, who was afflicted with both epilepsy and arrested mental development as the result of a birth injury. The Mannings had spent much time and money chasing a cure and had finally sent the boy away to a New York State school. But according to Preston Manning’s autobiographical reminiscences in The New Canada, American medical care for Keith had stretched the Manning family budget to the limit. The Red Deer school offered welcome relief.

And there, in Pine Villa, in the Small Boys section of the school, the premier’s son, then a young man, was ensconced, to be treated “like royalty,” according to Glen Sinclair, who roomed next to him for a time. It was one of the more cynical chapters in the training-school saga. Everyone seemed to know who Keith was, showering him with privileges and the small acts of kindness so notably missing from the other’s lives. While everyone else slept four to a bedroom, Keith got a special double room, number ten Pine Villa, and was permitted to pick his own roommate. As a rule, personal possessions were discouraged; Keith was free to keep games, snacks, and even a typewriter in his room.

School officials frowned on family visits, but Keith’s parents dropped in at least once or twice a month on their way to Calgary for the premier’s weekly “Bible Hour.” They often took him along for a day trip. Instead of continual chores, Keith, in his late teens or early twenties, got piano lessons. More enviable still, Keith, who had an explosive temper, was handled with kid gloves. “They’d take him out for a walk and try to calm him down,” recalls a former resident, Donald Passey, who ended up at the school despite a recent test that indicated he has an IQ of 113. “Or they’d go to his room and try to discuss things with him.” In contrast, Passey remembers being disciplined by a staff member who pinned him to the wall and slapped and punched him; another resident lost part of his finger when an employee deliberately kicked a door shut on it. Even the most profoundly impaired children were sometimes beaten.

Keith Manning remained at the school for several years. Just how far the red-carpet treatment went to protect him from the Sexual Sterilization Act is unclear. He married in late middle age, though he remained childless, and succumbed to a brain tumour in 1986 while living in a nursing home in Edmonton. Preston Manning has firmly declined to be interviewed about his brother.(1)

Preston does mention his brother in his book, stating that he resented that he was unable to play with him and also complained that he always lived in fear that his brother would have a seizure when they were together. He does, however, praise the religious community for embracing his brother and treating him as an equal. (2)

When the Conservatives beat out the Social Credit party in 1971, the first bill they passed was the Alberta Bill of Rights, and with it the repeal of the Sexual Sterilization Act. In its forty-four years in force, 4,278 sterilizations had been authorized. A study by a law professor at the University of Alberta suggested a consistent bias against minority groups: Indians and Metis, predictably, but also Poles, Ukrainians, and other eastern Europeans.

Another dark stain on the history of the Social Credit party.

Sources:

1. Alberta Barren: The Mannings and forced sterilization in Canada, By Heather Pringle, Saturday Night Magazine, June 1997

2. The New Canada, By Preston Manning, 1992, MacMillan Canada, ISBN: 0-7715-9150-0, pg. 14-15