Men should pledge themselves to nothing; for reflection makes a liar of their resolution. Sophocles
Pledges are nothing new for politicians. Some are broad in scope, like FDR's pledge to a New Deal for Americans, or President Obama's pledge to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
In 1994, Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, while mostly a treatise on "family values" laced with anti-government claptrap, helped the GOP win the primaries. It was a pledge.
What a lot of Canadians are no doubt unaware of, is that Stephen Harper's Reform Party helped to draft the Contract. It's author, Republican pollster Frank Luntz, had been working with Harper and the gang since 1991, and in fact it was Luntz who told Harper to use hockey terms whenever he could to lure us into a state of complacency.
What really sold Americans on The Contract, was the "folksy" way that it was delivered; and the fact that it was revealed just days before the election, there was little time for anyone to give it a thorough analysis.
During this week's Ontario leadership debate, Conservative Tim Hudak, "pledged" that if he couldn't balance the budget in two years, or create one million jobs in eight years, he would resign.
He delivered this pledge with the same "folksy" sincerity as Newt Gingrich did his, and again near the end of the campaign. Will it be enough to fool voters?
We know that Hudak visited America's Far Right to help draft his platform, at a time when the Tea Party was calling for a renewal of The Contract.
Most of the opposition to Hudak's pledge appears to be in the reality of his being able to honour it. I worry that he will.
Not that it might boost his credibility, but of what it could cost Ontario.
In 1995, Conservative MP Jason Kenney, then head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation; criss-crossed the country promoting his anti-tax philosophy. As part of his tour, he met up with Mike
Harris who signed a pledge not to raise taxes if elected. Harris also pledged to balance the budget.
To keep the first promise, while lowering taxes for our
wealthiest citizens, Harris implemented and increased user fees, and downloaded many services to municipalities, resulting in property tax increases for most residents.
To keep the second, in a desperate eleventh hour move, he sold a toll highway, giving away a century of needed revenue
In the final week of the campaign, all parties will flood the
airways with ads, further confusing the electorate. Maybe all they will remember is the goofy grin and the "pledge".
Despite the fact that such contracts would not be legally binding in Canada, we might still be on the hoof for the settlement.
In reading books like Todd Gordon's Imperialist Canada, Chalmers Johnson's Dismantling the Empire and now Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, a pattern for American Imperialism becomes evident.
If a country has natural resources the U.S. wants, but refuses to hand over, the government is replaced with a dictator. And that dictator is financed by the corporations then operating in, or wishing to operate in, the resource rich country.
Stephen Harper is now the dictionary definition of a dictator (try saying that fast three times).
This was not accomplished through a bloody coup, and the big stick diplomacy was domestic, however, much of Harper's success was American made.
1. One of the top Republican polling firms, McLaughlin and Associates take credit for Harper's career. They were also the official ad firm for Harper's National Citizens Coalition, "having worked with them for many years". From their website: John [McLaughlin] also has done extensive market research and consulting for non-profit and corporate clients. His clients have included ... The National Citizens Coalition (Canada)
2. Arthur Finkelstein, another top Republican pollster, who has worked for presidents from Nixon to Bush, was the official advisor to the National Citizens Coalition, for sixteen years. He was also a mentor of Stephen Harper's, passing on a visceral hatred for anything liberal.
3. Frank Luntz, yet another Republican pollster, instructed Harper on how to get a majority. His advice included faux nationalism and talking hockey any chance he got. And darn it all, if it didn't work.
4. One of the founders of the American Religious Right, Paul Weyrich, helped to get Harper elected by cautioning his flock not to speak with the Canadian media.
5. Another key player in the American Religious Right, James Dobson, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, on Canadian radio ads attacking same-sex marriage, to bolster Harper's campaign when he was running on the same platform.
6. In Lawrence Martin's book Harperland, he claimed that Stephen Harper does not believe in peacekeeping, but sees the world as a 'Clash of Civilizations', the doctrine of American neoconservative Irving Kristol.
8. Billionaire Rupert Murdoch of Fox News, financed our own Fox News North (Sun TV)
In November of 2006, in response to a John Ibbitson column: Harper and Bush Compared, Michael Watkins refuted the claim that Harper was nothing like Bush. In everything from healthcare and education, to foreign policy, he was indeed the mirror image.
Not surprising given that the people above, were involved with both men.
I know the list is longer, but it gives some idea of the American bloodless coup and their puppet dictator.
Some are now referring to Canada as the 51st state, but I think it's more than that. I think we are now little more than another American colony.
5. Harper introduced a bill that would require permission from the U.S. before any Canadian flies to a third world country.
The Harper government has quietly presented a bill in the House of Commons that would give U.S. officials final say over who may board aircraft in Canada if they are to fly over the U.S. en route to a third country. "Canadian sovereignty has gone right out the window," Liberal Transport critic Joe Volpe told the Montreal Gazette in a recent telephone interview. "You are going to be subject to American law." (Vancouver Sun)
6. We are now part of the U.S. led nuclear partnership, allowing all nuclear waste to be repatriated to Canada. In other words, the handling of our nuclear energy, is being directed by the United States.
So could someone please tell me how we are not now just another American colony. We have been handed over by our puppet dictator. Once they control our public services, including healthcare, we may wish we were just the 51st state.
Part of the success of the Corporate Welfare State has been in their ability to craft messages.
It's more than just Orwellian, where words have the exact opposite meaning, but the use of language that is wrapped in ambiguity. This includes phrases that have become part of corporate-speak or neocon-speak.
"Tax relief" is code for "corporate tax cuts", "choice" is code for "privatization", and "job creators" or "job creation" means a shift from union wages to barely being able to call it a wage.
But the two most dangerous words in corporate-speak are "risk management". Risk management is the process of eliminating safeguards in exchange for a promise to clean up your mess.
A good example of this can be found in Jamie Court's book, How Corporate Power Steals Your Personal Freedom. In it, Court reminds us that this is not about anti-capitalism, and that not all corporate executives can be defined by those who often make headlines. Though he wrote his book before the greed induced economic meltdown, making it in some ways rather prophetic.
Court tells the story of General Motors and their "risk management" policy that resulted in a class action lawsuit, costing the company 4.9 billion dollars. They took too much risk and almost got away with it. Except that a leaked memo clearly laid out the terms of their unimaginable policy.
Tests conducted on some GM models had revealed that gas tanks could explode and ignite in the event of an accident. This prompted a study by engineer E.C. Ivey and the resulting memo entitled " Value Analysis of Auto Fuel Fed Fire Related Fatalities". (1)
What the report concluded was that if GM could install a safer fuel tank for $2.40 per car or less, it stood to save money. However, anything more meant it was cheaper to compensate for the deaths. GM calculated it would cost $8.59 per car to protect fuel tanks in crashes, resulting in a net safety "cost" of $6.19 per car to save lives.
You can see the memo here, that was presented in court. The value of a human life was determined by GM to be $ 6.19. That's "risk management". Instead of protecting the public, who no doubt would have gladly paid an extra six bucks, or even nine bucks, not to have their car catch fire, the Corporation decided their fate for them, in terms of dollars and cents.
Risk management came to the forefront in Canada when Stephen Harper inked a deal with George W. Bush and Mexican president Felipe Calderón, at what was dubbed the Jelly Bean Summit. So named for the pm's remarks when asked about the lowering of our safety standards to meet with Mexico's:
“Is the sovereignty of Canada going to fall apart if we standardize the jelly bean?” asked our Prime Minister with a smirk. “You know, I don’t think so.”
Canada used to have some of the toughest consumer safety laws, while Mexico the lowest, but in order for the trade deal to be finalized, we had to drop to their level, while they were allowed to stay the same. A great deal. "... The Montebello Agreement sets out a plan to coordinate risk assessment and risk management activities across North America."
In other words, standards were lowered, but in the event of an "accident" the corporation had to do their own cleanup. The Listeriosis crisis is a good example of this. Twenty Canadians died because Harper allowed meat processing plants to inspect themselves, and Maple Leaf launched a "we care" ad blitz. That's "risk management".
Corporate-speak also refers to the lowering of regulations as "red tape reduction". It sounds much better than purchase at your own risk, and definitely better than putting a price on human life.
And this brings me to another alarming "risk management" scheme, this time when it comes to war. I posted in December of how the Harper government had gotten themselves mixed up with the Afghan underworld, who had them painted into a corner.
Murray Brewster with the Globe has also recently revealed that the situation was well known by allied forces in Afghanistan, resulting in the U.S. being forced to distance themselves from Canadians.
Canada spent more than $41-million on hired guns in Afghanistan over four years, much of it going to security companies slammed by the U.S. Senate for having warlords on the payroll. Both the Defence and Foreign Affairs departments have employed 11 security contractors in Kabul and Kandahar since 2006, but have kept quiet about the details.
... The records show Foreign Affairs paid nearly $8-million to ArmorGroup Securities Ltd., recently cited in a U.S. Senate investigation as relying on Afghan warlords who in 2007 were engaged in “murder, kidnapping, bribery and anti-Coalition activities.” The company, which has since been taken over by G4S Risk Management, provided security around the Canadian embassy in Kabul and guarded diplomats.
And there you go, the same corporate-speak of "risk management". So I investigated the story a bit and found out that what these agencies do, besides engaging in "murder, kidnapping and bribery", is clean up. This means that rather than having to bother with protecting civilian lives, they go to the families of those caught in the crossfire, and offer money. And we wonder why they want us out of there. Who looks for assistance from a country that is able to put a monetary value on human life?
Which begs the question. What is an Afghan civilian's life worth on the open market? Maybe we'll have to call the Blue Hackle, one of the private firms hired by Stephen Harper, who also not surprisingly, work for Corporate America.
Maybe they have a scale.
Sources:
1. Corporateering: How Corporate Power Steals Your Personal Freedom and What You Can do About it, by: Jamie Court, Penguin Books, 2003, ISBN: 1-58542-228-2
The Canadian Manifesto: How the American Neoconservatives Stole My Country
Obscurantism is characterized by deliberate vagueness in an attempt to obscure the facts. Republican strategists have mastered the art, passing it on to Canada's conservative movement.
Much of this comes from the mastermind, Leo Strauss, who is said to be the father of Neoconservatism (the marriage of movement conservatism with neoconservatism, and their adopted children, the Religious Right). Now and then the media will hint that Stephen Harper is a Straussian, but when Rick Salutin came right out and said it, in a column for the Globe and Mail, he was fired. (1)
In understanding Leo Strauss and his political ideas, while they may originate with Plato's 'Noble Lie', they are actually found in the rise and prolonged success of the Nazi Party. A blueprint for fascism. The definitive Obscurantism.
I'm not talking about the war or the Holocaust, but simply how the Nazi Party was able to achieve such ultimate control of a nation. And they did it with a minority government.
If you read newspaper or magazine accounts of Adolf Hitler throughout the 1920's and early '30's, they are mostly unflattering and dismissive, mocking Hitler and his thugs.
In fact the term Nazi was not an abbreviation of their name: National Socialist German Workers Party, but a term coined by journalist Konrad Heiden, who followed Hitler for 23 years. He gave them the name when he would march with them in a loose infiltration to get his story. 'Nazi' he said was a Bavarian slang term meaning "country bumpkin" (2).
Time magazine began writing of them as early as 1923, but did not use 'Nazi' until 1935. They were simply the 'Fascist Brown Shirts'. And when they first entered the Reichstag, they did everything in their power to 'obstruct' as a means to 'obscure'.
Elizabeth May, in her book Losing Confidence, describes some of the obstructive actions of the Harper caucus.
In one memorable Question Period, the question was about the safety of pet food in response to the tragic incident of poisoned pet food from China. The Conservative backbenchers started barking, "Woof, woof. Bow-wow" ... Heckling has also taken a crueler tone. Sexist taunts are more common*. Government MPs have even taken to loud booing of certain Liberal MPs they most dislike, even before a question can be asked. This is particularly the case for women MPs. For a while, whenever Judy Sgro rose to speak, the Conservatives would chant "pizza" in reference to the allegations from a campaign worker that she had violated elections laws by accepting free pizza for her volunteers. Although she was cleared by Elections Canada, chanting "pizza" seems to entertain the Conservatives. (3)
Compare that to the behaviour of the Brown Shirts at the Reichstag (Parliament) in 1930.
At women's names the Brown Shirts crowed. "Kikeriki! Kikeriki! Kikeriki!" —German equivalent to Cockadoodle-doo! (Fascists both German and Italian, hold that women are respectworthy as hens, jeerworthy when by entering politics they try to be roosters.) On the first day of the Reichstag session absolutely nothing was done except to call and jeer the roll. (4)
And the Harper government continued this obstruction, even creating a manual on how to make sure that Parliamentary committees don't function properly. (5)
I think we need to grow up and start realizing that Neoconservatism is Fascism in it's political strategies. Leo Strauss was a product of this era. He feared communism and hated liberalism. As a young boy he became aware of the cruel aspects of Communist Russia when his parents offered safe haven to a group of Russian Jews, escaping a pogrom. They told horrible tales, which as a young Jewish boy, left him wondering if that could happen to him (6). His first brush with anti-Semitism.
As an adolescent he joined the Zionist youth movement, and became a member of the Blau-Weiss. Strauss would refer to it as "pagan-fascism", (7) and their leader, Walter Moses, liked to imitate Mussolini. It was here that Strauss claimed to have nurtured his authoritarianism, and the concept of a clique**, led by a dictatorial style leader.
He had an intellectual relationship with Nazi Carl Schmitt, and in fact it was Schmitt who got Strauss out of Germany before the worst took place. Strauss colleague Hannah Arendt once said that he tried to join the Nazi Party but was turned away because he was Jewish.
If we continue to squirm every time the Harper government is referred to as Fascists, we will never understand what is happening to our country. They are not Conservatives. They are not Tories. They are Straussian Fascists, and one of the documented strategies to gain and hold onto power, is to obscure and obstruct. Because Strauss believed that the people (us) are "intellectually unworthy of knowing the facts and truth about the government."
Footnotes:
*They even heckled Carolyn Bennett when she was discussing H1N1.
** Writer Paul Berman called neoconservatism ‘a clique with a style that is marked by ruthlessness.’ He saw in neoconservatism a dangerous ‘romance of the ruthless,’
Sources:
1. Rick Salutin's Last Words: Why did The Globe fire its popular columnist? Do his last pieces offer clues?, By David Beers, The Tyee, September 30, 2010
2. Master of the Masses, Time Magazine, February 07, 1944
3. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and Crisis in Canadians Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, p. 71-72
4. GERMANY: Br, Time Magazine, October 27, 1930
5. Tories blasted for handbook on paralyzing Parliament, Canadian Press, May. 18, 2007
6. Why We Remain Jews," Lecture delivered by Strauss at the Hillel House, University of Chicago, 1962
7. Leo Strauss's 1923 celebration of "pagan-fascism" , By Alan Gilbert, Democratic Individuality, January 8, 2010
“These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.” - Stephen Harper (1)
We have already established that the entire platform of Stephen Harper has come from the American Republicans and their Religious Right. He left nothing to chance. He took their ideas and replicated them here, right down to Fox News. Safe given their unwarranted success, but stupid given their insanity.
In a piece entitled Luntz of Luck With Newt, Dalton Camp discussed Preston Manning's appearance on an American program with Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz in 1995.
Also present as interlocutor, and lending a little verisimilitude, was Frank Luntz, president of Luntz Research, who, according to Higgins [the host], 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.
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." (2)
And while Harper prefers an incremental approach, so as not to "spook the electorate", there's no argument that Frank Luntz and his Republican pals are running the show. "elimination of public funding for the arts, the humanities, and the Public Broadcasting Service...". And Luntz was just getting started.
Grover Norquist, another Republican hack who speaks for corporate America, was behind Jason Kenney's Canadian Taxpayers Federation.He wants government [regulation] to be reduced to the extent that it can be drowned in a bathtub.
They simply want to eliminate taxes for the rich and transfer them to the poor, believing that if the rich can get as rich as humanly possible, they will be sure to throw a few crumbs to the less fortunate. Just don't touch their stuff, because Stockwell Day is building American style prisons, and praying he can keep them filled.
Which brings us to the Harper government's refusal to address poverty in this country, ignoring every single recommendation of a senate committee.
There is ample evidence that far too many Canadians are falling through the cracks of existing income support and housing programs; yet Harper’s government evidently prefers not to think about new ways to help the 3.4 million Canadians the report identified as still living in poverty. Worse still, the Senate report concluded that, far from lifting people out of poverty, many of our existing programs are so badly designed that they hold people down.
Fighting poverty ought not to be a partisan issue. Indeed, the Senate subcommittee was notable for its bipartisanship, with Art Eggleton, a Liberal, as chair, and Hugh Segal, a Conservative, as vice-chair. That makes it doubly disheartening that Harper’s government has ignored the committee’s call for a comprehensive anti-poverty plan. (3)
And Hugh Segal, the PC Party sellout, was only concerned that Harper and his caucus might say something stupid, so advised that they "temper their message of austerity with compassion." Words that work.
They braced for a disappointment, but the brush-off was more callous than they anticipated. This week, the government delivered its response to the Senate’s 2009 report, In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness. It rejected every one of the report’s 74 recommendations. It ignored the senators’ evidence that Ottawa is spending $150 billion a year on social programs that merely perpetuate poverty. It concluded with these all-too-familiar words: “The best long-term strategy to fight poverty is the sustained employment of Canadians.”
The glimmer of hope that anti-poverty activists, people with disabilities and overburdened charities had nursed since last December when the Senate’s social affairs committee released its comprehensive plan to eradicate poverty, went out. (4)
But if you believe that Stephen Harper is concerned about the state of economy, and that the only reason for his cutbacks and callous disregard for human suffering, is for the greater economic good, guess again.
This man has given more gifts to the corporate sector than Brian Mulroney or George Bush ever thought of, and has also given more gifts to himself in an ever increasing commitment to his narcissism.
Doug Draper asks "where is the public outcry" over this self-promotion orgy, which included 50 million dollars for bloody signs?
Those signs posted across the Canadian landscape – a few of them highlighted here – make up a good chunk of a record $130 million Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives spent on advertising themselves in the 2009/2010 fiscal year ending this past March, according to a wave of recent stories in The Globe and Mail and other mainstream media. And God, or maybe only Harper, knows how much more of our money will be spent on federal government ads in this 2010/2011 fiscal year with an election looming sometime in the not-to-distant future. (5)
He's right to ask: Where is the public outcry?
And while the Harper government ignores the poor, Tony Clement spends 50 million dollars of our money to help a buddy flip a property.
Where is the public outcry?
The scandalous spending during the G-20 weekend from hell included $ 85,000.00 at a mini bar, while Canadian children go to bed hungry.
Where is the public outcry?
More than $ 100,000 to drain a quarry so the RCMP have a place to sleep (??????)
Where is the public outcry?
Image consultants and first class travel, while the rest of us are told to fend for ourselves.
In September of 2007, Michael Ignatieff visited Peterborough to present a speech. His topic was the desperate need in Canada to fight child poverty.
He didn't criticize the city's MP, Dean Del Mastro. In fact he never mentioned him at all. And yet Del Mastro saw fit to write a letter to the Peterborough Examiner.
"Doesn’t it warm your heart when a wealthy person of extreme privilege drops by to speak about how he wants to tackle child poverty! Such was the case when we were graced by the presence of long-time U.S. resident, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff." (6)
Despite the fact that Mr. Ignatieff only taught at Harvard for five years, and most of his professional career was in Great Britain, where he not only taught at Oxford and Cambridge but worked as a journalist for the BBC. And the notion of him being a "wealthy person of extreme privilege", is rich coming from a man who is known not only for driving the country's biggest cars, but who lives very well on the taxpayer dime.
But seeing as how Mr. Ignatieff was there speaking of child poverty, you might expect Del Mastro to defend his party's position or offer alternative wisdom on the subject.
But nope! Nothing but a partisan rant.
Michael Ignatieff has seen suffering. He's covered wars in places like Kosovo and Sarajevo. He visited Kurdistan after the genocide and travelled to Rwanda with Boutros Boutros-Ghali to examine the skeletal remains of a population. He didn't have to. He could have just enjoyed his "extreme privilege".
But as a man who has dedicated his life to human rights issues, he saw suffering in his own country and wanted to gain support for an initiative to help eradicate it. He deliberately made it non-partisan.
But if Dean Del Mastro, Stephen Harper and the rest of this party, can choose to spend our money on themselves and their corporate buddies, and deny help to those who really need it, I'd like to know one thing:
Where is the public outcry?
Sources:
1. The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997
2. Whose Country is This Anyway? By Dalton Camp, Douglas & McIntyre, 1995, ISBN: 1-55054-467-5, Pg. 186
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
Canada's Access to Information Act was passed into law by Pierre Trudeau in 1983.
Conceived in the late 1970s, drafted and passed into law in the early 1980s, the Act was quite radical in its impact. It created an enforceable right of access for Canadians, subject to limited and specific exceptions, and provided for an appeal process for refusal of access independent of government, first, to an Information Commissioner and then to the Federal Court. Despite ongoing criticism of the legislation, there is no doubt that it has served to slowly but nevertheless effectively strip away much of the natural resort to secrecy which has been one of the less useful legacies to the country of British parliamentary government. In short, the Act established new standards for the release of information which required often reluctant Ministers and bureaucrats to embrace the tenets of open, more transparent government. One cannot pick up a thoughtful editorial, public affairs magazine or throne speech and not find these concepts now heralded as one of the essential bases of the "new", more relevant politics. (1)
The act wasn't perfect but it was a start and has been a useful tool, especially to journalists. It has also been a thorn to many politicians of all political stripes, as they have tried to stall information they'd rather not have made public. But it rarely worked.
Eventually the truth came out, and the fact that they tried to withhold that truth, only made the potential scandal worse.
Then along came Stephen Harper, and he would do more to circumvent the access to information act than anyone before him. But he wrapped it up in language designed to placate a distrustful public. And that language was courtesy of Republican pollster Frank Luntz.
Because while we sought transparency, they instead gave us 'accountability'.
I constantly hear the need for "transparency" coming from members of the financial services industry as well as Members of Congress. But if you asked the American people, accountability is a much higher priority. The fact is, a majority of Americans can’t even explain what transparency actually means. But everyone understands and demands accountability from all sectors of the economy ... and the government. (2)
Those are the words of Frank Luntz and he used the notion of 'accountability' as part of his book: Words That Work. And when I say the notion of accountability, I mean exactly that.
It's interesting that the entire 'Accountability Act', came not from anyone in the legal, civic or justice community, but from a Republican pollster whose job it is to get people elected and keep them in power. And not by being a better or more ethical government, but simply by using words that work. 'Accountability', not 'transparency'.
And it worked for a while. That was until it was determined that this government was the most secretive in this country's history.
Robert Marleau, the information commissioner when Harper assumed power, resigned:
... a few months after issuing a set of failing-grade report cards that blamed those "at the very top" for systematically denying Canadians information about what the government is doing in their name. (2)
And our new information officer, Suzanne Legault, has given the Harper government a failing grade. And while they continue to take Luntz's advice and use the word 'accountability' as much as possible, nothing has changed.
So when David McKie asks recently, the G-20 and G-8 expenses debate, is it really about transparency, we are not the ones to ask. We're not familiar with the term. We've been Republicanized.
What we have recorded to date is about a quarter of a billion dollars. In other words, a fraction of the total bill, which we're told is comprised mostly of security costs born by the RCMP and CSIS. Because of security concerns with those organizations, a detailed breakdown of the remaining costs may never come. If it does, the information, as it was this summer when foreign affairs first released its costs, will be heavily censored. This is not transparency.
You had us until you mentioned the 'T' word David.
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
When I read Marci McDonald's Armageddon Factor, I was surprised that she didn't have more on Jason Kenney. Her book was excellent and connected a lot of dots for me, but Kenny is just as involved with the Religious Right as Stockwell Day. In fact, maybe more so, especially to the American movement. And his beliefs are also just as troubling.
However, while researching another story I came across an old article from Australia, that directly ties the Reform Party and the Republican Party, and in a way that we all missed. I had already written about the close relationship between Preston Manning and Newt Gingrich, but this goes further and deeper, and involves Jason Kenney in a very big way.
I should have seen this before, but I had my light bulb moment yesterday. So I went over all of my notes and skimmed some old postings, and it was all there. So I'm going to try and put everything in chronological order as best I can. I will be doing it several parts. But it involves the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Christian Coalition and Grover Norquist. A strange combination indeed.
In 1989, Brian Mulroney began discussing the implementation of the GST, which became a very hot button issue with Canadians. This prompted Saskatchewan resident, Kevin Avram, to start a kind of grass roots organization, to mobilize people against this new tax. (1)
So he attended a conference in Austin, Texas where he met a representative of the “Association of Concerned Taxpayers” which was then headed up by Grover Norquist. So he decided to set up a chapter in Canada, which he simply named the Association of Saskatchewan Taxpayers, which was incorporated on May 1, 1989. Jason Kenney was hired as Executive Director.
Meanwhile, a similar group had started in Alberta called Resolution One. I'm still hunting down information on them, but they may have been connected to Link Byfield. Though not a member of the Reform Party himself (his father Ted was a founding member), he drafted "Resolution One" for Preston Manning, which became the Reform Party's fiscal philosophy. (2)
Link was a founding member, along with Stephen Harper, of the Northern Foundation and is currently involved with the Wildrose Alliance Party. Resolution One became the Alberta Taxpayers Association and they joined with the Association of Saskatchewan Taxpayers to become the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and Jason Kenney was named CEO. Rob Anders also claims to have been involved with them at some time as well, according to his resume, when he first ran for public office.
I have a bit more information on the American Association of Concerned Taxpayers, as it relates to Stockwell Day (when he had big hair. Oye!), but I just wanted to follow along with Jason Kenney and Grover Norquist for now.
Norquist had worked for Ronald Reagan, setting up Americans for Tax Reform, as a "think-tank" to sell his tax cutting measures. It was such a success that he kept it going, with branches and affiliates right across the country, including AOCT, on which CTF was fashioned.
In 1988, Norquist was asked to work on the campaign of George H. Bush, and he advised him to stick to one simple message. It was the message that he had adopted for his own anti-tax outfits. Remember the famous "Read My Lips"? That was Grover Norquist.
Well Jason Kenney did all but tell people to read his lips, though Stephen Harper tried it out in 2008. But in 1995 when Kenney was touring Canada, he must have felt the invisible hand of Norquist brushing against his cheek.
"Before the 1995 Budget was brought down .... the CTF sponsored no fewer than eighteen protest rallies across the country whose theme was 'No New Taxes.' These rallies were also deliberately coordinated with others sponsored by the Reform Party and the National Citizens Coalition for maximum affect. "... any casual observer of the CTF's literature cannot fail to note the groups neo-conservative approach to the role of government in general. As well-known tax expert Neil Brooks has stated, the CTF's 'anti-tax rhetoric disguises a view that government should play a minimal role' ... David Perry of the Canadian Tax Foundation ... notes that much of the group's anti-tax sentiment is based on ignorance of the actual situation in Canada .... a perception of reality, rather than reality' .... "Many other tax experts ... have also pointed out that the benefits received from government in exchange for taxes have to be taken into account ... Kenney's response to this, however is instructive. 'We only look at taxes, not benefits'.. (3)
And in the same way that Americans for Tax Reform originally propped up Ronald Reagan, it was pretty clear that the CTF were doing the same thing for the Reform Party.
Public-Service union president Darryl Bean has called the CTF 'a front for the Reform Party,' and it is not difficult to understand the source of his accusations. Preston Manning has often been asked to address its anti-tax rallies. At one such event in Pickering Ontario in 1995, media accounts routinely reported some 3,500 Reform Party supporters in attendance, and Manning received a standing ovation. "... (3)
Now this was 1995, and in the fall of that year, Jason Kenney, along with dozens of Canadian conservative Christians thronged to Washington, DC, to attend a major convention of the U.S. Christian Coalition, (4) then headed up by Ralph Reed.
When Robertson's campaign flamed out, political analysts served up a new round of obituaries for the religious right, but once again, the reports of its death proved premature. Even as Robertson nursed a wounded ego, he was hatching his organizational revenge, hiring a fresh-faced young doctoral student named Ralph Reed to build a grass-roots evangelical network, focusing first on the takeover of school boards and town councils before ultimately commandeering the machinery of the Republican National Committee itself. That institutional coup took place almost entirely beneath the media's radar, and by the time it finally caught their attention, Reed's Christian Coalition controlled both houses of Congress and would later play a major role in putting George W. Bush in the White House, not once but twice. (5)
Jason Kenney and his gang came back to Canada with a new agenda. They were going to replicate the success of the Christian Coalition on home turf. In McDonald's book, Armageddon Factor, she states that this initiative was the brainchild of Roy Beyer and Brian Rushfeldt, but Jason kenney was involved in this as well.
... 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 B.C. chapter is headed up by Operation Rescue activist Don Spratt, and claims among its founding board members former B.C. Premier and ardent anti-choicer Bill Vander Zalm ... "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). (4)
I'm going to leave it there for now. Most of what I have written here has been covered in other posts, but it's what happens next that is rather surprising, so I want to cover it separately. This just sets the stage.
The media missed this in the U.S. "and by the time it finally caught their attention, Reed's Christian Coalition controlled both houses of Congress" (5) ... this was missed in Canada as well, though one diligent reporter did try to sound the alarm.
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. (4)
I posted yesterday about Stephen Harper's new love of hockey, and how it was inspired by one of the top Republican strategists Frank Luntz.
The relationship between Harper and Luntz goes back years and he has been guiding the neoconservative movement since the old Reform Party days.
I also mentioned in my post that Frank Luntz used unethical means to get what he wants, and as you can hear in the video, a seventeen page memo was leaked that shows how he has attempted to manipulate the American public with catch phrases and fear mongering, on behalf of his corporate clients.
Today someone posted another article on Luntz at the CAPP site, that shows how he teaches his clients to 'speak Luntz'. Recalibrate would be one of those words, since it sounds much better than "we have no idea what we're doing."
Men like Luntz have ruined the Republican brand, turning it into a party of pure nonsense, in much the same way that Canada's new Conservative party is now. See how many similar phrases you can spot.
Frank Luntz is a Republican word doctor who coaches conservatives to talk to Americans about "personalizing" (Harper uses 'choice') Social Security instead of "privatizing" it. He urges them to promote "tax relief," (Harper: progressive, fair tax relief to every single Canadian) not "tax cuts." He's counseled Republicans to spread doubt about the scientific consensus around global warming. Recently he recommended that "drilling for oil" be referred to as "exploring for energy," which goes down much more smoothly. Luntz is so reviled by environmentalists that one group has named an award after him for great achievements in Doublespeak ....
So start listening for Luntz speak. It's there in the Conservative message.
The Civitas Society is a secretive, ultra right wing group, founded by Tom Flanagan. One of the directors is Ian Brodie, former Harper Chief of Staff, and the membership is drawn from Canada's corporate elite, conservative and libertarian academics, think-tankers, lobbyists and journalists.
In many ways it might be considered to be the vanguard of individuals and groups that make up the infrastructure of the neoconservative movement.
Members include Brian Lee Crowley, president of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, a conservative, free-market think tank in eastern Canada, and a member of the advisory Board of the Frontier Institute for Public Policy in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
In one of those 'knee bone connected to the thigh bone' things, the Frontier Institute also has connections to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Fraser Institute through Tasha Kheiriddin, co-author of Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution.
Harper's new speech writer, Nigel Hannaford also has ties to the Fraser, Frontier and Civitas. He is a columnist for the Calgary Herald and has always written strong social conservative rants, denying climate change and attacking the gay community.
Montreal Economic Institute president Michel Kelly-Gagnon is also a member of Civitas and Maxime Bernier was plucked from this institute to run for the Conservatives in Quebec. The group’s current president is Lorne Gunter, a columnist with the right-wing national paper, National Post, launched by media mogul Conrad Black and now owned by the Asper family, which also owns the CanWest Global media empire in Canada. (once just morally bankrupt, but now in receivership)
In May of 2006, at it's annual meeting, the Civitas invited the high-profile Republican pollster Frank Luntz, to coach the group on how to achieve a majority for Stephen Harper. The relationship between Luntz and Harper goes back a long way. They worked together with Preston Manning to achieve a landslide in 1994, for the Republicans and Newt Gingrich.
So what does any of this have to do with Stephen Harper's new found love of hockey?
Be patient, I'm getting there.
As I mentioned, Frank Luntz was invited to the meeting and the topic of discussion was Harper tricking the Canadian public into giving him his majority. Who knew at the time that he didn't need a majority to dismantle Canada after all. He could just maneuver himself into a dictatorship.
Kick the Liberals as they're down Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government should do its best over the coming year to dig up embarrassing information on the former Liberal administration and portray it as corrupt, a prominent Republican pollster counselled an influential group of Conservatives yesterday. By The Ottawa Citizen May 7, 2006
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government should do its best over the coming year to dig up embarrassing information on the former Liberal administration and portray it as corrupt, a prominent Republican pollster counselled an influential group of Conservatives yesterday.
Speaking a day after meeting with Mr. Harper, Frank Luntz described the Conservatives as allies of the Republicans and urged them to discredit the Liberals so thoroughly that it will be years before they make it back into power...
"... Mr. Harper dropped by unannounced Friday for the opening reception, which featured a speech by federal Treasury Board President John Baird titled "The Way Forward for Conservatives."
Among the Conservative MPs spotted at the conference were Scott Reid and Maurice Vellacott. MP Garry Breitkreuz, a vocal opponent of the gun registry, was a panelist in a session on property rights, with a speech titled "Why Property Rights Should be Constitutionally Protected in Canada."
... Introducing Mr. Luntz yesterday, former Reform party leader Preston Manning praised the work Mr. Luntz had done for him several years ago. During his speech, Mr. Luntz mentioned that he had met with Mr. Harper -- whom he referred to on a first-name basis -- Friday and had posed for a picture together.
I know, I know. Get to the HOCKEY ALREADY!
During his speech, titled "Massaging the Conservative Message for Voters," Mr. Luntz drew a communications roadmap to bring the Conservatives to a majority government -- a roadmap that Mr. Harper's government already appears to be following in several respects. Focus on accountability and tax relief, said Mr. Luntz. Images and pictures are important.
Tap into national symbols such as hockey. "If there is some way to link hockey to what you all do, I would try to do it." (Didn't I tell you!)
So with Harper on the ropes and Canadians penalizing him in the polls, he has all of a sudden become Canada's number one hockey fan.
The gender divide may be re-emerging in the Conservative-Liberal battle, as noted in a story I have in today's Star. I find it intriguing the way in which the Conservatives have chosen to respond to the Liberals' big announcements this week on child care and abortion -- by trying to turn voters' attention to... hockey.
Now you might ask, so what's the big deal. So what if Luntz is a Republican pollster?
Well it's a very big deal, because like two other Republican pollsters, who have played a huge role in the success of this party, Karl Rove and Art Finklestein, he is not above using unethical means to obtain results. You will see in the following video, how he has placed the same actor in two separate locations, to give the appearance of a broader discontent with the Democrats.
So the next time you hear Harper nattering on about hockey, remember what this is really about and give him a misconduct penalty. And you can do that by VOTING in the next election and making sure that everyone you know does the same.
