Is the New Conservative Party Feeling the Seven Year Itch?

It happens in many marriages. After the first seven years, one or more of the partners starts feeling the urge to roam.

Apparently there is a little domestic trouble for the marriage of the Reform/Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives.

One of them has already opted out and another is being seduced.

Hubby Harper is too domineering and they're not going to take it anymore.

Or could it be that another has moved in and wants the wifies to go?

Harper's new chief of staff, Nigel Wright, a little jealous, has never cared for those progressive spouses. He once threatened violence stating that his "aim now is to drive a stake through the heart of the Tory party.”

Maybe Prentice and MacKay are doing the right thing, escaping with their lives. Not they hadn't been warned by some of those Tories in Wright's cross hairs: Joe Clark, Sinclair Stevens and Lowell Murray.

As Don Newman says:

...if the two most prominent Progressive Conservatives leave the government at the same time, it will really drive home the public perception — and the reality — that this government is really just the Reform/Alliance political machine. And Joe Clark, Sinclair Stevens and Lowell Murray will be right.

Touche!

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

Canada's Culture War is Not What You Think

Valuing Differences While Living as Equals

As Canadians, we have managed to create a single political community of equal citizens out of Aboriginal peoples, francophones, anglophones, and all the people like me whose families came here as emigrants from other countries. Out of those different languages, traditions, and cultures, we have forged a political system that holds us together and keeps us talking through our differences peacefully. We have also succeeded in maintaining a distinctive culture and a tradition of proud independence next door to the most powerful state in the world. Michael Ignatieff (1)

Q: "Is there a Canadian culture?" A: "Yes, in a very loose sense. It consists of regional cultures within Canada, regional cultures that cross borders with the US. We're part of a worldwide Anglo-American culture." - Stephen Harper (2)

It has been suggested that Canada is in the middle of a culture war. Stephen Harper is supposed to represent the working class, hockey loving, Tim Horton's coffee sipping crowd, while Michael Ignatieff is the voice of academia, Starbucks and the Canadian "elite".

When Parliament opened John Baird set the tone, with this nonsense. According to James Travers:

John Baird, Stephen Harper’s very right-hand man, lit a firestorm as MPs returned from their long summer holiday. Pre-loading for the gun registry vote Conservatives lost Wednesday, Baird savaged Toronto elites, notably Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton, for imposing their neon big city will on salt-of-the-earth small town Canadians. Poking the privileged is good politics. It’s also brazen coming from someone whose perks include a chauffeur-driven car and gold-plated pension. (3)

Stephen Harper did not come from a working class family. His father was an executive at Esso. He uses hockey, because the Republican pollster Frank Lutz told him to: "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." (4)

And while Tim Hortons was created in Canada, it is now a multinational corporation:

... in 1995, American company Wendy's International Inc. acquired the Canadian coffee giant, but eventually let go of its shares in an IPO in 2006 and Tim's is now traded publicly on the TSX and NYSE. In recent years, the company has made a big push in the U.S., opening stores across the country, including in former Dunkin' Donuts stores in New York. Recently however, Tim Hortons has sold its stake in Maidstone, the Ontario-based company which makes donuts for every location in Canada, to the Swiss company Aryzta. (5)

So you might say that Stephen Harper represents the affluent, is directed by Republicans and best linked to multinational corporations.

But I'm not going to say that. Because what Stephen Harper is, is a career politician, and everything he says or does is for political leverage. Not what's good for the country.

The Real Cultural Differences

Not content to simply imply that Michael Ignatieff is an "elite", their latest tactic, (image courtesy of Calgary Grit), is that he's a 'Russian Prince'.

Michael Ignatieff is descended from a Russian 'Count', who earned his title, and his family legacy is one of diplomats. The 'Count' married a Russian princess, but they were forced to flee communism, arriving in Canada as immigrants. They chose to farm. And their children did well because they were smart and worked hard. Any privilege of birth was left behind.

And on his mother's side, the family is about as Canadian as you can get.

Putting on airs would be suggesting that you're an average guy, while riding around in a chauffeur driven limousine. Because you are playing us for fools.

When John Baird was in the Ontario Legislature, his office was found to have spent the most money on things likes meals in fancy restaurants. Perks. Putting on airs with money that belonged to "the little guy".

Baird, whose ministry is responsible for Ontario's poor and disabled, along with 11 senior political staff spent an average of $930.95 a month over a 15-month period on food and drink — more than double the $448 basic monthly allowance for a single mother with one child. Details of the minister's office expenses were obtained through Freedom of Information legislation. Many of the larger dinner bills are from trendy restaurants and bars late into the evening hours but omit a specific list of what was consumed. (6)

We need to start tuning this stuff out. Because as Travers points out, no one in the House of Commons has to sing for their supper. They do OK.

But I don't care.

I don't care that Stephen Harper, John Baird or Michael Ignatieff are wealthier than I am. I don't care that they have chauffeurs or villas or eat in classy restaurants.

We don't belong to the same social circles, and I don't care.

And I don't care that Michael Ignatieff is smart. I want my prime minister to be smarter than I am. In fact, I demand it!

But what I do care about, is that they understand what it means to be Canadian.

We are not a "Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term", (7) nor are we "a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status". (8)

We're Canadian, and that's where the culture war begins and ends. It's a battle between "Canadian values" and "American values". Michael Ignatieff gets the first, while Stephen Harper embraces the latter. It has absolutely nothing to do with what kind of coffee we drink, or where we live, or where our ancestors were born.

Myself, I'm a Timmies fan, I live in a medium sized city, was born in a small town in New Brunswick, and my ancestors are French, Acadian, British and Irish.

I am not part of a "worldwide Anglo-American culture". I am part of a "distinctive culture" with "a tradition of proud independence".

I don't want the NRA dictating to me. I don't care what Republican pollsters have to say. I hate the Tea Parties and Glen Beck and will hate Fox News North.

And if that makes me "elite" it's a notion of superiority based on the fact that I am a Canadian!

Sources:

1. The Rights Revolution: CBC Massey Lectures, By Michael Ignatieff, Anansi Books, 2000, ISBN: 978-0-88784-762-2, Pg. xii

2. CBC Interview 1997

3. Hard right swing hits politicians where it hurts, By James Travers, Toronto Star, September 25, 2010

4. Kick the Liberals as they're down, By The Ottawa Citizen, May 7, 2006

5. Companies you think are Canadian, by Kate Robertson, Investopedia.com, September 23, 2010

6. Taxpayers pay Baird's doughnuts & dinner Average monthly bill for Tory minister & staff tops $900, by Richard Brennan, Queen's Park Bureau, Toronto Star, April 11, 2002

7. Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank

8. It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada, By Stephen Harper, December 12th, 2000

When Stephen Harper "United the Right", He Solidified the Centre. Just Not For Himself.

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

How Stephen Harper became a "Tory" is the stuff of legend. Or more accurately, the stuff of fairy tales. He did have a brief stint with the PCs in the early 80's, but left the Party because they weren't right-wing enough.

The fact is, that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was not really right-wing at all, at least not in heart and soul. They were just right of centre. And they were 100% Canadian. And in many ways, historically, they were not unlike the Liberal Party in terms of policy.*

That doesn't mean that there weren't fierce rivalries. They were like two football teams (I don't want to use hockey because Harper has done that to death) who battle each other for the prize, but at the end of the day, both teams are in the same league, and committed to the game.

And while they both went after the same prize, the team that won it, honoured it. Showed it off and protected it for the next winner, whether it be themselves or their opponents.

They didn't win it, then smash it, to make sure that no one else could have it. That's how I see the Reformers, whether calling themselves Social Credit, Reform, Alliance or Conservative. They are the party that wants to smash the trophy and terminate the league.

Uniting the Right Was Not About Vote-Splitting

The common belief was that the PCs and Reform-Alliance joined forces to avoid splitting the vote. Sounds good but completely false. That's the way it was sold when David Frum arranged a meeting between Jean Charest then head of the PCs, and Preston Manning, then head of Reform.

In terms of bridging the differences between the parties of Preston Manning and Jean Charest, the conference made little headway ... the chasm in terms of the egos and pride of the leaders; the different attitudes that the parties have towards populist initiatives; Reform's origins in western alienation, Social Credit, and religious fundamentalism; and the fact that Reform emerged in part as an angry protest against the policies of a Progressive Conservative government made a rapprochement unlikely. (1)

A later report by Laurence Putnam confirmed the divide.

The first misconception about the Reform movement is that it is a conservative party. The Reform party has all the characteristics of a Western populist party and very few marks of a conservative party. (2)

And as to the myth of avoiding vote-splitting. In the West, many of those who voted PC did not go to Reform. Most of Reform's gain was at the expense of the NDP, another party that started out as a Western protest movement. But many also went to the Liberals.

Since the 2000 election, unity activists in both the PC and Canadian Alliance parties have preached that the PC party lost a major part of its family when the Reform Party rose to prominence, however, this is not exactly true. The PC Party did not experience a mutiny, but rather with the decline of the PC Party in Western Canada, an opportunity was extended for a new crew, the Reform movement, to come to power. In fact, many members of the Reform Party elected in 1993 had never been Conservatives at all. Preston Manning had been a member of the federal Social Credit Party prior to incepting the Reform Party. MPs Diane blonczy, Deborah Grey and Val Meredith were never members of the PC Party ... As these members were not Tories throughout the 1980's and early 1990's when the Tories were at their most successful peak since Sir John A. Macdonald ... (2)

Promoters of unity between the PC and Canadian Alliance parties had argued that if there were either only a PC or CA candidate in your average Ontario riding, they would have beat the Liberals in 2000. But what about Etobicoke North? In 2000, no PC candidate ran in Etobicoke North, but a Canadian Alliance candidate did, and yet they gained only 3.9%, and the majority of the PC votes migrated to the Liberal candidate. This despite the fact that provincially, the identical riding was held by PC M.P.P. John Hastings.

This riding is one example that proves 1+1 doesn't necessarily equal 2 when it comes to defeating a Liberal incumbent in Ontario ridings. Another interesting Ontario result was found in the riding of Markham, where Jim Jones was elected as a Progressive Conservative in 1997. Mr. Jones crossed to the Alliance in the summer of 2000, but lost re-election just months later. Why was Mr. Jones electable to the people of Markham, Ontario, as a Tory, but unelectable as a Canadian Alliance M.P.? (2)

It's because the majority of the Canadian electorate are moderates. The same people who voted for Brian Mulroney later voted for Jean Chretien, illustrating that votes between the Liberals and the PC Party were always liquid, while votes cast for ideologically-driven parties, like Reform/Alliance and NDP**, came from a "base".

The Reform movement only became palpable to Canadians when they shed their wolf's clothing and started calling themselves "Conservative", or worse yet "Tories", cashing in on a century and a half tradition. And for awhile, they were able to fool some of the people some of the time. But unfortunately for them, as their policies became increasingly un-Canadian, their level of support has drifted back to their "base".

They have no hope of drawing votes from the NDP, except perhaps in the West, but they are also losing the votes of moderates ... aka: ordinary Canadians.

So now they have a problem. Instead of eliminating what they thought was their own competition, they have eliminated all competition for the centre, and all of the "liquid" votes are now flowing away from them.

They are a right-wing fringe party. Nothing more. They came, we saw, they scared the hell out of us, and now they must leave.

This brings us to Michael Ignatieff. I see him as the perfect leader to unite the centre. And if I wasn't convinced before, a column by the widow of the late PC president Dalton Camp, has me sold. Ignatieff is not "a bleeding heart Liberal" but will lead a party that will be fiscally responsible but socially aware.

His family has a long history in this country, and come from all political stripes. His G-Grandfather, George Munro Grant helped Sir John A. and Confederation, and later promoted his railway. His uncle George Parkin Grant was also a Conservative, and author of the popular Lament for a Nation, as reaction to the defeat of John Diefenbaker. His fear was that we would become too Americanized and too beholden to corporations, and while this book was reactionary, he would later suggest that he felt that Pierre Trudeau was on the right track. (3)

Michael's father George Ignatieff was a foreign secretary under Diefenbaker, Diplomat under Pearson, and even served as acting president of the United Nations General Assembly***. He was also a peace activist, who fought hard against nuclear weapons, earning him a reputation as a "Peacemonger." (4)

Another uncle was Vincent Massey.

And though Michael Ignatieff's political views are his own, they have been nurtured in the true Canadian tradition.

So while Johannes Wheeldon may ask "Can Iggy Find His Centre?" He didn't have to. He was already there. And as Wendy Camp says: "He has come home to us." And whispering in his ear, will be family voices from the past, making sure that he doesn't screw up what they helped to build.

Footnotes:

*Stephen Harper referred to the PCs or "Red Tories" as "Pink Liberals".

**The NDP has since become more moderate and appealing, though some of their early followers feel that they had to sell out to do so. I like them and remember the greats like Tommy Douglas and Ed Broadbent, and the leader Jack Layton used to be.

***Stephen Harper and the Reformers never trusted the United Nations.

Sources:

1. The Winds of Right-wing Change in Canadian Journalism, By David Taras (University of Calgary), Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 21, No 4, 1996

2. An Analysis On The Differences Between the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada & The Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance, by Laurence Putnam As prepared for the Fraser Institute, December 2002

3. Lament For a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, By George P. Grant, McClelland & Stewart, 1970 edition with new introduction by author.

4. The Making of a Peacemonger: The Memoirs of George Ignatieff, By Sonja Sinclair, University of Toronto Press, ISBN: 0-8020-2556-0

Conservatism in Canada Died a Slow and Painful Death

I was putting together all of my notes and postings on the hostile takeover of the Progressive Conservative party, that killed the conservative brand in Canada; and realized that it had not been an accidental death but pre-meditated murder.

I'm adding the links at the bottom that show a bit of a chronology, that I will work into a chapter of my book, but then I came across an article written in 1996, that revealed just how organized the crime was.

We talk a lot about the myriad of think tanks and 'non-profits' that became part of the infrastructure of the far-right. We also talk a lot about Harper's muzzling of the press, that allows him to operate in almost total secrecy. But in 1996, David Taras from the University of Calgary, hit on something else that I hadn't really thought of.

The media is not being silenced so much as the fact that they have now become the voice of neoconservatism. And it was not all Conrad Black and his hiring of only right-wing journalists.

What Taras spoke of was the fact that these journalists were not just writing with a right-wing bent, but had physically become involved in promoting the movement.

His point of reference was the Winds of Change conference, organized by National Post journalist David Frum. And if you don't think Frum is right-wing, he went on to write speeches for George W. Bush.

The Winds of Change conference, which took place in Calgary in May 1996, brought together approximately 70 leading right-wing thinkers and activists in an effort to bring unity to conservative forces before the next federal election, expected in 1997. The goal, according to organizer David Frum, was to discuss the prospects for a merger between the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties ....

The conference's real significance, its real meaning, however, may have little to do with whether the goal of unity on the right is ever achieved. More important perhaps is that the conference highlighted a phenomenon that has been taking place for quite some time in American politics, but seems only now to be emerging full-blown in Canada: that an increasing number of journalists have become ardent political activists. Where objectivity was once the gold standard on which the professional credibility of journalists rested, today the rules seem to have changed. Some journalists have been able to enhance their status by openly championing partisan positions and causes. We have in some senses gone back to the days of the party press, the period from 1870 until at least 1940, when fierce and zealous partisanship by journalists was the order of the day. Politics and journalism are no longer separate estates, locked in a relationship of conflict and symbiosis, but are merging in new ways that have been little studied or even recognized.

Journalists as partisan political activists? How could we ever expect a fair and impartial media? Should they not have to disclose that fact with every article?

The following are links to the stories leading up to the official dissolving of the Party of Sir John A. MacDonald in 2003. What former PC MP Flora MacDonald called the end of a 150 year old tradition.

Peter Mackay and the Death of the Tory Party in Canada

Ernest Manning and the NCC

The Fraser Institute's Role

Conrad Black and Media Manipulation

David Frum and Winds of Change

Craig Chandler and the Roots of Change

The Creation of Stephen Harper's Sandbox

Joe Clark's Fear of Reform Conservatives Goes Back a Long Way

For several decades, the social conservative movement that was launched by Ernest Manning and a group of wealthy Canadians, had plans to take over the Progressive Conservatives.

While the senior Manning was initially approached to start a new party, where 'money would be no object', he felt that the best way was to work through the already established PCs, and turn them into a completely ideologically driven party of the hard right.

His own attempts failed, but two decades after he began the project, his son Preston started that third party, of the the initial proposal; with every attempt to later use it to hi-jack Canada's just right of center conservative base.

Most of the long time PC members, fought long and hard to prevent that from happening, including former leader and one time Prime Minister, Joe Clark.

He knew exactly what this movement was, perhaps better than anyone; because his history with Preston Manning and social credit (later Reform) went back a long way.

Schools of Thought

Joe Clark and Preston Manning attended the University of Alberta at the same time and were members of the Youth Parliament; Joe as leader of the Progressive Conservatives and Preston, of course, Social Credit.

"At university in the early sixties he (Manning) gave the impression of a rural kid completely isolated from the ways of urban society ... 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 influence on him ..." (Preston Manning and the Reform Party. Author: Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 5)

Preston also faced a lot of criticism from students over his father's government, which he "took back to his father. His exposure to these issues ... did not challenge Preston Manning's acceptance of conservative ideology ...

"It was not simply that Social Credit was found ... to be wanting in in areas of social policy - it was more that conservative ideas and Conservative government (as defined by Manning ideology) were being challenged by socialism. Left-wing thinking was influencing events and people ..."

"Manning fought the trend with enthusiasm - and paid for it with criticism in the campus press ... Preston Manning told the paper that free enterprise had to reform to continue it existence. The social reforms were to be .... the individual responsibility ... of every Canadian citizen ...

"We (socreds) believe that Canada is drifting towards socialism even when the majority of Canadians are opposed to collectivism and the welfare state..." (Dobbin, 1992, Pg. 24-25)

Naturally Joe Clark was fully aware of Manning's political philosophy, which was in direct contrast to his own, and indeed that of most Canadians.

On a larger stage

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 ..." (Slumming it at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, Gordon Laird, 1998, Douglas & McIntyre, ISBN: 1-55054 627-9, Pg. 50)

Manning lost and he lost soundly.

But when Joe Clark and others fought desperately to hold onto the party started by Sir John A. MacDonald, it had nothing to do with partisanship. He knew exactly who Preston Manning was. He knew exactly who Stephen was. And he knew exactly what the Socred/Reform/Alliance 'revolution' was.

When Stephen Harper, after winning the leadership of the Alliance , told him to 'stop pissing around or get out of my way', he stood his ground and got trampled on, along with people like Flora MacDonald, Sinclair Stevens and Jean Charest.

The unthinkable had happened, resulting in, as Flora MacDonald so aptly put it: "... the demolition of a historic 150-year-old institution that has done so much to build this country ... She also stated: "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." ( The Toronto Star, November 14, 2003)

But it was too late.

Tony Panayi Continued: Tory Youth and Right-Wing Politics

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

When Anthony Panayi entered the University of Toronto, he had reinvented himself as Tony Clement, and was ready to inflict his Reagan/Thatcher adoration on the University's Tory Youth.

What he lacked in physical stature, he made up for with enthusiasm, and through aggressive marketing and the help of cohorts, he accomplished his goal, building up the campus Tories to almost 500 members.

With strength in numbers they were ready to take on the world of federal politics, and the timing couldn't be better.

Brian Mulroney was in the process of trying to reinvent himself as a man of the people. During the 1976 leadership convention, he had aligned himself with people like Conrad Black and Paul Desmaris of the Power Corporation, running a glitzy, in your face, campaign. His opposition was able to paint him as an "elitist" and he lost the race as a result.

But by 1983, he had learned his lesson, and gone were the Cadillacs and lavish posters. He was going to be a man of the people, opting to travel around in an old Plymouth, fly economy, and dress down his campaign office.

His campaign manager, Peter White, also saw the potential in veering away from the progressive side of the party and tapping into the vote rich right-wing. So Mulroney's rhetoric had already changed to reflect things like lower taxes, balanced budgets and a free market economy.(1)

But White had also discovered a gold mine in a group of neoconservative youth from the University of Toronto, led by Anthony Panayi Clement.

The campus radicals were also instrumental in the defeat of federal Conservative leader Joe Clark by corporate lawyer Brian Mulroney. "In 1981 to '83 there was a guerrilla campaign against the leadership of Joe Clark orchestrated by Brian Mulroney and the people who backed Mulroney," says Campbell. "In Ontario, the PC campus and youth associations were all hotbeds of anti-Clark activity and we were all on the anti-Clark side." The success of the right young Tories in helping force a leadership convention and in electing Mulroney over Clark strengthened their confidence. (2)

The Young Conservatives had also claimed a victory in 1982, at the Ontario Policy Convention.

They had been upset with the expansion of the Ontario Human Rights Code, under premier William Davis, seeing it as an intrusion of the state. So, led by Tom Long, who had cut his political teeth campaigning for Ronald Reagan (3), "... the young Tories tried to force a debate on the issue at a party policy convention. The senior guard warned the young rebels to tone it down; policy conventions were no place to debate policy. But the campaign continued, and faced with the prospect of an ugly public fight, the leadership compromised. Representatives of the youth wing were allowed to help draft the wording of the final resolution on amending the code at the convention. "It wasn't perfect," says Clement, "but it was something we could live with." (2)

But their work for Brian Mulroney would turn out to be perfect, as he had a landslide victory in 1984, winning the largest majority government in Canadian history.

Another Young Conservative Goes to Ottawa


At the time there was another Young Conservative who was helping to boost the fortunes of Brian Mulroney. Then going by the name Steve, he and his girlfriend, Cynthia Williams, volunteered in the offices of Jim Hawkes, Progressive Conservative MP for Calgary West.

Already a member of the National Citizens Coalition, he too had begun to adopt radical right-wing views and a zeal to see them put into practice.

"At the [town hall] meeting they were among the few young people in attendance ... Steve in particular was disgusted with the Liberal government ... My recall is that he did not know very much about the organized political party aspect of politics ... he had concerns about the policy part of politics. They [Steve and Cynthia] joined the association. Then the next thing I knew, they were working within my riding association as volunteers, and members of the executive." (4)

Harper and his girlfriend would help out with Jim Hawke's campaign and recruited many young members from the University of Calgary, where he was studying economics. One of those was a young man named John Weissenberger, who introduced him to the neo-conservative policies of William F. Buckley.

When Harper joined Jim Hawkes in Ottawa as his legislative assistant, Weissenberger looked after things on the local front. However, after working with Hawkes on UI reform (UI, Unemployment Insurance was the forerunner to EI), that never materialized, he became disillusioned and returned to school in Calgary. In a later speech at the founding of the Reform Party, Harper would call for end to "... government financial involvement in the unemployment insurance system..." (5)

But this would not mean the end of politics for Steve Harper. After leaving Jim Hawke's office in 1986, he enrolled in the University of Calgary's master's program, and came to the attention of Robert Mansell with the school of economics. Mansell had been an opponent of Pierre Trudeau's National Energy Program, and saw in young Steve, an ally. So he encourage him to come to an assembly where there was going to be the discussion of creating a new national party, centred in the West, that would be dedicated to advancing western policies.

The keynote speaker was a man by the name of Preston Manning. After they met, Steve caught the bug and began to ...

... network with some of the conservative think-tanks, such as the National Citizens Coalition and the Fraser Institute, trying to mobilize some of the conservative resources, and also helped to establish a right-wing organization, the Northern Foundation." (6)

The wheels were in motion for a right-wing revolution.

Sources:

1. Mulroney: The Politics of Ambition, By John Sawatsky, MacFarlane, Walter & Ross, 1991, ISBN: 0-921912-06-04, Pg. 471-472

2. Promised Land: Inside the Mike Harris Revolution, By John Ibbitson, 1997, ISBN: 0136738648, Pg. 33

3. Tom Long: Dead wrong for PCs: CCRAP hopeful "Callow, shallow, glib", By Scott Piatkowski, Winnipeg Free Press, 2000

4. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3, 2005, Pg. 14

5. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995, ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6 3, Pg. 116

6. Harrison, 1995, Pg. 110