Letting Go of the Urban Legends

I attended an event yesterday for Ron Hartling, who is running as president of the Liberal Party of Canada. Speakers included Peter Milliken and Liberal MP Ted Hsu.

However, I learned more from one of the guests, who like me, had been a supporter of the federal PC Party until it was bought out by the Reform-Alliance.

She told me that she had grown up in Calgary, moving to the Toronto area several years ago, until finally settling in Kingston. She mentioned the first time she returned to Calgary for a visit. Her father accused her of talking like an "Easterner", but she said "no, dad. I'm not talking like an Easterner, I'm talking like a federalist."

So much of the Western alienation that brought the Reform Party, and even the NDP, to prominence, is the stuff of urban legend. The difference between the NDP and Reform, is that the NDP grew up and moved on. Canada's new Conservative Reform-Alliance Party has not, nor do they want to.

They need to keep the old grievances alive because those are what fuel the Conservative Movement on both sides of the border.

The first bit of sand in the shorts came when Alberta's Social Credit premier, William Aberhart (1935-1943), wanted to create his own currency and rewrite banking laws.  Ottawa stepped in.

Then in 1960, Social Credit premier Ernest Manning (1943-1968) considered allowing the American oil industry to detonate a 9 kilotonne atomic bomb in northern Alberta, in an experiment to determine if nuclear power might help remove oil for the oilsands.  It could have removed Albertans as well.  Ottawa stepped in.

Many in the West, have used Ottawa as a scapegoat for decades.  Not to say that they didn't have legitimate complaints, like bilingualism and the metric system.

However, the largest catalyst has been the National Energy Program of Pierre Trudeau.  Three decades later, they just can't drop it.  So maybe it's time for a little history lesson.

The Alberta corporate sector didn't like the NEP, because it discriminated against petroleum companies that were foreign owned.  The devastation in the wake of the NEP was not due to the program, but Brian Mulroney's scrapping of it, leaving no protection for the industry when OPEC moved in.

Says author and political science professor Trevor Harrison:

Oscar Wilde wrote that there are only two tragedies: one is not getting what one wants; the other is getting it. In the fall of 1985, the latter tragedy befell Alberta's oil industry. The OPEC cartel failed to agree upon a world oil price. The result was a global free-for-all among producing nations. Canada's oil and gas producers were caught in the middle. Having recently gained freedom from the NEP, Canada's oil and gas industry was not protected as the price of oil dropped from US $27 per barrel ... to $8 per barrel by August 1986. ... Forty-five thousand oil workers lost their jobs."  (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, p. 97)

In fact, many Canadian corporations liked the NEP because it allowed further exploration on public land.  However, by 1980 only 26.1% of the Petroleum industry was Canadian owned and 18.7% Canadian controlled.  Canadians had lost their voice.

However, the grievance of both American and Canadian corporations, was proposed changes to the tax laws, which would have closed up loopholes.

When Allan MacEachen was appointed finance minister in 1980 big business requested that government examine the tax system with a view to making changes. But MacEachen's senior advisers soon focused his attention on how billions of dollars were being lost yearly to scores of dubious corporate tax breaks.  Finance officials put together a tax reform package designed, among other things, to eliminate 165 of the most costly and counter-productive tax expenditure measures and in the process increase revenue by close to $3 billion. When he introduced the legislation it caused a firestorm of protest from the corporate elite.

Neil Brooks, now professor of tax law at Osgoode Hall Law School, was working for the finance department on the tax reform package and has recalled the tactics of the large corporations. "It's almost a classic example of what's called a capital strike. I mean, business simply said to the government that if you go ahead with these measures we will stop investing in Canada." The development industry reacted instantly. "Literally the next day they were closing jobs down and . . . pulling cranes off construction jobs." (The Myth of the Good Corporate Citizen: Canada and Democracy in the Age of Globalization, By Murray Dobbin, James Lorimer & Company, 2003, ISBN: 1-55028-785-0, p. 168)

If this was really about the manipulation of oil prices by Ottawa, then Ontario would also have a grievance, over Diefenbaker's National Oil Policy.

The aim of the National Oil Policy was to promote the Alberta oil industry by securing for it a protected share of the domestic market. Under the policy, Canada was divided into two oil markets. The market east of the Ottawa Valley (the Borden Line) would use imported oil, while west of the Borden Line, consumers would use the more expensive Alberta supplies. For most of the 1961-73 period, consumers to the West paid between $1.00 and $1.50 per barrel above the world price, which, just before the 1973 OPEC oil embargo and price increase, stood at around $3.00. They also paid proportionately higher prices at the pump than Canadians east of the Borden line. (Towards a Just Society: The Trudeau Years, By Thomas S. Axworthy and Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Viking Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-670-83015-1. p. 51)

This meant that Ontario paid the higher Alberta price and were restricted from shopping for a better deal, while foreign owned companies got to import cheaper product.

So why aren't Ontario politicians riding NOP in the same way that Western politicians ride NEP?  (Wouldn't that make a great Cat in the Hat episode?).  It's because of different philosophies.  Forward thinking politicans let go of the past.  The regressive Conservative Movement needs to keep the past alive to continue to ride the wave of anger.

"Us" against "Them".

In the spirit of Halloween, it's time to let go of the urban legends and ghosts of the past, and move toward what is best for all Canadians.  Unfortunately, under our current government, that will never happen.

"Westerners, but especially Albertans, founded the Reform/Alliance to get "in" to Canada. The rest of the country has responded by telling us in no uncertain terms that we do not share their 'Canadian values.' Fine. Let us build a society on Alberta values." Stephen Harper

That would be fine if they were "Alberta values", but they are in fact, American Conservative "values", so, no thanks.

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