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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oye!

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

It Now Comes Down to the Battle Between Two Little Books

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he also saw the clash of the books:

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

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

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

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

Isn't it funny how things come full circle?

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

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

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

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

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

Republican is winning. Are we going to let it?

Sources:

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

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

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

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

Preston Manning Was Prepared for a World That no Longer Existed

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

Preston Manning grew up influenced by evangelical fundamentalism, radical free-enterprise conservatism and anti-socialism, embraced by his father. And as Murray Dobbin notes:

What these powerful influences had moulded in Preston Manning was a politician of the past: a politician for the 1940s or 1950s, a politician who was in many ways a carbon copy of his father. And Ernest Manning, so long accustomed to running Alberta more as a father figure than an active politician, had changed little if at all, in the twenty-five years he had been in office. Both men were socially and politically isolated from the changing mainstream of Canadian society. (1)

The Conservative party in Canada was becoming more progressive in their attitudes, to meet the new demands, and the old stalwarts like Diefenbaker were becoming outdated. The world was changing fast and if you didn't embrace those changes you were left behind.

For Ernest and Preston Manning, they only sought to react to the changes by offering pure ideology, based on unbridled capitalism and religious fundamentalism. They might as well have been from another planet. But that didn't stop them from trying to convince others to follow their lead. They wrote Political Realignment in 1967, as a blueprint for the past.

Who Said Conservatives Can't Have Fun?

John Diefenbaker was a good Prime Minister, but like the Mannings, the world was passing him by. In 1967, with the wonderful Dalton Camp leading the charge, the Conservatives themselves were in the mood for new leadership.

Flora MacDonald had been named national secretary and Camp the party president.

The annual meeting had set a date in 1967 for a leadership convention. Conservatives identifying with Dalton Camp's position on leadership review were anxious to see candidates offer themselves who would have some hope of rescuing party leadership from Mr. Diefenbaker. (2)

Camp himself had considered running and had MacDonald's support, but when Robert Stanfield threw his hat into the ring, they both lined up behind him.

It has been said that Robert Stanfield was the best prime minister that never was, but I think that can be said of many great politicians over the years, including Tommy Douglas and Ed Broadbent. But I think it also applies to Flora MacDonald and Dalton Camp. Both had a genuine love of this country and everything that Canadians stood for.

But in 1967, as Canadians were celebrating centennial year, the Conservatives were going to do it big for this important leadership convention:

The Conservative leadership convention was an extravaganza that deserved all the superlatives heaped on it. For the first time, a Canadian political party had set out to emulate in scale and style an American presidential nominating convention. It had marching bands and balloons and pretty girls by the hundreds, floor demonstrations, and lavish cocktail parties for thousands. It was a great show and it made great television. More than that, it had great drama. Would John Diefenbaker attempt one last stand? Or would he accept the inevitable and quietly receive the honours due to him, allowing the party to choose his successor? Could the Conservatives find any man with the patience, understanding, and tact needed to reverse the centrifugal forces that seemed determined to tear the party to pieces? Partly because it was the first convention of its kind and partly because of the Diefenbaker drama, the Conservative convention occupies a special place in the memories of the people who were there. It had an excitement that not even the Liberals could match seven months later when they met to elect Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the most intriguing political figure of the age. The Tory convention is the yardstick by which all other leadership conventions must be measured.' (2)

The Turning Point

There were others at that convention with a keen interest in the outcome. Preston Manning and his friend Erick Schmidt, were there on behalf of Ernest Manning, who hoped to join the Social Credit with the Conservatives to present a right-wing federal option.

However, Ernest Manning had over estimated his important, and the idea was soundly rejected. Besides, with Stanfield being named the new leader, beating out Diefenbaker 271 votes to 519 on the first ballot, (2) they knew the time wasn't right. Robert Stanfield was a Red Tory and the Mannings hated Red Tories as much as they hated Liberals. When Stephen Harper joined the movement decades later, he would call Red Tories 'Pink Liberals' and was determined to eradicate them from the party.

Preston Manning decided that they would have to wait for the next big wave of anger, that brought Social Credit to power. It would take twenty years.

Sources:

1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 21-22

2. Flora MacDonald, By Alvin Armstrong, J.M. Dent & Sons, 1976, ISBN: 0-460-91698-X. Pg. 102-104