The Deficit Cure: Acupuncture or Shock Therapy?

When the neoconservative movement in Canada first appeared on the radar of many journalists, it was tied to the administrations of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Both of these leaders launched aggressive attacks on the welfare state, and left devastation in their paths.

Grant Devine in Saskatchewan, Ralph Klein in Alberta and Mike Harris in Ontario, all sought to experiment with the Thatcher/Reagan theories in their respective provinces.

On the federal scene, the Reform Party had their ideology in check, and were just waiting for their turn.

At the time, Thatcher and Reagan were not on tour, so Canada's neocons were taught strategy by New Zealand politician, Roger Douglas.

He held information seminars, speaking to the Harris caucus in Ontario, with Tony Clement, John Baird and Jim Flaherty in attendance; and Klein's in Alberta, indoctrinating Stockwell Day.

But the most important lecture, when it comes to the future of Canada, was presented to the Reform Party of Preston Manning and Stephen Harper, at their 1991 Assembly.

Douglas was introduced by Preston Manning, the only assembly speaker to be so honoured. And Manning told the delegates: There are three basic reasons why we have invited Sir Roger Douglas to be with us ... and three reasons why Reformers should pay close attention to what he has to say ... Sir Roger is an authority in fiscal reform and has advocated and promoted many of the fiscal reforms ... He is not only a reformer in word, he is a reformer in deed. Sir Roger deregulated the financial sector, phased down agricultural and other subsidies .. phased out import controls and drastically reduced tariffs levels. He instituted a 10% flat rate consumption tax (GST)*, with virtually no exemptions ... (1)

And Roger Douglas's most important message to his followers was "don't blink". Once you start cutting, keep going.

And if you developed a case of blepharospasm, uncontrollable eye blinking, a little acupuncture would fix you right up.

Because what Douglas failed to mention was how his policies affected New Zealand.

Dr. John Warnock, travelled to New Zealand to study the effects of what New Zealanders dubbed 'Rogernomics.' The figures tell a story of devastation - a word used by New Zealand's own agricultural minister to describe the state of agriculture in four years after the 'reforms': A 40 per cent drop in farm income; a 50 per cent drop in the value of farm land; a policy of paying 3,000 farmers incentives of $ 45,000 to leave and the suggestion that another 15,000 (out of 79,000) should follow them. Unemployment, which had been at 4 per cent before Douglas's reforms, jumped to over 12 per cent in just over a year and is still increasing.

"Douglas completely eliminated regional development grants and subsidies to rural services. Says Warnock, 'They had things like subsidized petroleum - regardless of where you were the price was the same - subsidized train service, bus service, airport service. They privatized all these things and the prices immediately skyrocketed.' A massive de-population of the countryside resulted, and approximately 40,000 New Zealanders per year have since left the country for Australia to find work ... (1)

He should have blinked.

Shock Therapy

While Roger Douglas may present us with a little trip down memory lane, Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty will probably forgo acupuncture for shock therapy.

This is the remedy prescribed by Milton Friedman, and articulated at places like the Fraser Institute. Friedman believed in taking advantage of disasters, like Katrina, but when none presented themselves, they could simply be created.

His most famous induced disaster, was the Chilean experiment.

In 1970, when a socialist, Salvador Allende, was elected president, many of Chile's elite, were not pleased.

Allende, a physician by training, understood the cost that malnutrition imposed upon the poor and set out to alleviate the grinding poverty in which so many Chileans were trapped. He ensured that every Chilean schoolchild had access to at least a half-liter of milk each day, and that their parents had access to jobs and the means to feed and educate their children. Median incomes began to rise dramatically in the first two years of Allende's term.

To pay for these social programs designed to create opportunities for the poor, rich Chileans who had lived all their lives off of rents, dividends and interest and who had never paid a dime in taxes, found themselves paying taxes for the first time and being forced to morally justify their lives of luxurious leisure at the expense of the poor. They didn't like it one bit. And they began to complain to their friends in Washington. (2)

Fortunately for them Washington was already aware of the situation, and with the help of several corporations, engineered a coup to oust Allende and place the murderous Augustus Pinochet in the presidential palace.

Friedman then took over, encouraging Pinochet to implement "shock therapy" on the people of Chile.

Friedman advised Pinochet to impose a rapid-fire transformation of the economy—tax cuts, free trade, privatized services, cuts to social spending and deregulation. Eventually, Chileans even saw their public schools replaced with voucher-funded private ones. It was the most extreme capitalist makeover ever attempted anywhere, and it became known as a "Chicago School" revolution, since so many of Pinochet's economists had studied under Friedman at the University of Chicago. Friedman predicted that the speed, suddenness and scope of the economic shifts would provoke psychological reactions in the public that "facilitate the adjustment." He coined a phrase for this painful tactic: economic "shock treatment." In the decades since, whenever governments have imposed sweeping free-market programs, the all-at-once shock treatment, or "shock therapy," has been the method of choice. (3)

And though Friedman and his Chicago School are still being hailed as heroes by Neoliberals/Neoconservative/Free Marketeers everywhere, his remaking of Chile was an absolute failure.

.. The country's period of steady growth that is held up as proof of its miraculous success, did not begin until the mid-eighties, a full decade after the Chicago Boys implemented shock therapy and well after Pinochet was forced to make a radical course correction.

That's because in 1982, despite its strict adherence to Chicago doctrine, Chile's economy crashed: its debt exploded, it faced hyperinflation once again and unemployment hit 30 percent—ten times higher than it was under Allende. The main cause was that the piranhas, the Enron-style financial houses that the Chicago Boys had freed from all regulation, had bought up the country's assets on borrowed money and run up an enormous debt of $14 billion.

The situation was so unstable that Pinochet was forced to do what Allende had done: he nationalized many of these companies. In the face of the debacle, almost all the Chicago Boys lost their influential government posts. (4)

So despite the fact that both of these experiments in economic reform were catastrophes, we know that it will not change Flaherty's or Harper's ideology.

Canadians will probably be subjected to a little "shock" in the upcoming budget, or if not then, in the not too distant future. The convoluted belief being that if we associate pain with social programs, we will not be too quick to want to reintroduce them (Friedman was a nut), especially if they convince us that they have been replaced with something better.

Poverty being good for the soul.

So slap on the electrodes boys. I'm ready.

Footnotes:

*The Reform Party was conflicted about the GST, with most wanting it scrapped if they came to power. Harper himself convinced them to keep the GST but eliminate any exemptions.

Sources:

1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 113-114

2. Free Market Fundamentalism: Friedman, Pinochet and the "Chilean Miracle", By Scott Bidstrup

3. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, By Naomi Klein, Vintage Canada, 2007, ISBN: 978-0-676-97801-8, Pg. 8

4. Klein, 2007, Pg. 123

Stephen Harper Did Not Bring Alberta and Ontario Together. Do Your Homework.

On March 27, 2000, the Canadian Alliance Party was formed. Many mistakenly believe that it was just a reinvention of the Reform Party, but they couldn't be more wrong.

The concept was to bring together all of the neoconservatives in the country, to oust the Liberals, and turn Canada sharply to the right.

This concerted effort helped to unite Mike Harris's government in Ontario, Ralph Klein's in Alberta and of course the Reform Party, primarily from the Western provinces.

Candidates for leader of the new Alliance Party would be selected from the three groups. It was thought that Tony Clement would be a front runner, but he declined, so it eventually came down to three men: Tom Long from Ontario, Stockwell Day from Alberta and Preston Manning from the Reform Party.

Stockwell Day of course won, but failed to lead, so was forced to resign. It was only then that Stephen Harper joined the fray.

So the suggestion after this election victory, that he united Ontario and Alberta is giving credit where none is due. This began more than a decade ago, and the work done by others in the movement.

In 2003, Harper bought out the assets of the Progressive Conservative Party, that folded in December of that year, putting an end to a 150-year-old tradition.

This election was a continuation of work began by others, and part of the broader neoconservative movement. Has anyone else noticed how many new Ontario MPs and candidates were friends of Jim Flaherty's? Even his first cousin.

So if we plan to build a Progressive movement, we need to understand fully, just what we're up against. The Conservative Party of Canada is not merely a political party, but the head of a broader movement that includes not only Canada's neocons, but more alarmingly the U.S. Republicans, the Tea Party, and the Religious Right.



We are really on the cusp here.

Danielle Smith's Wildrose party, created by old Reform Party activists, like Link Byfield, Barry Cooper and Tom Flanagan, has a good chance of ousting Ed Stelmach's progressive Conservatives in Alberta.

Tim Hudak, former caucus member of Mike Harris, and husband of one of his chief operatives, Deb Hutton, is expected to win Ontario. Neocon Rob Ford is already running Toronto.

With a majority Harper will push through his bill to add 30 new ridings that he feels he can win, so unless we start now building a progressive movement, we could be looking at a Neoconservative dynasty.

And the first step is to demand that the media stops calling Harper's party 'Tories'. He himself, claims to hate the term. Canadian conservatism became a battle between [Red] Tories and Republicans. Republicans won, let's move on.

I'm currently working at putting all of my research on the Neoconservative Alliance, into a book and will make it available in PDF format. (I just have to figure out how) I'm at about 100 pages now, and that's just on the 'Alliance'.

Before we can wage a progressive war, we have to know our enemy. Not the contrived notion of a centre right party, but a hard right revolution.

When I'm done I'll post a link on this blog. We must all become Davids to the Neocon Goliath. What's that they say? The bigger they are the harder they fall.

Our task is enormous, but not impossible. Are you in?

Where Will Rob Ford Send His Homeless People?

The big news in Toronto this week is Rob Ford's plans to sell off public housing. You knew it was coming, and the time is ripe with the Public Housing board in disarray and Ford threatening to dismantle it.

Of course this has real estate developers "salivating" with the opportunity to cash in on this windfall. But what will it mean for those who will be forced to move out? The new redneck mayor is promising a 'shelter allowance' in lieu of subsidized rent, but how much of an allowance would he be prepared to give?

This is another attack on the poor. According to the authors of Persistent Poverty: Voices From the Margins, the average cost of a two-bedroom apartment in Toronto is $1,134 per month. And since many of those living in public housing are families, they would have difficulty living in less.

The working poor making minimum wage, barely earn enough to cover that, before paying for food, clothing and other basic necessities. Those on social assistance are allotted $791.00 per month maximum, and that's only if you have children, and 358.00 as a "basic living allowance".

One of Rob Ford's campaign promises was to deal with the "immigration problem", and we know that many of Canada's poor are immigrants. Is putting an end to public housing part of that strategy?

When Ralph Klein was premier of Alberta, he announced that:

"Bums, creeps and unskilled workers are not welcome. We will use cowboy techniques to deal with people who rob our banks, add to our welfare rolls, add to our unemployment lines and create rising crime rates." (1)

And as part of that strategy he provided those "bums, creeps and unskilled workers" with bus tickets to British Columbia. Mike Harris in Ontario also toyed with the idea of shipping out our "undesirables".

Klein eventually had to stop, when the BC premier complained that he was also sending them convicted criminals.

But what happens if there is a mass exodus of the disenfranchised? It may solve Rob Ford's problem, but what will it mean to other communities already hard pressed to provide the very basic necessities to its citizens, many victims of the recent Wall Street created "economic crisis"?

But then a few people will get filthy rich and isn't that what's really important?

Maybe Don Cherry will put them up.

Sources:

1. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2 4, Pg. 52

We Are at War and We Must Mobilize Our Allies

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

Although many Canadians don't yet realize it, we are at war; a worldwide class war of capital versus everyone else, a war which the bubble of the Keynesian welfare state temporarily obscured. In this war, the Right has daunting weapons. Over the past 20 years, capital has forged a unified coalition of business, politics, and fundamentalist religion. It owns most of the national and local media ... And through speculative manipulations, they have the power to disrupt the entire Canadian economy. As a result, they wield enormous influence over all levels of government and public opinion. The Right speaks with almost one voice and its vision is insinuating itself into the popular consensus. (1)

We are indeed at war, but our enemy is not the police, who are only following orders. And our enemy is not the corporate media, who write what they are told to write. And our enemy is not even Stephen Harper, who in this phenomenon of image politics, is only the current face of a formidable movement. He has no more power than we do.

Our enemy is Neoconservatism.

And now that we've been able to define that, we need to mobilize our allies, if we have any hope at all of restoring our democracy: "Because the success of the Right comes through carefully managing public opinion, the starting point for defeating the Right is through creating a well-informed public." (1)

Breaking Down the Conservative Myth

In 2004 Philip Agre wrote a paper: What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:

Q: What is conservatism? A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism? A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world. (2)

What Agre is describing is not Conservatism but Neoconservatism, and therein lies the problem. The party now headed by Stephen Harper is not our historical Conservative "Tory" party, and we need to constantly remind Canadians of that. Neoconservatism is the antithesis of Conservatism and relates more to fascism than democracy.

But rather than force a demagogue on a democratic society, they wrap him up in a cloak of moderation and sell him as a man (or woman) of the people.

One time girlfriend of Leo Strauss (who is deemed to be the father of the neoconservative movement), Hannah Arendt, herself a respected political philosopher, once questioned whether Nazi Germany was in fact a full totalitarian dictatorship, since it depended so heavily on a "certain societal consensus". (3) Their success depended on directing and exploiting public opinion, and they did it masterfully.

That consensus was engineered by the masterful propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Today it is engineered by people like Karl Rove and Guy Giorno, who not only help to get their "leader" elected, but stick around to make sure they do as they're told. And when the government gets into trouble they send their "leader" on a photo-op, so they never have to wear the controversy, leaving others to clean up the mess.

Defining Our Allies - We're Stronger Than we Think

The conventional wisdom in electoral politics has been that getting the support of great numbers of people was more important than courting the wealthy who had money to spend. Rather than pleasing the well-off, good politics decreed that a party design policies to appeal to the great mass of middle-income voters, not the top 20 percent, but the 60 percent in the middle-income brackets. The bottom 20 percent could be safely ignored, as they could be assumed not to vote. However, their basic needs would be covered, not forgotten or left to charity. The favoured electoral strategy was to unite the middle, build support around programmes with wide appeal, and show how each benefits from programmes available to all. (4)

But neoconservatism takes a different approach. They unite upper-income voters around a programme that appeals to the interests of the wealthy, and then convince many middle- and low-income people of the advantages of more business and less government.

But more importantly they create common enemies of the 20% of society that are a nation's most vulnerable. Those who are invisible.

What about the economic insecurity of our poorest fellow citizens? Why can't our politics address this? It can't be because everyone has shared the fruits of our recent economic boom. It can't be because the poor don't exist. It must be because they have become invisible. (5)

We need to include that 20% and convince them that they must vote, and once we have voted out this neoconservative government, we need to make sure that our most vulnerable never become invisible again. Neocons want us to believe that our "too generous and unaffordable" social programs must be cut or eliminated and wages must be held down (6) to feed this monster named "economy". Meanwhile, the wealthiest citizens just keep getting wealthier, while they are going through with massive corporate tax cuts, and preaching austerity to everyone else.

And of that 60% in the middle, those who support social programs and demand rights are marginalized. And intellectuals who try to cloud issues with facts are dismissed as "university types" and demonized.

So while we advocate for specific groups, march and demonstrate, we have to remember that we are all in this together. We have a common enemy and as such are allies. Neoconservative governments do not allow dissent, but they cannot ignore 80% of the population.

We keep hearing about Harper's "base", that he is pandering to, but who is this "base"? I suspect that many believe they are voting for the party of Sir John A. and John Diefenbaker, without realizing that if the full agenda of this party is implemented, they too will be thrown into the fire, if we lose our public health care and access to education.

In 1994, speaking on behalf of the National Citizens Coalition, Stephen Harper was discussing the accomplishments of the NCC.

"Universality has been severely reduced: It is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy. The family allowance program has been eliminated and unemployment insurance has been seriously cut back." (6)

He believes that if you are successful, it's because you worked for it, forgetting that things like access to public education and medicare, helped toward that success. And if we allow this to continue, we will end up with a Third World type of societal structure, something that has long been a goal of neoconservatism. It's why they fought so hard to maintain apartheid in South Africa and keep Nelson Mandela in jail.

The Politics of Fear

Harper's former VP when he was president of the National Citizens, Gerry Nicholls, wrote recently that:

"Hate and fear make the world go around. Those are the two emotions you must arouse to mobilize citizens. Why is that? I would venture to say that it’s because they are powerful primal emotions that trigger the fight or flight response. What’s important, though, is that you recognize and harness their power." (7)

Another element to the success of the neoconservative movement is fear. It was no accident that at the G-20, journalists and advocacy groups were targeted by riot police. There was a message there. Cross us and you will pay. He is sending the same message to NGOs who risk losing their funding if they challenge any government decision.

But it is also fear of other forces. Rick Salutin explains:

Since the Second World War, the U.S. economy has been built around what you might call the fear sector: its military-industrial complex, its crime-prison complex and its homeland-terror complex. We're now seeing the first attempt by a Canadian government to follow this model.

... The Harper government is clearly impressed. They don't seem to mind big government, if they can tax and spend in the fear sector. So they've expanded our military budget and just announced a $9-billion (or maybe $16-billion) purchase of 65 U.S. jets we'll have to find some use for. They're increasing the prison population through U.S.-style sentencing laws and planning "major construction initiatives" that will boost (sorry) corrections costs by 43 per cent. On homeland security, there's that amazing $1.2-billion spent at the G20.

But it's a hard sell. Canadians will have to be persuaded to shift more money from a stretched health-care system to the fear sector. The benefits here aren't as obvious. For buying those jets, all our firms get is the right to bid on U.S contracts. Lotsa luck. Mostly, though, there's the fear culture that you need for a fear sector. (8)

So we need to cut through all this. Some suggest that we should study the tactics of Karl Rove and emulate them, but I don't agree. I hate divisive politics and I don't think those tactics help anyone. They just turn people off.

We need to mobilize the 2/3 of Canadians who don't support the Harper regime, and educate those of the 1/3, who believe they are supporting the Canadian Conservative tradition.

There are several grassroots attempting to do that, including:

Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament

Canadians Rallying to Unseat Stephen Harper

Canadians Demanding a Full Public Inquiry in to the G-20

Canadians for a Liberal-NDP-Green partnership NOW!! (If you like the idea of a coalition. I prefer a Liberal government with the NDP as official opposition, but would definitely be on board with a coalition if that's what it takes)

Catch 22 Harper Conservatives

I'm going to end with one of my favourite John Lennon songs to get us in the mood. I share it often, but am sharing it again, because .. well, this is my blog and I love John Lennon.



Sources

1. Open for Business, Closed to People: Introduction, By Diana Ralph, Fernwood, 1997, ISBN: 1895686733, Pg. 15

2. What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It? By Philip E. Agre, Polaris, August 2004

3. The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda, By: David Welch, Routledge, 1993, ISBN 0-203-93014-2

4. The Rights Revolution: CBC Massey Lectures, By Michael Ignatieff, Anansi Books, 2000, ISBN: 978-0-88784-762-2, Pg. 20

5. Comes the Revolution: Waiting for the Pendulum to Swing Back, By E. Finn, Canadian Forum, August 1995

6. Will the real Stephen Harper please stand up? A citizen’s guide to comparing election campaign promises to deeply held beliefs, By Murray Dobbin, January 10, 2006

7. The Trudeau Empire Has Fallen and It Can’t Get Up! Why now is the time for the Canadian conservative movement to win the War of Ideas, By Gerry Nicholls, December 3, 2008

8. Canadian government adopts America's fear economy, By Rick Salutin, Rabble, July 23, 2010

The Christian Coalition and Jason Kenney Help to Create So-Cons on Steroids

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

James Egan and John Norris Nesbit, were a gay couple who had been in a conjugal relationship since 1948. Their challenge to the courts over the definition of a spouse would pave the way for not only gay rights but equal marriage.

The Old Age Security Act in Canada, provides that a spouse of a pensioner may receive a spousal allowance should their combined income fall below a certain amount. So when Nesbit reached 65, fitting the definition, he applied to the Department of National Health and Welfare for a spousal allowance. However, he was refused on the basis that spouse, defined in section 2 of Old Age Security Act, did not include a member of the same sex.

So Egan and Nesbit delivered a motion for a declaration of unconstitutionality to the Federal Court of Canada alleging that the definition of "spouse" under the Old Age Security Act constituted an infringement of their right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law, entrenched in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Though they were refused by the trial judge and their case was turned down for an appeal, they took the matter to the Supreme Court, who in 1995 agreed, and the two men were granted the supplement. (1)

As a result of this decision, the Canadian Parliament voted to amend* the Canadian Human Rights Act to explicitly include sexual orientation as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

This inclusion of sexual orientation in the Act was an express declaration by Parliament that gay and lesbian Canadians are entitled to "an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives they are able and wish to have..." (Section 2). The Canadian Human Rights Commission , which is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Act, provides further information about human rights and sexual orientation. (2)

This decision angered many fundamentalist Christians, who feared that legitimizing same-sex marriage would be the next step. Two of them were Brian Rushfeldt and Roy Beyer, pastors of Victory church. Since neither were ordained ministers, they decided to take a correspondence course at Charles McVety's Canada Christian College, but the change in the Constitution to include gay rights, changed their priorities, and they decided to:

... drop everything and build a grassroots political force to demand the restoration of biblical principles to government. At Victory headquarters, their boss arranged for them to fly to Washington for a tutorial from the reigning expert on evangelical organizing, Ralph Reed, the Georgia wunderkind whom Pat Robertson had chosen to build the Christian Coalition. (3)

Also in attendance were Jason Kenney and Don Spratt, the man who would create the Canadian Christian Coalition, based on the techniques used by Reed.

Years earlier, Reed had confided to a reporter that stealth was essential** to his modus operandi. "I want to be invisible," he said. "I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night." Warming to the metaphor, he boasted, "You don't know it's over until you're in a body You don't know until election night." Nobody had paid much attention until 1994 when Reed realized that scenario on a national scale. The mainstream media woke up on election night to discover that the Christian Coalition had been instrumental in engineering a Republican takeover of both houses of Congress for the first time in forty-two years. (3)

Beyer and Rushfeldt were also inspired by Reed and they too started a Christian grassroots movement: the Canada Family Action Coalition.

Canada Family Action (CFA) was founded in early 1997 with a vision to see Christian principles applied in Canadian law, politics and society. We provide strategies, networking, training and tools to enable ordinary Canadians to influence government, education, media, and culture.

We work with individuals, churches, other like-minded groups, and businesses to provide a unified thrust in promoting the Christian worldview in government, the media and society. Presently we have over 40,000 individuals who are active supporters, plus hundreds of thousands of others who participate in various major campaigns through phone calls to MPs , petitions, brochure distribution and letters to editors of newspapers. Some even host meetings in their area on issues and invite speakers. Our Mission: To mobilize, train and activate Canadians in defending and promoting Christian principles in Canadian society. (4)

They immediately went into action, when Alberta premier Ralph Klein, called an election, and

... scrambled to put together a homegrown version of a tool that Reed had developed for churches, a political report card aimed at pinpointing acceptable social-conservative candidates without taking a partisan stand that would jeopardize their charitable tax status. Those voters' guides graded lawmakers on how they had cast their ballots on bills close to theo-con hearts. Beyer and Rushfeldt sent out their first edition to ninety thousand Alberta households in what turned out to be a dry run for the federal election that was called months later.

In a burst of enthusiasm, they ordered half a million copies of their new national guides, confident that evangelical corporate leaders would leap at the opportunity to underwrite such an innovative scheme, but Beyer came back from his first fundraising tour empty-handed. "Up here," Rushfeldt says, "the Christian community had bought into this idea that politics and religion don't mix." (3)

(The Canadian Christian Coalition fared much better for the Reform Party).

Jason Kenney and Don Spratt

Reproductive rights rights in Canada took a giant step backward in January when a provincial court judge gutted the British Columbia's government's new Access to Abortion Services Act, which had established protest-free "bubble zones" around abortion clinics and doctors' homes and offices. The ruling came at a time when the previously disorganized Religious Right in this province was congealing into a B.C. wing of the newly formed Christian Coalition of Canada, inspired by the politically influential Christian Coalition in the U.S. ... 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 ... "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). (5)

As mentioned, Don Spratt was then the leader of Rescue Canada (also known as Operation Rescue), a position he held in "the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, for which he was repeatedly jailed for “contempt of court” for obeying God rather than man ... "(6)

His group fared better than Canada Family Action, perhaps because of the connections of people like Bill Vander Zalm, Jason Kenney and the Reform Party.

The Christian Coalition has established roots in British Columbia, Canada ... Bill Vander Zalm, a former British Columbia premier and one of the more than 20 directors ... announced that the group plans to distribute "voter guides" in churches around the province in any upcoming election.

Vander Zalm notes that the group is already organized in the Okanagan, the Fraser Valley and the Lower Mainland. Vander Zalm has associated in the past with the right-wing Reform Party and the Family Coalition Party of B.C. The B.C. chapter formed after several dozen Canadians attended the fall 1995 Christian Coalition convention in the U.S.

Don Spratt, a member of Operation Rescue, leads the B.C. chapter. Other advisors to the group include Ted and Link Byfield of the right-wing Alberta Report and B.C. Report magazines, Alex Parachin, head of the Canadian branch of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network and Jason Kenny, head of the Canadian Taxpayers Association.

Jim Garrow, the Ontario-based leader of the Christian Coalition of Canada told reporters that the group will seek allies in organizations such as the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, REAL Women and the Canadian branch of James Dobson's Focus on the Family. (7)

They would build up such a network of think-tanks and non-profit groups, that I'm beginning to feel the way that Lucy did in the following clip. You start off slow, tracking the money and the players, and then they speed up the conveyor belt and you're stuffing names in your hat so they don't fall off your radar.




I'm going to do a list and the end of this chapter, of which, mostly faith-based groups, promoted which candidates for the 1997 election, as well as future ones; but it's pretty clear that this party has been taken over by the Religious Right. I don't think Stephen Harper could stop them now even if he wanted to.

So why should this matter? Well, as Canadian author and activist, Maude Barlow explains:

Sincerely held religious beliefs accompanied by strict morality are obviously not a bad thing, and any Church is entitled to make its own rules about who, for example, it will choose to marry under Church auspices. (Some may deplore a lack of tolerance for alternative lifestyles displayed by particular denominations, but the freedom of religion means that people are free to make such choices.) Civil rights are another matter. Increasingly, however, the sometimes narrow convictions of Christian sects are being exploited by politicians in both Canada and the, United States (where the tendency is highly developed) to introduce into the political realm a degree of inflexibility, passion, and rancour that tend to undermine the spirit of accommodation and tolerance that is essential to the functioning of a democratic society. Our civil liberties are threatened as a result. The point is that people are free to believe what they want privately, but if they enter politics to inflict those beliefs on others, then their religious concerns become fair game.

Intolerance for gays, passionate opposition to abortion and a handful of other "hot-button" issues are pushing a number of born-again Canadians to identity with the evangelical, right-wing views of American fundamentalist groups such as Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition, two of the groups that helped put George W Bush in the White House. (7)

Less than 11% of Canadians are evangelical, and of that probably less than half are of the extreme variety. Yet they now make up more than half of the Harper caucus. But what's worse, they have also been infiltrated into all levels of the public sphere, and are now in the courts, the senate and even the civil service.

If this government is in power much longer, the majority of Canadians risk losing their voice, and all decisions made will be contrary to Canadian beliefs and Canadian values.***

Next: Implosions Help Jason Kenney's Christian Coalition to Explode

Footnotes:

* Stephen Harper voted against amending the Canadian Human Rights

**Stephen Harper would later also adopt Reed's strategy: "The state should take a more activist role in policing social norms and values ... To achieve this goal, social and economic conservatives must reunite as they have in the U.S., where evangelical Christians and business rule in an unholy alliance. Red Tories must be jettisoned from the party ... Movement towards the goal must be "incremental, so the public won't be spooked." Stephen Harper (8)

*** "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

Sources:

1. Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513, May 25, 1995

2. Sexual Orientation and Human Rights, Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada

3. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, By: Marci McDonald, Random House Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-307-35646-8 3, Pg. 69-70

4. Canada Family Action, Mission/Vision Statement, Accessed June 25, 2010

5. The Christian Coalition Comes to Canada, by Kim Goldberg, The Albion Monitor, May 5, 1996

6. For Truth, Life and Liberty, DonSpratt.org

7. Too Close for Comfort: Canada's Future Within Fortress North America, By Maude Barlow, McClelland & Stewart Ltd., 2005, ISBN: 0-7710-1088-5, Pg. 24

8. Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy: Close advisers schooled in 'the noble lie' and 'regime change', By Donald Gutstein, The Tyee, November 29, 2005

Provincial Neoconservatives From Harris to Hudak; Klein to Smith

I'm doing something a little different with my blog, trying to organize archives, etc. so I'm using this page to link my stories to the Neoconservative movement within the provinces.

Feel free to use anything.

We've got to start preparing ourselves for the next election, by reminding Canadians that Stephen Harper is not the only problem this party has. They are the wrong fit for Canada and really must be put out to pasture, before they completely destroy this country.

Provincial Neoconservatives

Harris Nightmares Revisited

HST Nonsense

Tim Hudak

Ignorant Gladiators and the Dumming Down of Canadian Politics

The late Lester Milbrath, an American political scientist; once categorized the citizens of democratic nations, as three distinct groups:

Apathetic - those who rarely, if ever, become engaged in politics. They may vote out of a sense of duty, but that's as far as it goes.

Spectators - those who do engage in political discussions, especially when they centre around single issues. Spectators almost always vote.

Gladiators - those who become actively involved in politics, campaigning or running for office.

Canadian political scientist, Brooke Jeffrey, takes this one step further, when she's discussing the neo-conservative movement; and includes a category for 'Ignorant Gladiators'. These are people who enter the political arena on a wave of anger and resentment, with few qualifications to actually lead.

They are the anti-government politicians, who only want to tear down, with few plans to rebuild. They offer no solutions to bring a nation, province or municipality forward. They only come prepared to dismantle and discredit.

Her book, Hard Right Turn was written a decade ago so the only 'Ignorant Gladiator' governments she referenced were Ralph Klein's and Mike Harris's. Neither man had more than a high school education, but they talked tough; feeding off the 'spectators' with hot button issues and private resentment.

Divide and conquer was the battle cry, and so long as we remained mad at each other, the 'Ignorant Gladiators' were left alone. Anyone who opposed them were "special interest", and quickly got added to the enemy list.

In Ontario, that list was vast. 'Welfare bums', 'blood sucking unions', 'rights demanding natives'; all threatened our way of life. Jim Flaherty even went so far as to decry that money shouldn't be provided to First Nations, when it could be used to help 'real people.' He's never lost a bid for re-election.

Former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein stated "Bums, creeps and unskilled workers are not welcome. We will use cowboy techniques to deal with people who rob our banks, add to our welfare rolls, add to our unemployment lines and create rising crime rates." Were Albertans shocked? No. Instead Klein made being redneck cool.

This is the face of neo-conservatism. Citizens are marginalized and being redneck is cool. But the only winners are the wealthy individuals and corporations who engineer their rise to the top, because the traditional government impedes their ability to get rich, or should I say richer?

Ms Jeffrey goes on to describe the rise of the Reform Party that threatened to change the climate of federal politics. After the 1993 election, that saw 52 Reform MPs elected, the media was in shock. A common question was "Who are these yokels and who voted for them?"

Well those yokels are now running our country and the media is no longer shocked. When speaking of Harper they only say that if he can keep his rowdy caucus from speaking, and contain it's dark elements he's going to be a star. Isn't the important issue here that HE HAS DARK FORCES IN HIS PARTY?

Apparently not. The media are now self-proclaimed kingmakers and even if the emperor has no clothes, they will continue to write glowing reports of his "finest attire made from the most beautiful cloth", because that's who we are now. The 'ignorant masses' described by the father of the neo-conservative movement, Leo Strauss. The 'Spectators' have become the 'Apathetic' and the 'Ignorant Gladiators' now reign supreme.

Excerpts from Hard-Right Turn: The New face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada
Brooke Jeffreys
Harper-Collins 1999
ISBN: 0-00-255762-2

Ignorant Gladiators

No society has an ideal situation, but one in which a large number of citizens opted out of the system and failed to participate, or where the majority of spectators were uninformed, would likely encounter serious difficulties in maintaining a healthy level of participation.

The best case scenario would clearly be one in which there were highly qualified gladiators. While the ignorance of the apathetic is a social concern, it poses no political problem since they do not influence decision making. Ignorant gladiators on the other hand, would constitute a political worst-case scenario.

Using these terms Canada has traditionally been described as a nation of spectators. Although the range of the spectator activities has been rather low - being limited for the most part to voting - the percentage of spectators has always been fairly high. At roughly 75 percent, the numbers of Canadians who regularly voted in federal elections, for example, far exceeded the American figures and those of several European democracies. By contrast, the apathetic were a small percentage of the population.

At the same time, the high levels of literacy and near-level and near-universal public communications systems meant that Canadian spectators were reasonably well informed. Even more important, our gladiators on the whole were very well prepared for public office. In a country with a high standard of living, universal access to education and a large middle class, these findings were, quite frankly, to be expected, but were nevertheless reassuring.

(What's interesting is that while 'universality' in education, health care, etc. was considered to be a 'Canadian value', it is a severe threat to social conservatism and neo-conservatism. In 1994 at an awards dinner for the National Citizens Coalition, Stephen Harper prided their work on this issue over the past five years: "Universality has been greatly reduced; it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy.")

Back to Jeffreys:

Recently, however, a number of disturbing trends have begun to emerge. The percentage of apathetic citizens is believed to have increased. Some have argued the level of awareness and participation rate of Canadian spectators are declining. For some Canadians, the emphasis has shifted away from political parties to single-issue interest groups, a phenomenon with significant consequences for participation in the political process. Most important is the decline in the qualifications of our gladiators. In the past ten years, with the emergence of Canadian neo-conservative politicians, the profile of the political elites has undergone an unexpected transformation. From a norm of well-educated and prepared professionals, there has been a striking increase in the number of outsiders with little formal training or other relevant preparation to take over the reins of power.

No one suggests that there is only one career path or appropriate set of credentials for those who plan to run for public office. Life experience as much as education, could give individuals the ability to manage ... Unfortunately, few of the individuals attracted to the neo-conservative ideology have demonstrated these qualities. The greater the neo-conservative leadership's emphasis on moral and social conservatism, the more likely the supporters will be uncompromising in their views.

Unfortunately the consequences of this limited world view have been serious and sweeping ... The dumbing down of politics in Canada has had profound implications for national and provincial policy making, intergovernmental relations, and even the quality of constituency representation.

The anti-intellectualism of so many of the New Right's membership and supporters has been amply demonstrated .. If credentials and expertise are rejected by the New Right as the basis for decision making ... rational arguments will be powerless to oppose their agenda.

The importance of their rigidity cannot be overestimated. It is this narrowness that leads them to propose simplistic solutions at a time when political issues are becoming more complex. Once they are in power, this inclination to disregard expert advice in favour of anecdotal evidence, coupled with their authoritarian approach, leads to single-mindedly pursue their solutions even in the face of overwhelming evidence that these approaches won't work.

Equally unsettling is their obvious lack of understanding of many essential democratic principles .... Policies are put forward in response to problems which their 'client groups' have raised. Although they describe their reactive approach as 'open', 'consultative' and 'democratic,' their consultation process does not include those who oppose them. (We see this especially with Stephen Harper. All opposition parties are not adversaries, but enemies, who must be destroyed. This severely limits intelligent debate, but also means that roughly 2/3 of Canadians have no voice in our Parliament, and we now seem determined to make this a permanent situation.)

In keeping with the lurch towards American right-wing politics, the focus is on the 'enemy within'. In a perversion of traditional populist rhetoric, public servants, welfare recipients, even university students and pensioners are now branded as 'special interests' .... much of the neo-cons success has been due to their ability to identify the crucial 'hot buttons' ... and exploit them to great advantage. As a result, the implementation of their agenda has polarized their societies and provoked widespread alienation. The earlier amusement and disdain of their critics has turned to outrage and disbelief. (Jeffreys, Harper-Collins, 1999, Pg. 396-402)

How did we let this happen and is it too late to stop the movement that threatens to destroy everything we once held dear in this country? Who knows?

From the book; Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians Against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers, by Peter Minowitz:

"In an interview, the late Irving Kristol stated he was deeply indebted to Leo Strauss for an understanding of the “noble lie.” “There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people,” he said. “There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.” Many critics see this as a justification of a new kind of politics—which uses “hotbutton” issues to hold the attention of voters and justifies prevarications about particularly serious things, such as the case for war. Does Kristol understand Strauss correctly? When the Neocons set out to peddle the Iraq War to the American people, was this an example of “different truths for different people”? Doesn’t it do a great deal of harm to a democracy?"

Leo Strauss would be very proud of Stephen Harper and his Reformers. Me, not so much.

More Posts on Ignorance the New Normal:

1. Why Has Intellect Become Public Enemy Number One?

2. Most Albertans are not Rednecks

Harper's Concern is Not the Economy But How to Keep From Blinking

In the introduction to her book, Hard Right Turn; Brooke Jeffrey describes being in Toronto in the 1990's; stuck in traffic, because thousands of protesters were blocking the streets. She asked the cab driver what the problem was and he said "Mike Harris (Ontario Premier for 1995-2002). Who wouldn't be upset with this guy?"

A few months later Ms Jeffrey was in Edmonton, where she witnessed similar protests, which like those in Toronto, were orchestrated by teachers, nurses, municipal workers and other concerned citizens. "All of them were furious with the Klein (Ralph Klein. Premier of Alberta 1992-2006) government's cutbacks. The premier and his controversial treasurer, Stockwell Day, were adamant the cuts would go forward as planned."

"The striking thing about Klein's comments was his choice of language. It was almost identical in tone and content to arguments Mike Harris had used to defend his actions in Ontario a few months earlier ... I, like most people thought Klein's reputation as a folksy populist was established. Mike Harris admitted his 'Common Sense Revolution' took it's inspiration from the Klein government's neo-conservative agenda, but he failed to mention an authoritarian attitude was also part of the package." (Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 2)

After spending time in Ottawa with Progressive Conservative MP James Hawkes, Stephen Harper came home frustrated, complaining that Brian Mulroney was incapable of making the 'tough choices'. He had already been inspired by the neo-conservative movement, and the goals of the National Citizens Coalition, which was to dismantle the 'welfare state' and pave the way for top-down commercialism.

So we know that Harper, Harris and Klein share common views, but how do they relate to the video above? One of the men in that video, Sir Roger Douglas, former finance minister of New Zealand, created the same kind of civil unrest as Klein and Harris, as part of a government that made the rich richer and the rest of his country poor.

Stephen Harper has yet to win a majority, so he won't be able to make his 'tough' choices until then, although he has managed to anger many of us several times.

Roger Douglas and Canada's Neo-Conservative Revolution

"Both Klein and Harris continue to emulate the B Movie slogan of Sir Roger Douglas, the architect of of New Zealand's harsh experiment in program-slashing: 'I ain't gonna blink.' In 1994 Ralph Klein accepted the Fraser Institute's annual prize for 'the best fiscal performance' of any North American government. 'Alberta stands alone as the only government that refuses to take the easy way out, the brainless way out, and that is to raise taxes," Klein toast... ' (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. 66)

Jeffrey states:

"Apart from the neo-conservative writings on Thatcherism and Reagonomics provided by his friends in the 'Klein Gang', and the advice offered by the business community through the Red Deer round table, the premier also called on the services ... of former New Zealand finance minister, Sir Roger Douglas, who was peddling the wares of restraint and cutbacks. Having turned New Zealand's economy around and its society inside out ... Sir Roger was now touring the world, urging others to heed the call and take the same drastic action. This new messenger of change was actually invited to speak to the Conservative caucus, where he put forward the view that change must be significant and it must be instituted quickly if the liberal consensus were to be broken and the state removed from the marketplace. The government that blinked would fail.

"Unfinished Business by Sir Roger Douglas of New Zealand, is credited with having provided the vocabulary of the 'Red Deer' budget round table. Terms such as 'hit the wall' and 'don't blink,' for example, made their debut at this event, and have now passed into the common parlance of all Canadian neo-conservatives." (Jeffrey, 1999, pg. 93)

"Ralph Klein paid attention. As late as 1997 he told reporter Kenneth Whyte he still worried about losing the political will and falling off the fiscal wagon. In an interview for Saturday Night, he said, 'It's never far from my mind. I keep asking my caucus are we blinking, and they say no, we're not blinking, we're still on track." (Jeffrey, 1999, Pg. 112)

So what prompted Ralph Klein and Mike Harris to adopt that authoritarian and combative style of governing?

"New Zealand's slash and burn pioneer, Sir Roger Douglas, an occasional consultant to Ralph Klein's government, promoted the strategy of 'retroactive consensus' at the Reform Party's 1991 assembly): the idea the governments should ruthlessly and quickly force change to minimize the effectiveness of opposition, building consensus only after all the decisions had been carried out." (Laird, 1998, Pg. 163 )

Preston Manning describes Roger Douglas's presentation: 'The Politics of Structural Reform'

"Roger Douglas who led a major effort by Labour government to reduce public spending, personifies the fact that changing times and conditions the world over are breaking down the old categories of left and right in politics. His short list of ten guidelines for implementing structural reforms, particularly in the area of financial and economic policy, could help with the transition from Old Canada to New Canada.

1. Quality decisions start with quality people placed in strategic positions.

2. Implement reforms by quantum leaps. Moving step by step lets invested interests mobilize.

3. Speed is essential. It is impossible to move too fast.

4. Once your momentum starts, never let it stop. Set your own goals and deadlines.

5. Credibility is crucial. It is hard to win and you can lose it overnight.

6. Make your goals clear. Adjustment is impossible if people don't know where you are going.

7. Stop selling the public short. Voters need and want politicians with a vision and guts to create a better future.

8. Don't blink or wobble. Get the decisions right the first time.

9. Opportunity, incentive, and choice mobilize the energy of the people to achieve successful change.

10. When in doubt, ask yourself, 'Why am I a Politician?' (Preston Manning: The New Canada, By: Preston Manning, MacMillan Canada,ISBN: 0-7715-9150-0, pg. 276)

Murray Dobbin describes the Reform Party's infatuation with Sir Roger Douglas and why it was not only bad for New Zealand but will be devastating for us.

"Douglas was introduced by Preston Manning, the only assembly speaker to be so honoured. And Manning told the delegates: There are three basic reasons why we have invited Sir Roger Douglas to be with us ... and three reasons why Reformers should pay close attention to what he has to say ... Sir Roger is an authority in fiscal reform and has advocated and promoted many of the fiscal reforms necessary to deal with the fiscal crisis that is facing our country ..

"Secondly ... he has been in a position to actively implement those reforms. He is not only a reformer in word, he is a reformer in deed. Sir Roger deregulated the financial sector, phased down agricultural and other subsidies .. phased out import controls and drastically reduced tariffs levels. He instituted a 10% flat rate consumption tax (GST), with virtually no exemptions. Thirdly, Sir Roger accomplished all these things as a minister of a labour party in government.

"What Preston Manning and Roger Douglas did not tell their audience was the story of the impact of Douglas's policies on the people of New Zealand. Saskatchewan political economist, Dr. John Warnock, travelled to New Zealand to study the effects of what New Zealanders dubbed 'Rogernomics.' The figures tell a story of devastation - a word used by New Zealand's own agricultural minister to describe the state of agriculture in four years after the 'reforms': A 40 per cent drop in farm income; a 50 per cent drop in the value of farm land; a policy of paying 3,000 farmers incentives of $ 45,000 to leave and the suggestion that another 15,000 (out of 79,000) should follow them. Unemployment, which had been at 4 per cent before Douglas's reforms, jumped to over 12 per cent in just over a year and is still increasing.

"Douglas completely eliminated regional development grants and subsidies to rural services. Says Warnock, 'They had things like subsidized petroleum - regardless of where you were the price was the same - subsidized train service, bus service, airport service. They privatized all these things and the prices immediately skyrocketed.' A massive de-population of the countryside resulted, and approximately 40,000 New Zealanders per year have since left the country for Australia to find work since 'restructuring' took effect. (Preston Manning and the Reform Party. Author: Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 113-114)

So why does Stephen Harper have such an interest in failed economists? It's not because they were successful at fixing the economy, but they were successful at dismantling the social safety net, paving the way for the wealthy to become wealthier.

Margaret Thatcher: "The 'crisis' of the welfare state provided Margaret Thatcher with her opportunity to seize control of the political agenda and take the Conservative Party sharply to the right. In doing so she altered the course of British politics for decades ... This was not a manifesto for the faint of heart ... What Thatcher was proposing was nothing less than the dismantling of much of the infrastructure of the modern liberal democratic state. Government was the enemy (Harper feels the same way) ... The woman ... wanted to privatize, deregulate and otherwise reduce state intervention in the economy (Roger Dougals said the goal was to have; the state removed from the marketplace) ..." (Jeffrey, 1999, Pg. 10-12)

"What I want to see above all is that this remains a country where someone can always gets rich" - Ronald Reagan

Like Margaret Thatcher, Reagan's policies were a disaster. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer and his administration created the largest number of homeless people in the nation's history.

A Harper majority and a record deficit would create a perfect storm. Stephen Harper once said that when he got through with Canada we wouldn't recognize it?

And we can be sure of one thing: HE WILL NEVER BLINK!