Monday, May 26, 2008


A succinct overview of Toryism in Canada

I read this column by David Orchard in The Globe & Mail some years ago. The year 2000 in fact; despite David's ill-considered defection to the Liberal Party, this little column neatly summarises the difference between Toryism as it has been practised in Canada since before Confederation, and the US-style Republican thought that has triumphed in the Conservative Party of Canada under the Reform element.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Globe and Mail, March 6, 2000
What makes me a Conservative
by David Orchard


Preston Manning has decided who is a real Conservative. Joe Clark is not; neither is David Orchard. Judged by Mr. Manning's criteria neither is John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield, R.B. Bennett, Robert Borden, Arthur Meighen, John A. Macdonald, Winston Churchill or Benjamin Disraeli.

My encyclopedia defines "conservative" as: "A political outlook that involves a preference for institutions and practices that have evolved historically, over radical innovations and blueprints for reshaping society."

Edmund Burke coined its classic definition: "A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve."

William Wordsworth and Samuel Coleridge further elaborated conservative sentiment. Once wholehearted supporters of the French Revolution, the terror in France changed their minds and both reacted against the ideology of liberalism. (Businessmen, wrote Coleridge, were often subversive, not conservative.)

In the 1830s, a youthful Jewish radical named Benjamin Disraeli thought the Tories, who had lost their traditions, could be purged of reaction and reinstalled as leaders of the people. In 1837, he was elected to Westminster as a rather different kind of Conservative MP. "The rights of labour are as sacred as those of property," he asserted and attacked the Poor Law for treating relief to the poor as a charity. "I maintain that it is a right," he said.

When Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel broke his campaign promise to oppose free trade, Disraeli condemned his betrayal in a speech that would become a classic in parliamentary history. The government fell and the party disintegrated. From its ruins, Disraeli built the modern Conservative Party. To outflank the Liberals with their merchant support, Disraeli reached out to the working class. Along with fellow Tory, Lord Shaftesbury, the great 19th century social reformer who led the long battle for the 10-hour workday, he championed the rights of workers.

Children at four were working in the mines. There were no limits to the hours of work. Life expectancy in working class areas was 21 years. The Liberals and factory owners argued against any regulation. Young people were learning a useful work ethic, they maintained.

In power, Disraeli regulated the hours of work and legislated protection for unions and the environment. "Power has only one duty," he declared, "to secure the social welfare of the people." According to Alex Macdonald, an early Labour MP, Disraeli did more for the working class in five years than the Liberals had in 50.

"The dream of my life," Disraeli explained, "was to re-establish Toryism on a national foundation." His guiding principles -- "to elevate the condition of the people" and "maintain the institutions of the country" -- stand in stark contrast to Manning's call to dismantle ever more national infrastructure.

In Canada, as in Britain, the Conservatives are the nation's oldest political party. Created by John A. Macdonald and George-Etienne Cartier, the party achieved Confederation against the vehement opposition of the Rouges, forerunners of the Liberal Party, some of whom argued for union with the United States.

The Conservatives refused to allow the entry of U.S. railways, and faced down a campaign by American rail owners to overthrow their government. The idea of building an all-Canadian railroad to British Columbia was vehemently opposed by the Liberals: How could a new country of four million inhabitants promise to build the world's greatest railway? they asked. If built, it should at least follow the cheaper, easier route south of the Great Lakes and the contracts be awarded to U.S. business.

"Never," replied Cartier, "will a damned American company have control of the CPR." Manitoba, then British Columbia and the entire northwest entered Canada and the railroad was built.

While Mr. Manning claims a conservative believes in wide-open borders, Canada's great Conservative leaders were adamant in their opposition to free trade with the United States. The idea was, Macdonald said, "sheer insanity" that would have "as its inevitable result, annexation." How could Canada keep its political independence after it had thrown away its economic independence, he asked.

Cartier was no less blunt. "What will be the consequences of industrial reciprocity?" he asked. "The factories of Canada will lose the advantages they now possess and eventually the largest manufacturing industries will be concentrated in the U.S." The end result would be union of the two countries, "that is to say, our annihilation as a nation."

In 1911, the Liberals, under Wilfrid Laurier, negotiated a free-trade agreement with the United States. The Conservatives, under Robert Borden, defeated it. "Laurier," Borden said, "was calling for a greater Canada, but it seemed to be a greater United States the Liberals had achieved."

Contrary to Mr. Manning's view that government's role is to stay out of the economy, Robert Borden and his interior minister, Arthur Meighen, nationalized five railway systems to create the CNR. Meighen's successor as Conservative leader, R.B. Bennett, likewise had no fear of government enterprises and believed they could be efficient. Corporations, he said, are creations of Parliament and Parliament can regulate them.

Kicking off his 1927 leadership campaign, Bennett said: "The first thing we must do in this country is build up a strong national consciousness -- a virile Canadianism -- we have suffered from an inferiority complex long enough."

In power from 1930 to 1935, Bennett introduced the CBC, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Bank of Canada, the institution that allowed Canada to finance its entire Second World War effort without borrowing abroad.

In direct opposition to Mr. Manning's postulation that a conservative believes smaller government is better government, Bennett said, "Reform means government intervention. It means government control and regulation. It means the end of laissez-faire." He described the Conservative Party as being "for the greatest good, for the greatest number of people," and was labelled "a Tory of the Left."

The Conservatives under John Bracken and George Drew moved right, adopted a business orientation and were largely unsuccessful at the polls. In 1956, however, John Diefenbaker won the leadership and moved the party sharply left -- and to victory. He called on Canadians "to take a clear stand in opposition to economic continentalism" and the "baneful effects of foreign ownership." Condemned as a "prairie Bolshevik," he replied: "To those who label me as some kind of party maverick and have claimed that I have been untrue to the great principles of the Conservative Party, I can only reply that they have forgotten the traditions of Disraeli and Shaftesbury in Britain and Macdonald in Canada."

In 1983, Brian Mulroney strongly opposed John Crosbie's proposal for free trade with the United States. He was swept to power. In office, however, Mr. Mulroney reversed his views, broke the Conservative Party's historic position and ushered in the North American free-trade agreement. In 1993, the party was dealt the most dramatic repudiation in a western democracy, and was reduced to two seats.

When the Conservative Party adheres to its people-come-first roots, its following is strong. Each time it loses its sense of nationhood, moves too far right and adopts a narrow business agenda -- exactly the stance being advocated by Preston Manning today -- the party itself loses, too.

Mr. Manning's affection for a survival-of-the-fittest society is not conservatism; it is classic liberalism.

The environmental movement, based upon the impulse to preserve, is a conservative idea. The liberal free-market model, which Mr. Manning preaches, ridicules and opposes this impulse, slashing national institutions, escalating the clear cutting of our forests, the genetic manipulation of our agriculture and food supply, recklessly revolutionizing without regard for the consequences. The Disraeli/Macdonald concept of preservation and the public good are polar opposites to this view, as is the very definition of conservatism.

Mr. Manning's so-called Canadian Alliance attempts to import directly from the United States a brand of right-wing evangelism, package it with a Canadian name and declare the product to be Canadian conservatism. But the United States has no conservative party -- its political tradition is an expressed reaction against conservatism -- and it doesn't belong here.

Preston Manning's movement falls well short of the values Canadian conservatvies cherish. The older, deeper pro-Canadian conservatism that elevates the condition of the people, as Disraeli put it, is tried and proven conservatism. It is the key to the victory of the Conservative Party at the polls and to our survival as a sovereign nation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Orchard is the author of The Fight for Canada - Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism and was runner-up to Joe Clark in the 1998 federal Progressive Conservative leadership contest. He is a farmer in Borden, SK.

11 Comments:

At 5:46 pm , Blogger sharonapple88 said...

Thanks for posting that.

 
At 10:09 am , Blogger Ryan said...

I'm a huge Orchard fan. It's too bad he went Liberal--wherein his political philosophy will easily get crushed or consumed by the Goodales and Ignatiefs.

One questions why he didn't go Green instead. Even the NDP would be a better fit... Perhaps he doesn't care for building up a party and would prefer a party with instant power.

 
At 11:53 am , Blogger Aeneas the Younger said...

So was I. My sources tell me he has developed quite a taste for elective office. I wonder how his recent treatment at the hands of the LPC has affected his outlook. I think going Progressive Canadian might have been the best move for him.

 
At 11:55 am , Blogger Aeneas the Younger said...

Green would have been a fair fit, but not the NDP - as David is a confirmed Monarchist. The NDP today is much different from the NDP of 1965, as I'm sure you know.

 
At 5:45 pm , Blogger Ryan said...

Meh. I'm a monarchist too, for the sake of preserving a unique Canadian culture, if anything. I'm sure a lot of New Democrats would share that opinion.

On the flip side, I'll bet there are just as many anti-monarchists in the Green Party as there are in the NDP. Seems like the NDP's policies would still fit better for Orchard than the Liberal Party (when the highest ups like Manley are calling for the abolition of the monarchy)

 
At 9:25 pm , Blogger Aeneas the Younger said...

Well, he is a conservative person in some many other ways; in fact, he is a bit of a so-con - so that could have provided some problems as an NDP'er.

You know, I grew up in a Tory Family, but my Parents actually voted NDP in the 1972 election. My Parents were comfortable that David Lewis was anti-communist, and quite liked his attack on "corporate welfare bums."

They didn't vote NDP again, but I recall the shock when Dad had an NDP sign put on the lawn!

 
At 8:19 am , Blogger Ryan said...

You may be right about that--though I think there may be the same problem with the Greens (along with the large segment of socially liberal neo-cons that are disenchanted with the CPC). Though I agree with a public stance of social progressivism, I don't really think it is right to purge or ostracize people of differing views, which I think the NDP does on occasion. Some people don't recognize that part of being an adult is working together with people you don't agree with.

 
At 12:21 pm , Blogger Aeneas the Younger said...

"Some people don't recognize that part of being an adult is working together with people you don't agree with."

A long time ago, this is what Parliament was all about ...

... life is too complex for ideology. What we need broad agreement on is the scale and scope of our common civic values as a people.

 
At 3:09 pm , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!

 
At 12:53 am , Anonymous Anonymous said...

[url=http://yljeavag.100webspace.net]Порно видео! / Free porn video![/url]

 
At 1:34 am , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Howdy,

Do you guys watch movies in theater or on internet? I use to rent DVD movies from [b]Redbox.com[/b]. Recently I discovered that we can watch all new movies on internet on day, they are released. So why should I spend money on renting movies??? So, can you guys please tell me where I can [url=http://www.watchhotmoviesfree.com]watch latest movie The Oranges 2010[/url] for free?? I have searched [url=http://www.watchhotmoviesfree.com]Youtube.com[/url], [url=http://www.watchhotmoviesfree.com]Dailymotion.com[/url], [url=http://www.watchhotmoviesfree.com]Megavideo.com[/url] but, Could not find a good working link. If you know any working link please share it with me.


Thanks

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home