There is little doubt that our present Conservative party is a logical and predictable extension of the Social Credit and Reform and Alliance line and lineage. Such a tradition, as I mentioned above, has strong American conservative republican tendencies. The present Conservative party of Canada, predictably and consciously so, has many an affinity with the American empire. When the Progressive Conservative party of Canada merged with the Reform party, the more progressive and High Tory aspects of the Progressive Conservative party vanished and the more republican tendencies came to win the day.
How, though, in the last few decades, did this occur, and who were some of the key intellectuals in Canada that assisted in this process to make us more American both in theory and in practice? A comprador class can exist at a variety of levels. Some are rather sophisticated, some are popular and some are crude. The comprador class in Canada can be found in many places and it can take many shapes and forms. Rex Murphy has played his dutiful role in the CBC. Conrad Black and Barbara Amiel have had little patience for the notion of the commonweal in Canada, and the role of the state in protecting such a good. David Frum and Michael Ignatieff tend to genuflect low and defend the empire. There are many others that could be mentioned, but the Calgary School has done much in Alberta and Canada to play their comprador role, and, to some extent, they have succeeded. What is the Calgary School, why are they so popular, who are they and what are their sources? Stephen Harper is, to a great extent, a child of the Calgary School, his intent is to move us ever closer to the American empire and he is very much a comprador.
But, there are those back of Harper, deeper of thought and persuasion, that have done much to convince Canadians that we should really, if we had our wits and smarts about us, turn to the USA as our north star, mentor and teacher.
"The Man Behind Stephen Harper" does a fine job of connecting dots for those who have not yet done so. It is a must read for those keen on seeing and understanding how the puzzle of the comprador class fits together and who the different pieces in the puzzle are and why. There is Stephen Harper. He is the political captain on the ship. But, who are the architects of the ship and who built the ship of the Conservative party of Canada? The Conservative party of Canada has come a long way from the more regional Social Credit and Reform/Alliance days. It is this national expansion and those who have thought out such an expansion we need to see for who they are and why. So, yes, there is Stephen Harper, and he is the best-known embodiment and activist of the comprador Calgary School in Canada. Who are the mandarins and family compact behind him, though?
The Calgary School has both European and American roots and sources. Three leading Europeans have done much to shape and form the Calgary School. Those of us who spend a good deal of time teaching political theory cannot avoid the names of Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin and Frederick Hayek. Hayek and Voegelin were Austrians. Hayek was a great fan of free trade, and Voegelin was an opponent of Hitler. He fled Austria when Hitler came to power; he came to the USA and taught there for much of his life. Leo Strauss fled Germany, like Hannah Arendt, when Hitler came to power, and both came and settled in the USA. These Austrian and German refugees, for different reasons, saw the USA, as the great and good place. It was, was it not, the country that defended liberty and freedom against the totalitarianism of Germany, Italy, Japan and Communism. The Calgary School is very much indebted to those like Strauss, Voegelin and Hayek for their inspiration, and many within the Calgary School are well known scholars in the area of Strauss, Voegelin and Hayek. The point to note here is that the Calgary School does not take its lead from the indigenous Canadian tradition. They turn elsewhere for their great good place. Such is the nature, DNA and way of the compradors. But, there is more to the tale than this.
The Calgary School also has strong American roots. Again, the comprador way comes to the fore and front stage. Tom Flanagan is well known in Canada for his revisionist read on Louis Riel. He was also born and bred in the USA, and he has strong American republican leanings. Barry Cooper is yet another of the clan. He is a Canadian, but he did his graduate studies in the USA, he did not find much support for his republican leanings at York University, hence he turned to the political science department at the University of Calgary. Cooper is a well-known Voegelin scholar. David Bercuson, Ted Morton and Rainer Knopff fill out the ranks quite nicely. At a more popular level, of course, Ted and Link Byfield have played their roles in shoring up and defending the American republican way. The comprador class in Alberta did much to both bring Preston Manning to power and to dethrone him. Stephen Harper was more the ideologue that served their purposes; hence he was offered the crown he now wears.
The article by Marci McDonald has gone a long way to bring together a tribe and clan, a line and lineage so all can see. There are others in this family tree that McDonald has missed, though, and they should be noted by way of conclusion. William Gairdner is a key person in this tale, and he should not be missed. Gairdner has published many a book, but After Liberalism: Essays in Search of Freedom, Virtue and Order (1998) is a must read. Gairdner edited After Liberalism, and many of the prominent actors in the Canadian comprador and republican class walk on stage and speak their speech. It would have helped if Marci McDonald had connected more of the dots in Alberta (and the rest of Canada), but "The Man Behind Stephen Harper" is a good start. Needless to say, there are many men behind Stephen Harper, and the Calgary School is just one source. Those who have sat at the feet of William Gairdner and Ted/Link Byfield will hear the same voice. The American empire is the great place, and the sooner Canadians realize this and bow low to Caesar, the better off we will be.
We do need to ask this rather simple question as this missive winds down: Would the Canadian High Toryism of Bishops John Strachan and Charles Inglis, Susan Sibbald or Catherine Parr Traill, Stephen Leacock or Mazo de la Roche, George Grant or Milton Acorn, Donald Creighton or Eugene Forsey (to name but a few Canadian High Tories) be at home with the Albertan tradition of politics and the conservative republican ideas of the Calgary School? Hardly! It was this very liberal tradition that these women and men fought so firmly to oppose. It is this very High Tory nationalist vision for Canada that the compradors in Alberta and the Calgary School have attempted to obliterate and replace with the grand narrative of American manifest destiny. It is time that Tories and other Canadian nationalists talked back to such a betrayal of the best of our heritage. Indeed, the time has come when the beaver must bite back.
The sooner that Canadians realize that the Calgary School and tribe are American republican conservatives, compradors and apologists for the empire, the sooner we can say such a clan is not deeply Canadian in any significant sense. Our history, at its noblest and best, has been one of questioning and interrogating the empire. It is a sad day when we bow low to the USA and numb our critical faculties. Such a prostration is an insult to those who have fought long and hard to keep the True North strong and free.
Ron Dart
Stumble It!
But it all derives from laziness. The words "Canadian" and "entrepreneur" amounts to an oxymoron when used in the same sentence to describe Big Business in this country. Canada's big businesses, invariably resource-related, found a haven in successive federal governments, which subsidized them shamelessly, and cleared away any political barriers to trade with the US.
Alberta simply represents a continuing trend towards the creation in fact if not in name, of Fortress America.
---
RickW
Interested, e-mail me at Joe Hieglin <hueglinj@cogeco.ca>
These people talk as if the US is a hostile power, an enemy bent on destroying us and our culture. It's interesting that Canadian nationalists look at the US the same way that Quebec nationalists look at us. Actually, it's not so much interesting as sad.
It is probably true that there is a strong whiff of American political thinking in certain Canadians, such as myself. However, this needs a little defending.
While appreciating the monarchical and constitutional history and tradition of Canada, we need to recall that America was British before it was American. It is true that the loyalists who came here from there were escaping certain aspects of radical democracy, slavery, and so on, about which we are hearing more in Canada these past thirty years; including from me, and especially in my book The Trouble With Canada (1990).
I think the reason we see increasing demands for referendums and recall and the like is that millions of Canadians feel betrayed by their politicians and their system. Beginning with the Pearson Trudeau axis - especially the Trudeau part of it, which I refer to now as "the revenge of Montcalm" - Canada has been slowly but decisively altered from its former constitutional-democracy/monarchical foundation. Back then, egislators elected by the people, but representing in principle the whole nation, made law in the name of the people, and this was the highest law of the land. But since Trudeau's Charter (1982), this form of parliamentary sovereignty has been superceded and suppressed by judicial sovereignty. The Charter contains only abstract concepts, the particular case-by-case meanings of which are decided by unelected judges. This has amounted to a revolution through which the will of the people and their legislators is controlled in a top-down fashion by unelected people representing no one but themselves. Judges may be technical experts in the law, but they are not experts in moral or social or even political philosophy. The result is that the Canadian people have suffered a kind of moral and political castration. In effect, Canada has been altered, from the top, and ostensibly by one man, from a British type of parliamentary polity into a European type of code-law polity. For history buffs, this is what happeneded to the Germans when Napoleon conquered them and imposed French code-law and concepts on their ancient ways. Same process, same superannuated enlightenment concepts, forced upon an unwilling and unwary people here.
I think the resulting Comprador theme complained of in the lead article has been a too-late response to this reality. For some time, beginning in the late 1980s, many of us were certain that if we could just stimulate the old Canadian spirit of democracy we could turn back the tide of collectivism and socialism sweeping over Canada. The only tools available were the old radical democratic tools used still by the Swiss: referendums, recall, and people's initiatives. Some of this would probably be good for Canada, if not a lot of it. Indeed, the flawed Charlottetown process was an inkling of it, by which the people pushed back the chattering classes (which includes politicians, judges, and media and academia) and rejected the Accord. Bravo, I say.
As for today? I am a little less enthusiastic about the tools of radical democracy because I believe the public mood has shifted; well, perhaps I should say deteriorated to such a degree that a resigned capitulation to all manner of liberal thought and policy is now the norm. So much so that if an election is called soon, Canadians may dismiss all the liberal lying, fraud and stealing of their money and install themonce again. Fifteen years ago, Canadians en masse would have voted against such things as gay marriage in a referendum, and against lots of other such things. Today? It is not so certain.
People push for radical democracy when they believe it will help their cause, and I am no different. When they think it will hurt their cause, they push instead for a more seasoned and reasoned deliberation of the core issues.
Can we have both? The jury is still out. One of the things political experts from all sides agree on is the astonishing, even shocking level of public ignorance concerning political, moral, and social issues. So low, it is off the screen. So it is not certain at all that more public deliberation is the answer to a wiser polity. The governing classes realize this, and so prefer to govern with polls and spin doctors and courts rather than via sincere public and representative or direct democracy.
William D. Gairdner
The final two words of your May 4/05 response intrigue me. If you can name a 'direct democracy' since the Athens experiment I will give your words due consideration; however, should you not name a more recent direct democracy, and especially one in current Canada as per your own context, then your words are as the spring run-off in Alberta: invisible within full sight and completely useless to their original design, as all other ephemora.
Bil Bird
"I am a little less enthusiastic about the tools of radical democracy because I believe the public mood has shifted; well, perhaps I should say deteriorated to such a degree that a resigned capitulation to all manner of liberal thought and policy is now the norm. So much so that if an election is called soon, Canadians may dismiss all the liberal lying, fraud and stealing of their money and install them once again. Fifteen years ago, Canadians en masse would have voted against such things as gay marriage in a referendum, and against lots of other such things. Today? It is not so certain."
This paragraph is hilarious. Mr. Gairdner, on what grounds to you see popular support for gay marriage and "other such things" as a "resigned capitulation" to "liberal thought"? Perhaps instead it's a principled endorsement of them. I think it speaks volumes that you're nervous about radical democracy now that the public "mood" has shifted away from the values you approve. But it's also presumptuous of you to suppose that Canadians are ill informed about your prejudices. To the contrary, we know them very well.