Marci McDonald (“The Man Behind Stephen Harper,” October) offers a rare and sobering look at Canadian politics. Much ink has been spilled on the ideological cabal surrounding President Bush, but little attention has been paid to the backroom operators driving both the Liberal and new Conservative party machines. As the attention Canadians are paying to the U.S. election reveals, somehow we have come to believe that American politics matters and, despite outrage over the sponsorship scandal, etc., Canadian politics is largely uninteresting and matters much less. In her thoughtful analysis of Conservative party strategist Tom Flanagan, McDonald puts the lie to such views.
After the somnolence of summer, as Parliament prepares to reconvene, I trust that Canadians will be paying attention. In her essay, McDonald raises a fascinating question: In his successful bid to grab key Ontario ridings by presenting himself as centrist during last spring’s election campaign, was Harper driven by ideology or pragmatism? Clearly, Tom Flanagan and the Calgary School are ideologues, but it is not the case (as widely reported in the press) that Harper took the summer off. Rather, he was busy striking deals with the ndp and the Bloc Québécois. This suggests that the “ideology” driving Harper is the same one driving Paul Martin: win at all costs. It further suggests a fissure with Tom Flanagan et al. Don’t bank on it. That is the value of McDonald’s investigative research.
Marlene Kraml
There are two traditional journalistic conceits that inspire Marci McDonald’s essay. The first is that the “man behind the man” is always more interesting than the leader himself, or herself, in any political party. The second conceit, evident in many areas of Canadian journalism, is that there is only one acceptable brand of moderate, centrist, allegedly mainstream conservatism, and that any other variety is part of some dark and narrow conspiracy worthy of careful examination.
The fact that some of Dr. Flanagan’s intellectual mentors are American should be of no surprise. The American settlement of the west in the late nineteenth century, driven by affordable grazing lands and added to more recently by the discovery and expansion of the traditional energy basin, provided the dominant inflow of people and ideas into that part of Canada. Much of the more populist, individualistic, and economically conservative tone of western public discourse comes from these roots — a discourse that is an honourable part of the Canadian political economy. Conservatism, as opposed to either liberalism or socialism, implies a consistent regard for the balance between freedom and responsibility. This balance is sustained by the constant tension between those who view order and responsibility, including social responsibility, as absolutely essential to society (which would be my bias), and those who view individual freedom and prerogative, unfettered as possible by the state, as even more essential.
As for the old shibboleth of ascribing to a party leader the views associated with any of his or her advisors, this is a journalistic alchemy simply not borne out by the facts. Mr. Harper has stated a very different view from Dr. Flanagan on aboriginal issues. To be fair to Ms. McDonald, this alchemy has been a part of journalistic analysis of political leaders and parties for years. The notion, however, that the Flanagan/Harper relationship is somehow part of a plan to sneak a narrow, doctrinaire government into power while pretending to be something else (Ms. McDonald quotes Ted Byfield as saying, “The issue now is: how do we fool the world into thinking we’re moving left when we’re not? “) sounds very much like the traditional campaign attack on any Conservative party with prospects. This may not have been her intent, but it was the result of the way her piece was crafted. Left out of this analysis is the multi-week negotiation that took place in the summer of 2003 between such extremists as Bill Davis, Don Mazankowski, and Loyola Hearn on behalf of Peter MacKay; and Gerry St. Germain, Ray Speaker, and Scott Reid on behalf of Mr. Harper. It produced a series of founding principles for the new Conservative party that speak to a broad-church Tory party, open to the full spectrum of conservatives within its ranks. The breakthrough of twenty-four Ontario federal seats would not have been possible without this approach.
Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay have looked beyond narrow ideology and the narcissism of small differences to build something new. To the extent that Dr. Flanagan was part of that process, all Canadians, even those who would never vote Conservative and would never agree with Dr. Flanagan, owe him, and those who worked on all sides of the process, a great deal indeed. Canadian democracy must have at least two national parties able to form a government, or Canadian voters have no real choice at all.
Hugh Segal, President
Institute for Research on Public Policy
Montreal, Quebec
Comments