Canada's most under-appreciated conservatives

[Pierre Trudeau]

OK, I expect this topic could generate some lively exchanges and even heated debate (oh wait a sec, these are my fellow Canucks here, I'll rephrase that to "could generate some polite interest" :P ). There are several reasons why I wanted to post this:

- in order to more effectively critique the Harper govt., it is helpful to know what a "good" conservative is supposed to be
- a reminder to everyone here that conservative wasn't always a dirty word in Canada
- I want to promote a new opposition strategy: rather than constantly demonizing Harper & expecting the worst, we should instead hold him up to the highest conservative standards and show how he fares against other figures and governments

Yes, I don't like Mr. Harper any more than anyone here. But I read a lot of hysterical reactions here to every little thing he does. It's getting to the point where if Harper sneezes, there will be accusations of a secret plot to spread bird flu. Criticism can lose its impact when it's not focused where it needs to be, or when it seems inconsistent (Harper was criticized for banning the media from covering fallen soldiers returning to Canada; now he is being criticized for reversing that policy). One of the reasons Harper and his govt. are riding high in the polls is because expectations had been set so low (a big mistake of the last Liberal campaign), that the Conservatives look good just by appearing moderately competent. Maybe we should start setting the standards higher and framing our criticisms in terms of Harper's own lofty ideals and whatever merit we can find in other conservative leaders past and present. We have been giving the Cons a free ride by being dismissive and painting Harper as an idiot (which he's not). He is an opponent who should not be underestimated. Let's raise the bar so that he can whack himself on the head with it before the next election.

Harper himself invoked Sir John A. MacDonald in his election-night speech, which contained very little that was objectionable to this old liberal (but of course, it's just talk). Harper fancies himself a history buff, so I say let's dust off some under-appreciated conservative leaders from our history and see how he compares.


1. Sir John Sparrow David Thomson (Prime Minister, 1892-94)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thompson_%28politician%29
http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=40584

Regarded as the true successor to MacDonald at the time, Thompson was a "progressive conservative" sixty years before such a thing existed. The only PM to hail from Halifax, he briefly served as premier of Nova Scotia before being recruited by Sir John A to serve in his "liberal-conservative" government, where he quickly made a name for himself as Minister of Justice. Known for his astute mind and impeccable integrity (I have never discovered any historical references to any scandal surrounding Thompson), he gave Canada its criminal code and a body of jurisprudence (he also served as a judge before entering politics). Interestingly, Thompson was also an early champion of women's right to vote, a full three decades before widespread suffrage came into place.

Although Thompson was apparently popular at the time, the main reason he is under-appreciated now is that less than two years into his term, he suddenly died of a heart attack in front of Queen Victoria. He was the second and last PM to die in office (MacDonald of course being the first).


2. William G. Davis (Premier of Ontario, 1971-85; Ontario Minister of Education, 1962-71)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Davis

Unlike Thompson, this one I can vouch for with my own life experience. Probably one of the biggest conservative success stories in Canadian history, Bill Davis served continuously in the Ontario legislature from 1959-1985, is considered Ontario's greatest education minister, managed to keep being re-elected as Premier for 14 years, and retired with his reputation intact. In fact, even here, in the most progressive circles of "Fortress Toronto", NO politician is regarded with as much genuine affection as "Brampton Billy". Mr. Davis had this crazy idea to put the best interests of all Ontarians ahead of ideology. He also was a true believer in public education, and built an impressive system of universities and community colleges. He founded TVOntario, our province's beloved public television network (can you imagine any conservative nowadays promoting public broadcasting?) Oh, and by the way, that Charter of Rights and Freedoms we so cherish? Thank Mr. Davis, who corralled the premiers (except Levesque of course) to finally approve of Trudeau's constitutional package in 1982 (in fact, despite hailing from opposing parties, there was generally a very constructive relationship between Davis and Trudeau). Davis earned a rep as a consensus-builder, and even formed a sort of coalition with the provincial NDP during one of his minority governments... so those of you who expressed shock at the proposed federal Conservative-NDP alliance should realize: it has happened before, at least provincially.

I grew up in Bill Davis' Ontario, and it was a pretty good place. The educational system was very well-supported, and very broad-minded. There was a lot more emphasis on arts & humanities subjects, compared to today's strictly-utilitarian curriculum. It was also the last time that people widely felt confidence in the Premier, and no Premier has commanded that degree of confidence since. (His stock is still so high that the first thing Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty did after winning the election was to consult with Davis for general advice on running the province)

Brampton Billy retired from politics in 1985, much to everyone's surprise. But what has he done for us lately? Well, apparently he gave a speech that inspired Belinda Stronach to bolt from the federal conservatives last year. And although he agreed to be one of the elders negotiating the Alliance-PC merger, he has frequently been skeptical of the CPC's policies. His most recent public appearance was to support Bob Rae's Liberal leadership bid, where he exhibited more enthusiasm than he did with his lukewarm support for unsuccessful Conservative candidate Peter Kent in the last federal election.


3. Robert Stanfield (Nova Scotia Premier, 1956-67; federal PC leader, 1967-76)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stanfield

Interesting how these under-appreciated conservatives keep popping up from Nova Scotia. Stanfield could accurately be described as an old-school gentleman who by today's standards, would be considered somewhere to the left of the NDP. After succeeding Diefenbaker as leader of the federal PC party, Stanfield was rather well-regarded throughout the country, and it seemed likely that he could win the next election against the governing Liberals, especially since he was perceived as quite liberal himself. Only problem was, Pearson retired and was succeeded by Pierre Trudeau, who... well, I don't need to spell it out, do I? Boring Bob just couldn't compete against the dynamic and charismatic Trudeau; he fought 3 elections and came within a hair's breadth in 1972, but all to no avail. He retired in 1976, regarded as the most popular federal leader ever to NOT become prime minister.

In a highly symbolic gesture, Stanfield died eight days after the merger of the old PC-Alliance parties into the new Conservative Party.


4. Roy McMurtry (Ontario Attorney General, 1975-85; Chief Justice of Ontario since 1996)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_McMurtry

I'll confess my own bias here, as some of McMurtry's kids are friends of mine. But most people in the know would concur, Roy McMurtry has earned his place as a respected figure. Appointed Attorney General of Ontario by the aforementioned Bill Davis, he was also a key figure in repatriating the constitution and creating the Charter. Although he batted some strikes (notably his prosecution of accused nurse Susan Nelles), he has a good record as attorney general, and is known as a cultured, thoughtful man. In fact, he is an artist himself, you can view his paintings here . Since 1996, he's been the province's chief justice, and was involved in the Court of Appeals decision which conferred the right for same-sex couples to marry in Ontario.


5. Joe Clark (Prime Minister, 1979-80; External Affairs Minister, 1984-91; federal PC leader, 1976-83 and 1998-2003)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Clark
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-74-2149/people/joe_clark/

Some would say that Joe is deservedly un-appreciated because he's such a hapless schmuck. Admittedly, his brief stint as Prime Minister was certainly dismal. But we tend to forget that afterward, he was one of the few bright lights of the Mulroney government. So we should remember him for his term as External Affairs minister more than as PM. Clark appointed Stephen Lewis as our ambassador to the UN, promoted sanctions against apartheid South Africa, opposed Reagan's policies in Nicaragua, and was generally one of Canada's most progressive foreign affairs ministers along with Pearson and Lloyd Axworthy. Ultimately there was only so much he could do under Mulroney's greasy thumb, but all things considered, he acquitted himself well, and was untouched by the myriad scandals plaguing that government. Later, of course he became PC leader again after the post-Mulroney collapse, and spoke out strongly against the PC-Alliance merger. These days, he serves as the conscience of old-school conservatives, and a fore-runner of the emerging "green tories".

One of my favourite Joe stories is his successful election as a Calgary MP in 2000. He was endorsed by the city's gay community as the best candidate to beat the Alliance at the time... and sure enough, he did. He also did that great bit where he grabbed Stockwell Day's silly sign in the leaders' debate. We love ya, Joe!

____________________________________________________________________________

Phew! A very selective list, I admit, but it's a start. I'd like to add more, and include some women too, like Flora MacDonald. Anyone else, feel free to add any conservatives you secretly admire, or feel are under-appreciated for whatever reason. I know this may seem like an odd thing to do on a supposedly progressive forum, but it's all part of the job of defining one's opponents: taking note of the best, not just the worst.

Oh by the way, I know some of you will point out that the current (neo-) Conservative Party is deliberately detached from traditional Canadian conservatism, which is true to some extent. But part of their recent success is due in part to their attempts to evoke some of those traditional strains and present themselves to Canadians as part of the mainstream tradition. Knowing what that tradition was helps us debunk them more effectively.

[Spazito]

1. A different way to approach this may be to show the differences

between the faux con philosophy and the real conservative aka Joe Clark philosophy and how the Harper government is working on instituting the faux con philosophy ala Reform racist, homophobic, anti-social program, pro-rich, pro-bush agenda.

[Pierre Trudeau]

2. here's a bit to get started...

Traditional Canadian conservatives believe in a strong federal government, and the necessity of regulating industry. While today's conservatives bray about the need to privatize everything, Prime Ministers such as MacDonald and Borden were known for nationalizing the railways and other industries. Strangely, it was the early conservatives who advocated government intervention, which was opposed by the Liberals of the era. Conservatives also used to be the ones most cautious about our relations with the US, while the Liberals used to be the ones advocating free trade (!!!). Even as recently as the 1960s, the Diefenbaker conservatives tried to portray Pearson as an American toady (JFK was prez at the time; Johnson of course, did not get along so well with Mike).

Tory social values are markedly different than neoconservatives. While we on the progressive side would likely consider Tory views as patronizing and anachronistic, there is still a greater importance placed on the well-being of the community at large, in contrast to the "I'll get mine, fuck everyone else" individualism of the neocons. So I find the stuffy monarchist social values of the Tories much preferable: they actually believe that the wealthy have a moral obligation to improve the lot of the less fortunate. And some actually support same-sex marriage because in their old-school conservative view, it promotes social stability. Go figure.

Obviously there's a lot more to the distinction than my brief jottings above. But I hope others will chime in to point up more contrasts.

[Spazito]

3. I don't agree with labeling the faux cons as "today's conservatives"

and use the term "neoconservatives" as you did further down in your post.

Other than that nitpicking, by me, re how to refer to them, your post is very good. I will give some thought and research on other points.

[Pierre Trudeau]

4. I see what you mean

It is a bit inexact on my part. We should all get into the habit of specifically distinguishing which brand of conservative we're speaking of at the time.

One point I would make, though, is that it probably IS an over-simplification to categorize the entirety of the CPC as exclusively neoconservative. Granted, its Reform Party base comes straight from the neocon HQ at the U of Calgary PoliSci department and the redneck socons of Alberta, but the merger and expansion of the party has inevitably added a quotient of other voices as well. Somehow I doubt that many of those new Quebec MPs would be singing from the same hymnal as Myron Thompson. There was also a significant Red Tory presence in the federal election (Hugh Segal among others), and the likes of Jim Prentice cannot be accurately described as neocon. Perhaps they are a minority, but these factors need to be taken into account by us rather than dismissing the CPC as some monolithic neocon structure.

It could be useful, for instance, in subtly driving wedges between different factions within the Conservative Party, no? :D

[glarius]

5. I read enough of your post to answer you in this manner:

Sorry, I don't have the patience or time right now to read all of what you posted, but I get the gist of it. Remember the name of the old conservative party?...The "Progressive" Conservatives.....That is the difference. The present party is a conglomeration of the extreme right wing Reform and Alliance parties with the progressives holding their noses and joining them. The criticism of Harper is justified. Harper is not being criticized for reversing the returning coffins policy, but for lying about his policy. He said there was to be no media present when the dead soldiers landed on Canadian soil. He made no announcement that changed that and yet when Mr. Goddard spoke out at his daughter's funeral against it, Harper inferred that he had given orders that families were to decide if they wanted media present. This was A LIE! Up until that time he certainly had not reversed himself on this order. He also LIED about his problem with the Ottawa press corps. Terry Milewski as much as called him a liar the other day in B.C....Milewski said, "what you are saying is NOT TRUE" to Harper when referring to Harper's version of the kerfuffle with the Ottawa press corps...(Harper pretended the problem was that the Ottawa press corps wouldn't allow their members to ask him questions, when of course it was that they refused to be hand-picked by Harper's minions.)
I believe the suspicion of Harper is completely justified. He is a right wing zealot who is smooth, devious, and beguiling enough to fool the average citizen who is not watching as closely as the people on this forum. They think he is a "decisive leader". I pray to God he doesn't get a majority. If he does I believe he'll make Mulroney's statement come true...."When I get through with Canada, you won't recognize it".

[Posteritatis]

6. For the most part, the situation in Nova Scotia

doesn't actually offend me that much these days. The Conservatives are in power, but they've still got the feel of the old PCs (who weren't and aren't my party, but annoy me much less than the federal guys now). On top of that, it's more or less a minority situation with the three parties having fairly equal influence, if not absolute seat count. Each party seems to have gotten a bunch of its stuff done, either officially or as private members' legislation.

Lately folks have been just .... acting like adults. Even the election ads are civil. Hell, even the scandals earlier in the year were civil.

It's kind of frightening, really.