Three for one

Tonight I'm going to do a post that will contain two book reviews and my recommendation for Monday's election, all in one.

Book Review #1: Rescuing Canada's Right: A Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution by Tasha Kheiriddin and Adam Daifallah (2005)


By now, everyone who has been following Canadian politics closely will have heard about this book, released last fall just before the government fell. Written by two activists, it details the history of the small-c conservative movement in Canada, looks at its successes and failures, and makes a number of prescriptions for building a solid foundation for what the authors call "anti-statist" public policy in Canada.

Where to begin? This book is a tour de force of the challenges that smaller government types face. In fact, I'd put it on the scale of William Gairdner's "The Trouble with Canada". While more practical than intellectual, it is just as much a call to arms as Gairdner's work was in the early 90s. Where they differ is that "Rescuing Canada's Right" focuses more on the strategic side of the equation while Gairdner's was more about policy.

Basically what it all boils down to for the authors is this: for conservative ideas to dominate in Canada, an infrastructure needs to be built - in law, academia, and the media through stronger corporate backing, establishing more think tanks, and bringing a libertarian message to French Canadians and an inclusive, opportunistic one to immigrants. On the issues, it says that conservatives need to do a better job developing and marketing positions on the environment, social policy, health care and federalism. The authors make the case that it is possible to jettison the apologetic, hand-wringing Red Toryism of Joe Clark and win elections, if conservatives have the courage of their convictions.

This book is extremely well-written, digestible and informative. The arguments are tight and realistic in their scope. I think everyone who is interested in public policy, whether you are right, left, or centrist, would benefit from reading it if only to better grasp where some, but certainly not all, elements of the Tory party would have Canada go.

Overall rating: 9/10

Book Review #2: "Why I Am a Reagan Conservative", edited by Michael K. Deaver (2005)



Former White House staffer Michael Deaver edits this collection of brief momentos from American conservatives on the occasion of the death of the man the Economist magazine says "ended the Cold War", Ronald Reagan. Included are comments from current and former members of Congress, journalists and intellectuals within the movement. (Conspicuous by their absence are entries from McCain, Kemp, Gingrich, Armey or anyone with the last name Bush.)

Two things struck me here: one, the influence of Biblical teachings on US conservatives, and two, the pride with which people display their principles.

Almost one-third of the contributors mention God in their entries. This is because in the American political discourse, the right to freedom and liberty comes from the Creator. Former RNC executive Jack Oliver:

I am a firm believer that God blesses each of us with many talents. America is the greatest nation on earth today because individuals are free to maximize those talents and create opportunities for success. And we have the liberty in America to define success for ourselves. For some, success is defined as being the best. For others, success is what they help others do, like a teacher who helps students achieve their dreams.

Conservatism, to me, is the passionate defense of this American ideal. The ability to make the most of the rich blessings God has bestowed on us requires the complete freedom to make choices for ourselves and to shoulder the personal responsibility of those choices. It is only in this environment that success, however you define it, can be created from the simple spark of an idea, the pursuit of a dream, or the desire for a better life.

And that's mild compared to what some of the others say. Canada's conservatives who invoke the name of God do so not in the parlance of natural rights but with the desire to impose some form of morality. Naturally, this lack of tradition puts those who come to conservative politics through faith at a disadvantage.

Secondly, American conservatives are unabashedly proud of what they stand for. Optimism. Hard work. Family. Doing what you say you are going to do. Responsibility. Persistence. Patriotism. Here, those values are not invoked by our conservative politicians. Why not? I don't know. Look at the values of liberalism (hat tip to film critic Michael Medved). Conformity. Competitive victimization. Dependence on government. Emphasis on group identity over individuality. Justification of criminality. Militant secularism. Utopian pacifism. These, to varying degrees, are not an opposing view like they are in the States but are a fundamental part of our Canadian political culture. It's no wonder that when Harper says that he's on the side of "people who play by the rules, work hard and pay their taxes" he just leaves it at that. The narrowness of the debate in Canada puts small-government Tories at a disadvantage in this sphere as well.

While we are made to feel ashamed of being conservative in Canada, there is one area in which we can take pride, as Medved points out in his chapter. This was a watershed moment for me as I realized the truth of what Medved says here:

My wife, an author and distinguished clincial psychologist, makes the point that most successful people in the United States choose to live conservative values in their private lives, regardless of their political orientation. Even University of California professors who define their conservative opponents as fearful and warped will rarely commit themselves on a personal basis to the radical notions they espouse in their work. From their elegant mansions in the Berkeley hills, these prominent academics may rant about the need for redistributing wealth or breaking down the tyranny of patriarchal marriage. But when it comes to redistributing their own luxury cars and fancy computers, or assigning their daughters to communal living arrangements that dispense with traditional marital and middle-class values, these advocates of brave new worlds will seldom live up to the logic of their public pronouncements.

Like most Americans who have achieved any mesure of success, liberal opinion leaders reached their positions of influence through toil and competition and self-discipline, not through self-pity, complaint, indulgence, or placing ethnic identification above individual achievements.

In other words, even if you are a liberal, to succeed in life you must espouse conservative values.

Clearly, the US conservative movement is deeper, more confident, and rooted in something bigger than just stock market returns. This is one of the many reasons why it's more healthy than ours.

Overall review: 7.5/10

***********

And that brings me to Harper.

This campaign has been a vexing one, for a number of reasons.

Obviously the man has talent. Obviously the man has conviction. But let's look at where he's applying that talent and conviction:

1. To clean up government.

Harper had to spell out exactly what he would do to prevent Adscam from ever happening again. In the cynical environment we live in, he couldn't just stand up there and say "trust me". Fair enough. But a lot of what he is proposing is inside the Beltway stuff, which makes even MY eyes glaze over.

2. To establish a cut in the GST.

Like Milton Friedman said, I believe taxes should be cut whenever and wherever they can. However, as I've pointed out, I'll have to spend $100 to save $1 and then wait five years to save a second $1. Is this real, fundamental, broad-based tax relief?

As for the other cuts, I don't ride the bus, go to university or college or have a kid in sports. Instead, I'm just one of those guys who works hard, pays my taxes and plays by the rules. I suppose that under Harper, that won't change ... much.

3. To create new day care spaces and give parents $1,200 a year to spend for each child under 6.

Great ... choice in child care ... but why are they even proposing and legitimizing the state being in the business of babysitting? Conservatives should be fervently against anything that resembles unionized, government-run kiddy farms, and by proposing to create spaces, they're doing just that. Besides, if the demand was there, the market would take care of it.

4. To establish a patient wait-times guarantee.

One question: How is this going to allow me to get the health care I need for my family without breaking the bank of the public purse?

5. To reform the criminal justice system.

OK, here is the first real conservative priority they have. I cannot argue here.

One of five, though, doesn't cut it for me and I think the authors of "Rescuing Canada's Right" have to be disappointed as well. On the big issues that affect Canadians where it counts - their pocketbook - he is a tad less pink than the Liberals, but this platform is only semantically different from theirs. Harper has shown no interest whatsoever in reversing the growth of the state, which now stands at 40% of the Canadian economy. Instead, he wants to maintain that growth at current rates.

Other issues where the Tories haven't demonstrated true conservative values include the following:

- Immigration: No word on reforms to the family class of immigrants. This is vastly needed, as 4/5 of those who come to Canada are just family members of the economic class. Shouldn't we be attracting more economic class immigrants?

- Farm subsidies: I understand that Western Canada is the Tory base. However, handouts to unprofitable enterprises are not what conservatives believe in.

- Regional development: See above.

- Aboriginal affairs: This department, as well as Defence, is going to see increases in spending. Some rumblings about introducing property rights to the reserve system of governance, but let's hear about it. Kasechewan showed us how badly changes are needed. Let's not fail Aboriginal Canadians again by perpetuating dependence on the government teat.

These are only a few issues where the Tory position is marginally different, if at all, from the Liberals. More importantly, the positions are the same as those that led to the decline of conservatism as an electable option throughout the 90s, as the movement split. I don't think that spending more on the military or being nicer to the States is going to make up for stagnation on the critical issues I've listed above.

I know some of you will say that it's unrealistic to expect that Harper can be as blue as I want him to be. Others will say that "good" shouldn't be sacrificed because it's not "perfect". However, there's nothing wrong with having the liberals in the Liberal camp and staking Conservative ground for conservatives. And I'm not even asking him to discuss hot button issues like abortion, gay marriage or bilingualism.

So, where does this leave me on Monday? At this point, I am leaning towards spoiling my ballot, effectively declaring "none of the above" rather than voting for a party that seems to want power but doesn't really know why, what with a platform that could have been written by your average suburban Toronto Liberal MP. I know this sounds like sour grapes but the path to success is clear, and it doesn't lie in hiding what you think is right or trying to out-Liberal your opponents. And as for those of you who are hoping for a more conservative second term? Good luck to you. Remember Mulroney's second term? The deficit was out of control. He proposed a constitutional package that had a social Charter, for God's sakes. Remember the Eves years in Ontario, where the provincial PCs totally lost their nerve? And what is W doing now one year after being re-elected to a second term? No further tax cuts, no social security reform, but rather, just managing things through to '08 and focusing on terrorism. Which isn't bad, I suppose.

Harper may come to regret casting his lot in with the Red Tories. The man doesn't have the personal style of a Mulroney, who despite his considerable charm, couldn't keep his party together. There will be restlessness on the Harper backbench and within the party membership at large if the future PMO is too beholden to the influence of Segal, LeBreton and Mackay. For those reasons, my hopes are not high for the development of a truly conservative federal government in Canada, either in the short, medium or long term. What good is winning if you're just going to keep the seat warm for the next liberal leader (and yes, the small-l was deliberate)?

A Reaganite he's not. Nor is he what Daifallah and Kheiriddin hoped for. However, I can still hope that Harper will open his first newser with the phrase, "I have political capital, and I intend to spend it" just to piss people off!!!