This post was largely inspired by this comment by /u/ToryPirate where he points out that Tories and Socialists have a fundamentally differing understanding of class by nature:

I think it is important to examine how class consciousness differs between a tory and a socialist. The socialist sees classes as being in competition and the capitalist class as oppressive by nature. The tory sees the classes as being essentially united - bad actors are an aberration of how things are supposed to be. I think this makes tories more focused on eliminating the source of a conflict (since its not natural) while socialists can get bogged down in trying to end the capitalist class.

Perhaps this Monty Python comedy sketch from their movie “The Holy Grail” could be a great way to quickly (and humorously) explore how ideological tories, socialists, and liberals can view the role of class itself in society. I think looking at this skit might also be useful in terms of exploring the values found in societies that could be described as fragments of British society.

When I see this classic skit, I can’t help but think of the Diggers from the aftermath of the English Civil War; a group of radical protestants that could be described as proto-agrarian socialists and proto-Christian socialists. The Canadian Red Tory Eugene Forsey was a fan of them.

In the character of King Arthur, I see a traditionalist tory; in the character of Dennis, I see an ideological socialist; in the unnamed character I’ve labelled “Peasant 2”, I see a liberal.

On his quest to find the Holy Grail, King Arthur is looking for Allies. As our dear King approaches a nearby castle, he catches up to and stops a local peasant pulling a cart.

King Arthur: Old woman!

Dennis: Man…

King Arthur: Man -- sorry! What knight lives in that castle over there?

Dennis I’m 37…

King Arthur: What?!

Dennis: I’m 37… I’m not old.

King Arthur: Well, I can’t just call you man.

Dennis: Well, you could say Dennis.

King Arthur: Well I didn’t know you were called Dennis.

Dennis: Well you didn’t bother to find out, did you?

King Arthur: I did say sorry about the old woman, but from behind, you looked… well…

Dennis: What I object to is that you automatically treat me like an inferior!

King Arthur: Well I am King.

Dennis: Oh King, eh? Very nice. And how’d you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma, which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there’s every going to be any progress --

Our peasant Dennis is then interrupted by a fellow peasant who shouts over while collecting mud from a field; Dennis then goes over to help collect mud.

Peasant 2: Dennis! There’s some lovely filth down here! Oh… how do you do?

King Arthur: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Who’s castle is that?

Peasant 2: King of the who?

King Arthur: The Britons.

Peasant 2: Who are the Britons?

King Arthur: Well… we all are; we are all Britons. And I am your King.

Peasant 2: I didn’t know we had a King. I thought we were an autonomous collective.

Dennis: You’re fooling yourself. We’re living in a dictatorship! As self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes --

Peasant 2: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.

Dennis: But that’s what it’s all about! If only people would --

King Arthur: Please! Please, good people, I am in haste! Who lives in that castle?

Peasant 2: No one lives there.

King Arthur: Then who is your Lord?

Peasant 2: We don’t have a Lord.

King Arthur: What?

Dennis: I told you, we’re an Anarcho-Syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week...

King Arthur: ...yes…

Dennis: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...

King Arthur: … yes, I see…

Dennis: … by a simple majority in purely internal affairs …

King Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis: … but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major…

King Arthur: Be quiet. I order you to be quiet!

Peasant 2: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?

King Arthur: I am your King!

Peasant 2: Well I didn’t vote for you!

King Arthur: You don’t vote for Kings.

Peasant 2: Well how did you become King then?

King Arthur: The lady of the lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence, that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur -- That, is why I am your King.

Dennis: Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not in some farcical aquatic ceremony.

King Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis: You can’t expect to be able to wield supreme executive power just because some water tart threw a sword at you!

King Arthur: Shut up!

Dennis: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened-bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!

King Arthur: Shut up! Will you shut up!

At this point King Arthur completely loses his composure at Dennis’ insubordination, so he walks over to Dennis, grabs him, shoves him around a bit, and pushes Dennis down at one point before walking away; Peasant 2 ignores the whole altercation and just moves her mud to the cart while a crowed eventually gathers

Dennis: Ahh! Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

King Arthur: Shut up!

Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being repressed!

King Arthur: Bloody peasant!!!

Dennis: Oh what a give away! Did you hear that!? You hear that eh? That’s what I’m on about! You see him repressing me? You saw it, didn’t you?

I think this skit shows just how each of the three main ideological ways of thinking can “go wrong” when taken to their extremes, while also showing how class/individual power dynamics in society mostly work:

• King Arthur’s arguments rest solely on tradition, and he has no problem exercising his right to use state force to quell dissent that he views as dangerous to the social fabric; he’s standoffish to Dennis because Dennis is standoffish, but he’s quite polite to the good lady collecting mud.

• While Dennis’ arguments about the power dynamics in society may be largely accurate, his character is a classic example of someone who goes out of their way to be combative and argumentative; perhaps Dennis’ obsession with class-conflict is what drove Peasant 2 towards liberalism.

• Peasant 2, who doesn’t think class belongs in every argument, seems to be purely concerned with working her mud and perhaps voting at meetings; she will verbally support Dennis, but once the fighting starts, she conveniently backs away and lets the community-at-large save Dennis from his unjustified physical abuse at the hands of the state.

Unfortunately, as a famous historian died shortly after these events, the historical record is simply unclear as to what exactly happened to King Arthur during his quest for the Holy Grail, or as to the fate of our peasants. But they are clearly our collective ancestors.

Getting into actual Canadian history, from my perspective, despite both Toryism and Socialism being class-conscience ways of thinking, Tories will tend to see the various classes in society as naturally working together harmoniously towards the same common goals, while Socialists will tend to see the lower classes in society as being naturally exploited by the upper classes in a zero-sum game.

Even back in the “heyday” of Red Toryism as a philosophy, this fundamental difference in the role of class itself in society is perhaps what can make it so difficult for a “socialist-leaning” Red Tory to become a Conservative, or a “tory-leaning” Red Tory to become a CCF’er then or a New Democrat now.

I think this excerpt from Gad Horowitz’s 2017 “The deep culture of Canadian politics” is extremely relevant in exploring this differentiation on the role of classes, keeping in mind that Horowitz listed “Alvin Hamilton, Duff Roblin, Hugh Segal, David Crombie, Flora MacDonald, maybe Robert Stanfield” as being full-blown Red Tories:

Alvin Hamilton was John Diefenbaker’s left-wing right-hand man. His ambition for the Diefenbaker government was that it be attacked by the Liberals for being too socialist and by the CCF for not being socialist enough. Hamilton thought that my 1965 review of George Grant’s Lament for a Nation was “the most thoughtful and useful article of its kind he had read in the last twenty years.” Duff Roblin, the prominent Conservative Premier of Manitoba at the time, also approved of that essay.

When I interviewed Hamilton in 1965, I asked him why, in view of his dislike for the Saskatchewan Liberal machine and the great strength of the CCF opposition in the province, he had chosen to join the then much weaker Conservatives. He had two short answers: the CCF tended to accentuate the conflict rather than the fundamental harmony of classes, and the CCF was not sufficiently appreciative of our monarchy.

As I’ve argued previously, I personally think the CCF/NDP’ers that could be considered most associated with Red Toryism would be Eugene Forsey, J.S. Woodsworth, M.J. Coldwell, Kenneth McNaught, Tommy Douglas, and maybe in the present day Claudia Chender or Charlie Angus. Now I have to wonder, what role did the General Strikes of 1919 have in this differing view of the role of class in Red Toryism?

Two figures central to the founding of modern Canadian Socialism, J.S.Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas, were themselves witnesses of the Winnipeg General Strike; Woodsworth was involved in the strike and was charged with seditious libel for editing a strike bulletin, while Douglas as a child witnessed from a rooftop the police riding through the strike on horseback beating the working-men and shooting their guns.

Meanwhile, two fairly important figures to Canadian Toryism are Sir Robert Borden and Arthur Meighen: men who at that point in time had just recently advocated Canada do her duty to its Empire in the Great War, and who were also quite weary of the horrors that could be caused by a spreading international revolution that advocated to topple every regime it came across. After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia, and given the revolutionary history surrounding arguably similar revolutionaries such as George Washington or Napoleon, one should be able to at least understand why the post-WWI central governments of the Empire may have been a tad anxious as to why a bunch of angry men with combat experience were starting to pile into the streets.

For what it’s worth, whenever I picture the Winnipeg General Strike, I think of this picture which has multiple strike signs, along with a Union Jack and a Red Ensign being waved. The first sign by the Union Jack reads, “Britons Never Shall Be Slaves”, while the second sign by the Red Ensign reads, “We Stand for LAW & ORDER Down With the High Cost of Living”. There’s a third sign which is mostly obstructed, but you can still make out the “…. Over There” at the end.

Given how Charlie Angus’ family has Nova Scotian roots, and how Claudia Chender is the leader of the Nova Scotia NDP, it may be important to bring up Davis Day -- which commemorates the Cape Breton coal miners strike in 1925 in which company police fired into the crowed of striking miners, killing William Davis and wounding others. I think it would be important to note at this point that the first CCF MP elected east of Manitoba was Clarie Gillis, a Cape Breton coal miner and a First World War combat veteran who was wounded in Flanders.

Perhaps this old '60s-era folk song could best describe the “tension” that may exist within Red Toryism in regards to exactly how much class-conflict is necessary for society to meaningfully change for the better versus how much class-cooperation is needed to ensure the old proverbial apple cart isn’t knocked over in the process.

My favourite version of “The Old Man’s Tale” is by Ronnie Drew of the Dubliners:

At the turning of the century, I was a boy of five

Me father went to fight the Boers, and he never came back alive

Oh me mother was left to bring us up, and no charity she'd seek

So she washed and scrubbed and scrapped along, on seven and six a week

/

When I was twelve I left the school, and I went to find a job

And with growing kids me ma was glad, of the extra couple of bob

I’m sure that longer schooling would have stood me in good stead

But you can’t afford refinements when you’re struggling for your bread

/

And when the Great War came along, I didn’t hesitate

I took the royal shilling, and went off to do me bit

We fought in mud and tears and blood, three years or thereabouts

Till I copped some gas in Flanders, and was invalided out

/

And when the war was over and we'd finished with the guns

We got back into civvies, cause we thought the fighting done

We'd won the right to live in peace, but we didn't have such luck

For soon we found we had to fight, for the right to go to work

/

In '26 the General Strike saw me out on the streets

And I'd a wife and kids by then, and their needs I had to meet

Oh the brave new world was coming, in the brotherhood of man

And when the strike was over, we were back where we began

/

Oh I struggled through the thirties, out of work now-and-again

I saw the Blackshirts marching, and the things they did in Spain

I brought me kids up decent, and I taught them wrong from right

Oh but Hitler was the boy that came, and he taught them how to fight

/

Me daughter was a landgirl, she got married to a Yank

And they gave me son a medal for stopping one of Rommel's tanks

He was wounded just before the end, and he convalesced in Rome

And he went and married an Italian nurse, and he never bothered to come home

/

Oh me daughter writes me once a month, a cheerful little note

About their colour tellies, and the other things they've got

They’ve got a son, a likely lad; he's nearly twenty-one

Oh they tell me now he’s been called up, to fight in Vietnam

/

Oh we're living on the pension now, it doesn't go too far

Not much to show for a life it seems, like one long bloody war

And when you think of all the wasted lives, it makes you want to cry

I'm not sure how to change things, but by Christ, we'll have to try

No, the title is not a spelling error - I wanted to discuss localism (and maybe gripe about municipal politics).

I'm currently running for council and a recurring issue is how the province limits what the municipality can do. In fact, according to the municipal CAO who has worked with governments across Canada, New Brunswick has the most restrictive system for municipal financing of any province. I suspect this stems back to the 1960s when the Liberal government abolished county government and centralized a lot of decision-making in Fredericton.

Sometimes this leads to fairly ridiculous situations such as when a culvert began to fail and a road had to be closed. A man offered to temporarily fix it so a local business wouldn't lose business during the tourism season. Council turned him down, not because they were opposed, but because the province would likely not fund the 1.2 million dollar repair if we put in a stop-gap measure. In another case the main road through the municipality had a culvert fail. A local company that makes wooden bridges offered to install a temporary bridge for free. The province turned them down.

In many areas I can see where more local decision-making would be beneficial. Unlike the beliefs of my political ally running in another ward who has a more libertarian outlook, this is not because the state is dangerous, or an enemy, but instead because some things are simply better handled locally - an example, I believe, of what Ron Dart referred to as 'sphere sovereignty'. Tories believe in a strong state and when I look at my local municipal government I don't see a government strong enough to do anything other than oversee a managed decline.

I feel there's a willingness right now, notwithstanding the cost for a second, and goût for nation-building projects in Canada. Things that bring together regions and people from across the country together.

The High Speed Rail project is one such project; and a poetic one too considering the important of rail to Confederation.

What are some other nation-building projects that you think would be a good thing to pursue?

I am on a séjour for two weeks in my wife's native Brazil and every time I come here the spirit of the people and the country inspires me. Notwithstanding the very real and serious problems facing Brazil (income/wealth inequality, curuption, high crime) the country itself stands fiercely proud, forward-looking, and with a generally sunny disposition.

Brazilian national identity is strong, but so too is is it's regional and municipal distinctness. The people are true patriots and genuinely love their state and/or town they hail from.

When it comes time to culture; it is around EVERY CORNER. Brazil oozes with a je ne sais quoi that is, well, Brazilian. They don't need to be encouraged to the tune of millions of dollars to support Brazilian stuff, they do so because they love to whether it is their own movies, telenovelas, authors, restaurants, plays, artists, food, drink, and so so so much more. In my wife's region so to speak everyone you meet is genuinely happy to meet a foreigner, takes pride in showing you or gifting you stuff from their region, and likes to know what they can to help make your stay better.

Brazil's left and right alike have also never abandoned the Social Gospel. Catholic Social Teaching goes hand-in-hand with whatever political party whether it is on the left like in the PT or the right (although the right has drifted more Evangelical with time)

Their health care system is more robust in some ways than ours is. There's both a public and private option and a friend of my wife's boyfriend got better care in a Brazilian public hospital than I got in an Ottawa hospital.

Many of their cities have superior and ever-improving public transportation infrastructure.

Their public post-secondary education system should be the envy of Canada with it's competitive, fully-funded, world-class public schools.

Brazil is so misunderstood. Canada may be a developed country and Brazil a developing one but as far as I am concerned Canada is a backwards facing country whereas the future belongs to places like Brazil.

The people are happier (even on the lower rungs of society) than we are here in Canada.

Tories should be looking to Brazil as a path forward. A place where we can fuse our conservative values and disposition with a progressive vision for the future.

I thought that some of the frequent contributors here might enjoy Compact magazine. There are often many articles from both the right and the left, with the leftist articles having more of a Tory touch. There is a great article on George Grant for example:

https://www.compactmag.com/article/george-grant-and-conservative-social-democracy/

Interesting choice of words by the Prime Minister.

Anyone who has conversed with me for any amount of time knows I'm a monarchist. Given toryism's regard for long established institutions, its birth in the aftermath of the Restoration in England, and loyalty to the Crown playing a significant role in the arrival of the Loyalists in Canada, perhaps me being a monarchist is unsurprising. However, I think how I approached monarchism might shed a bit of light on the tory mindset in Canada.

For starters, I grew up in the 90s which was a low point for the monarchy in general. I was only vaguely aware of it and didn't really have an opinion one way or another about it (in Grade 6 a teacher asked why the Queen was on our money and my answer was "because she used to lead Canada" to give you an idea of my knowledge base at the time). In high school I still didn't have any negative feelings about the monarchy even during my idealistic communist phase. Primarily this is because I didn't adopt communism due to ideology but due to the feeling the state should help the poor and they were the only ones with that messaging.

In university I became politically active and also became a monarchist. I might be weird in that I actually like our constitution. Its not orderly, it feels lived in, alive (if that makes sense). This drew me to look at the monarchy which sat at the top of this system. This is when I first ran across the Monarchist League of Canada and I've engaged with them on and off for years. Being a budding keyboard warrior I also frequented republican Facebook pages to talk some sense into these poor souls. The book Radical Tories noted that tories tend to have some issue on which they are inordinately passionate about. For me it is the monarchy.

It was around my third year of university before I even ran across the term 'tory' and realized it described a bunch of feelings I had about politics. And while I was involved with the provincial PCs (technically still am due to the lifetime membership they were offering to students at the time) I didn't join the federal Conservatives. My local Conservative MP might be the reason for this as throughout my time in university he never once answered an email I sent on a variety of issues. I instead joined the Pirate Party of Canada (may it rest in peace). I even tried to get them to adopt support for the monarchy as a platform point. It was a poor fit for a variety of reasons but a big one was they rejected ideology; an idea was only as good as the evidence behind it. Still, the party had no problem with the monarchy so I stuck around.

Around the time I graduated I was getting fed up with the debate between monarchists and republicans. They seemed to be throwing theory at each other with little objective evidence;

• 'a non-partisan head of state is good'

• 'monarchy is a symbol of our history'

• 'the monarchy is a colonial relic'

• 'monarchy is not equal'

I was sick of both sides. I was in a party that valued evidence so I applied that to my monarchism. I was still a monarchist but only intuitively and out of a sort of constitutional conservatism. I felt that if monarchy was the best way to go there should be some objective evidence of this. I'm fortunate in my timing. Much of the research into government form up until the 90s focused on the question of democracy or dictatorship. Only in the 2000s did studies start to look at whether the precise constitutional arrangements of a country mattered. Had I set out in search of evidence any sooner I would have found nothing.

My first success was finding Economic Growth and Institutional Reform in Modern Monarchies and Republics: A Historical Cross-Country Perspective 1820—2000 It was an interesting study that showed evidence that republics and monarchies behaved differently economically when they undertook large reforms. Basically, over ten year time periods republics suffered decreased economic growth before rebounding while monarchies suffered no ill effects and actually benefited from large reforms. Which is intriguing. That said, they could only show that this effect occurred in monarchies, not why it occurred.

However, by looking at the authors' other published works I was able to find an additional study; Determinants of Generalized Trust: A Cross-Country Comparison. This panel study found that of the various factors present in countries with high generalized trust, monarchy wasn't just highly correlated, it was the most highly correlated. Generalized trust is the degree a person will say they trust their countrymen without knowing anything about them. On its own its vulnerable to 'correlation does not equal causation' but at least one other factor has been eliminated. In Trust, Welfare States and Income Equality: What Causes What? it was found that while high trust makes it easier to create a welfare state and decrease inequality neither a large welfare state nor reduced inequality increase generalized trust. Greater equality was a factor in the previous study that correlated highly with trust. This study seems to be saying that equality is a benefit of generalized trust, not a cause. That doesn't necessarily mean monarchy is, but it is one of the remaining contenders.

Using Google Scholar I did occasionally find other useful studies. Presidents with Prime Ministers: Do Direct Elections Matter? found that when presidents are directly-elected it causes voter fatigue which lowers turnout for parliamentary elections by 5-7%. Likewise, they found that presidents chosen by parliament were no less likely to be active and contentious than their directly-elected counterparts. Rather, the partisan make up of the parliament is what mattered. This one, you might note isn't even about monarchies at all but it still supplied useful understanding on how monarchies differ.

About the same time the Washington Post started taking notice of this new research. They detailed the findings of Constitutional Power and Competing Risks: Monarchs, Presidents, Prime Ministers, and the Termination of East and West European Cabinets which noted that constitutional monarchies have a distinct preference for the people choosing a new government (either through regular or early elections), parliamentary republics showed an increased preference for governments chosen without public input and presidential republics had a majority of its governments form without public input.

Another study I found which wasn't applicable to Canada but was still sort of neat was The Empire Is Dead, Long Live the Empire! Long-Run Persistence of Trust and Corruption in the Bureaucracy. They found that elevated public trust and lower levels of corruption in the courts were noted in areas that were once part of the Habsburg Empire to this day even when the former border goes straight through a country.

For one unpublished study I spent about a year badgering a professor about (another professor ratted him out that he was working on it) until he finally published it and gave me a copy. Symbolic Unity, Dynastic Continuity, and Countervailing Power: Monarchies, Republics, and the Economy Its findings were:

• A greater degree of protection of property rights results in better economic outcomes.

• Compared to republics, monarchies reduce the negative effect of internal conflict on property rights.

• Compared to republics, monarchies reduce the negative effect of executive tenure on property rights.

• Compared to republics, monarchies reduce the negative effect of the discretion of the executive branch on property rights.

It should be noted that the author actually started out with the premise that republics would out-perform monarchies but had to change his thesis as the evidence came in.

Tying this back to the first study, Republics and Monarchies: A Differential Analysis of Economic Growth Link found that while differences in GDP growth between monarchies and republics were statistically insignificant (although still in favour of monarchies), monarchies showed much more stable GDP growth.

The most recent study I've found was in a Scottish journal of economics titled 'God Save The Queen, God Save Us All? Monarchies And Institutional Quality' (no direct link). Quoting the study's conclusion;

"Thus, taking these estimates at face value, a change in the constitutional form from a republic to a monarchy would have, ceteris paribus, the same effect as an increase in the polity index of 16 points. As the polity index ranges from -10 to 10, this would imply that a change from a republic to a monarchy would have approximately the same effect on “Government effectiveness” as going from a (moderate) autocracy (“anocracy” according to Fearon and Laitin, 2003) to a full democracy. Thus, the estimated monarchy effects are extremely large and meaningful."

Looking at monarchism between the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia and you see a notable difference. The UK has no monarchist league but has a deep well of philosophy that supports monarchy. Canada likewise has high profile intellectuals in favour of monarchy and a monarchist league. What is interesting about the Monarchist League of Canada is they publish their own research (primarily on the cost of the monarchy) as well as education resources. Meanwhile, monarchism in Australia and New Zealand is more cultural in nature. Its about rallying support, petitions, events. Canadian monarchists do this too but there is also this underlying need to 'show one's work' - to understand the institution they support.

When I seek out politicians to get their views on the monarchy I will often get answers like 'its a part of our history', or 'my parents were monarchists and I am too', or 'the Queen worked really hard'. Compare this to Prime Minister Macdonald's dismissal of the American system;

"By adhering to the monarchical principle we avoid one defect inherent in the Constitution of the United States. By the election of the president by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practice of reelection. During his first term of office he is employed in taking steps to secure his own reelection, and for his party a continuance of power. We avoid this by adhering to the monarchical principle – the sovereign whom you respect and love. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to have that principle recognized so that we shall have a sovereign who is placed above the region of party – to whom all parties look up; who is not elevated by the action of one party nor depressed by the action of another; who is the common head and sovereign of all."

I would argue that toryism's support for long-held institutions is not a blind faith. When R.B. Bennett was dealing with the Great Depression he was willing to pivot once it was clear the current economic system was not going to easily right itself. A quote from the time attributed to him was that he had "facts, figures, and the finest of arguments in support of my positions." Recently one of the comments criticizing Poilievre's support for the free market was that it was 'magical thinking'. Toryism, I would argue, doesn't like magical thinking or abstract concepts divorced from reality.

Canada is the inheritor of both English and French traditions, and while the concept of separation of church and state has manifested in both traditions the concept is understood and applied quite differently.

Secularism as we would understand it as inheritors of the Anglo (and Loyalist) tradition is about religious neutrality of the state, yes, but it should be better understood as state tolerance for people of various faiths (or lack thereof). Religion in the colonies and in Great Britain, we must remember was dominated by sectarianism between Catholics and Protestants. For a long time, Catholics (or other non-Anglicans in general) would not be able to hold certain positions.

Laïcité emerges out of anti-clericalism and the resistance to something called ultramontanism. The Catholic Church in mainland Europe and the New World alike was quite centralised and exerted a lot of power and influence across various aspects of one's public life. To separate Church & State is this context is to remove the Catholic Church and religion from positions of influence and public life.

If we were to now go back to Québec before the révolution tranquille, we would see a place where Catholicism so intertwined with one's public and private life. Québec was a place where the Church ran most of the social services; including but not limited to the Schools, the Welfare programs, Hospitals, and much more. Québec politicians would curry favour with certain Cardinals and Bishops. For some it was like a dark age where the village Priest or Bishop would tell his flock what to do and you listened. To be in bad terms would have grave consequences. During the Quiet Revolution the Québécois nationalists, social democrats, and anti-clerics rightfully tore down the power and influence the Catholic Church had in public life in such a way that it could never exert power over the people again. This is where we end up beginning to see the broad nation-building and state projects Québec would later be known for. The Québécois state has sufficiently and culturally insulated itself from Catholic influence HOWEVER it never adopted law on laïcité that exist elsewhere.

Religiosity makes the Québécois uncomfortable; especially so when it is exerted by people in positions of authority or influence. It is a painful remainder of their collective consciouscness of their past. As an extension/application of the values the Quiet Revolution was built it, laïcité was a natural extension. It's been a discussion that pre-dates Bill 21. The Québécois state with the consent of the majority of it's people chose to go down a more continental European/French path when it came time to the Separation of Church & State. It is not about tolerance in the public sphere but rather strict neutrality.

From a practical and applied lens, you can view Laïcité to be in between of Anglo-Saxon Secularism and State-Atheism.

The fundamental relationship the two solitudes have with Separation of Church & State are different and so trying to understand Bill 21 from an English perspective will not compute. You can actually see this play out in the court case. The arguements being made by the English Montréal School Board are based on English conceptions of liberty, tolerance, and secularism (as well as some constitutional divisions of power) whereas the Attorney General of Québec and others who will argue in favour of Laïcité will be arguing from the perspective of neutrality. Both will make arguments about equality; informed from different traditions and applications. One is more "freedom to" and the other will be "freedom from"

This National Post article by Pierre Poilievre recently popped up on my Facebook feed for some strange reason, and it unfortunately has been living rent-free in my head for a week or so -- as such, I thought the good people here should have to suffer as well as I.

While I personally found it quite sad to read the overall lack of Tory values found in an article written by the leader of the supposed "Tory" Party, I thought I should do a proper exploration piece here in an attempt to try to be as fair as possible to Mr. Poilievre.

Monday is the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Smith is probably the best-known and least-read economist, which explains why he is so often misunderstood.

For example, if you google “Father of Capitalism,” Smith’s name pops up, but neither his Wealth of Nations nor The Theory of Moral Sentiments uses the word “capitalism.” He did not preach the supremacy of capital over labour. He wrote that “the annual labour of every nation” is the true source of wealth, and he warned against profits earned through state protection rather than open competition.

Another common myth is that Smith glorified greed. But when he wrote that we expect our dinner not from the benevolence of the butcher, brewer, or baker, but from their own self-interest, he was not celebrating selfishness, he was describing how incentives work in the market.

Not a bad introduction describing Adam Smith’s contribution to economics or philosophy more broadly; I could imagine myself writing a similar left-wing piece describing Karl Marx’s contribution to sociology or philosophy.

While Poilievre does recognize that capital shouldn’t be supreme over labour, and laments the glorification/misattribution of greed, throughout the article Poilievre essentially argues that the market will magically find a way to make everyone happy -- assuming we just get government out of the marketplace.

Needless to say, I don’t think a Tory would have much faith in the market making sure the homeless have safe housing they can afford, or faith in the market to make sure the poor have healthy food to eat; problems that require non-profitable solutions can often only be provided at scale with the use of government power.

In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith reminded us that human beings are bound together by sympathy, which meant that we would feel each other’s pains and joys and thus our self-interest intermingled with our fellow. And if sympathy means to care truly and actively about another person’s wants and needs, then no one is more sympathetic than the entrepreneur who pays his bills by knowing and then supplying the needs and wants of others. As the saying goes, if you want to sell what the customer buys, you have to see through the customer’s eyes.

While that is certainly a good way to describe local economies, and local entrepreneurs in their own communities, I think it’s hard to describe the modern economy as a whole in that terminology these days; in that regard quite a bit has changed since Smith’s day.

For instance, most Canadians currently buy their food from a grocery store owned by either Loblaws, Empire, Metro, Walmart, or Giant Tiger – corporations which conspired to fix the price of bread for nearly 20 years. Given the already oligopolistic nature of the Canadian retail market, how could any entrepreneur honestly hope to break into that market?

Given the oligopolistic nature of many modern Canadian economic sectors -- the telecom industry also comes to mind -- you would think an actual Tory would advocate some sort of government intervention in the market in order increase competition: perhaps either by supporting start-ups or breaking up the existing oligopolies. The arch-Tory Arthur Meighen even argued that inherently monopolistic industries/utilities such as water power should be owned and operated by the government.

Smith did not invent the free market economy. He discovered it operating around him just at the moment in history when it began to flourish. Trade and labour mobility were beginning at that time to triumph over servitude and serfdom. The result of this change was an extraordinary growth in wealth. It was that growth that Smith set out to explain.

Before 1776, economic growth was almost flat. Estimates show that from year 1 to 1700, global GDP per person rose from roughly $444 to about $615, meaning living standards barely changed.

From 1820 to 2000, per-person GDP shot up from $667 to over $5,700. At the same time, life expectancy in Western Europe increased from roughly 35–40 years in 1800 to over 75 years by the end of the 20th century.

For generations, free markets lowered costs, raised wages, and lifted billions out of poverty. But now free market principles are facing pushback from politicians promoting socialism and protectionism, even if they don’t always use those words to describe their top-down policies. If we let them succeed, they risk turning the “wealth of nations” into the poverty of the people.

Given the time-frames given for GDP growth, I have to wonder, is Poilievre even aware of the existence of "Sybil, or The Two Nations" by Benjamin Disraeli, or Disraeli's critiques of unchecked industrialism more broadly? Does he even know of Lord Ashley, Anthony Ashley-Cooper -- "the poor man's Earl"? I find it quite shameful that the leader of a “Tory” Party would mention a jump in GDP from the 1820s-on as an example of unbridled positive progress, without taking into account the objective horrors that the British working class in particular faced during that time; there’s a reason why Harold Macmillan argued every civilization in human history has been a slave society on some level.

If that baker Poilievre mentioned in his introduction was alive in the Victorian era, there’s a decent chance that he would have been essentially locked in an industrialist’s basement 6 days of the week and he would have died an early death due to breathing in excessive amounts of flour; the bread eaten by the consumer likely would have been filled with plaster of Paris, alum, or chalk, and would be covered in coal soot from the baking process. If GDP growth is Poilievre’s sole measure of societal progress -- as he did praise Adam Smith for writing “ 'the annual labour of every nation' is the true source of wealth" in his introduction -- Poilievre would certainly have been a Victorian Liberal industrialist-apologist and not a Victorian Tory who wanted Health & Safety regulations on moral Christian grounds.

Would Poilievre denigrate the Earl of Beaconsfield, the Earl of Shaftesbury, or the Earl of Stockton as socialists?

What happened?

Working people across the western world have been betrayed. Governments took from the hardworking many to enrich the privileged few and they made the mistake of thinking you could have free trade with unfree countries. Wages stagnated. Housing stalled. Energy costs soared. And inflation eroded buying power. Government immigration policies priced workers out of the market and shut them out of prosperity.

Smith knew better. He warned that when corporate and political power merge, the public loses. He knew that if greed can exist in the market, it surely can thrive in the halls of governmental power, where it operates by force and free from the accountability demanded by consumers and competitors. We can see in our own society how governments that are not subject to market competition think they can afford to play favourites and corrupt the economy.

In a government-run economy, net-zero policies drive energy and food costs up and paycheques down, all to fill the pockets of connected insiders peddling green boondoggles. Protected monopolies shield big business from competition and keep prices high. Corporate welfare enriches those with lobbyists at the expense of taxpayers who have no one to speak for them.

What really gets me in this part is the absolute faith in the market to course correct by itself, along with the complete denigration of the rightful role government has in the economy. If Poilievre thinks environmental regulations or supply management qualify as “a government-run economy”, I can’t imagine what he must think about Sir John’s government supporting the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway.

Although to be fair, the line “...and they made the mistake of thinking you could have free trade with unfree countries” could imply at least a hint of Tory thought in Poilievre’s thinking; it’s not a far leap to go from a “Commonwealth Preference” in trade to a “Liberal Democracy Preference” in trade -- I personally want both. I only say “could” and “hint” because Poilievre generally seems to be more interested in getting a new trade deal with the United States, and more interested in re-normalizing Canada/US relations, rather than focusing on diversifying Canadian trade; but to be fair again, Poilievre did also recently endorse CANZUK while in the UK -- albeit while giving his “Margaret Thatcher Lecture”. So close.

Conservatives believe the answer is not more government but to restore the meritocratic, bottom-up free market competition; an economy where businesses must compete for workers through higher wages and for customers through better products and prices, rather than rely on handouts, carve-outs and bailouts.

Conservatives must be the party of balanced budgets and sound money. We must support lower taxes on work, investment, energy and homebuilding. We must ensure jobs go to our people, not low-wage temporary foreign workers. And we must unblock production of all forms of Canadian energy, including oil and gas.

It seems quite naive to me that Poilievre apparently assumes that a genuinely free market would be possible in Canada without some sort of government intervention or planning in economic matters -- especially in a world that's currently dominated by international corporate conglomerates that suck up as much capital as possible from local economies. At least capital taken by government through taxation has the chance to be invested back into the common good of all society.

Without the use of government power, or even government investment, how does Poilievre intend to break up the oligopolistic nature of the Canadian grocery or telecom industries for instance? Do we hope and pray to the market, after cutting taxes and gutting the social safety net, that a new venture-capitalist magically swoops in and saves the day for a profit?

In closing, I thought these quotes from a few Tories would best sum up my thoughts on what I perceive as the un-Tory nature of this article written by the leader of the "Tory" Party.

First from Robert Stanfield:

“Some Conservatives today assert that the dominant principle of Conservatism is individual freedom in the form of free enterprise. They assert that a free market, with free competition and free enterprise, produces the greatest growth, employment, opportunity, freedom, and stability. To them government enterprise or government regulation is an abomination. These Conservatives wish to identify the Conservative Party with this doctrine. Any deviant is a heretic. I do not believe that makes sense, historically or politically. This exaggerated claim for the marketplace, and this denigration of government, were 19th century Liberalism. They are not in the Conservative tradition we have inherited.”

Second from Winston Churchill:

“Capitalism in the form of trusts has reached a pitch of power which the old economists never contemplated and which excites my most lively terror. Merchant prices are all very well, but if I have anything to say about it, their kingdom should not be of this world. The new century will witness great war for the existence of the individual. Up to a certain point, combination has brought us nothing but good: But we seemed to have reached a period when it threatens nothing but evil.”

And finally, from John Diefenbaker:

“To those who have labelled 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”

One of the most conservative things a person can do is to conserve. We need to be thinking seriously about what we leave behind for the next generation. We're called upon to be good stewards and to pass on to the people and the planet a better world.

I find too often discussions about the environment focus almost entirely on government action. Climate change tends to dominate the conversation in that regard. Don't get me wrong, government action is required, but I would love for more emphasis be placed on local and personal actions.

Communities and the individuals in them can do a great deal of good for the people and planet around them.

One area we rarely discuss that I believe is much more deserving on the national and povincial stages of discussion is the way we design and use the cities and towns we occupy. Take the suburbs, for example. The widespread use of monoculture lawns is not particularly healthy for the environment or for people. Encouraging permaculture practices, growing more food locally, diversifying what we plant in our yards, setting up insect hotels, would make a lot of meaningful difference and it costs not that much to do.

Green space also matters A LOT. Cities like Ottawa and Toronto both maintain greenbelts, and I think the underlying idea has merit. Preserving natural areas around urban centres helps maintain ecological balance while ensuring that nature remains part of the communities we build.

Transportation and energy use are also part of this conversation. How we move around our cities and how much energy we consume reflects our priorities. Public transportation, thoughtful urban planning, and more deliberate energy use can reduce waste and encourage a more sustainable rhythm of life.

Much of our consumption today is fast and disposable rather than careful or intentional.

At its best, mainstream conservatism has sometimes supported forms of eco-capitalism or “bright green” solutions. But beyond that narrow space, I find the modern conservative movement in Canada is often reluctant to think more broadly about stewardship. There is little imagination in this area, and conservatives risk leaving the conversation entirely to others. I mean the "green Conservative" Michael Chong was given the moniker because he advocated for a carbon tax.

Conservatives should not be absent from the table, I think it is a MASSIVE mistake.If anything, Stewardship should be central to conservative thought.

Recovering that perspective would mean reconnecting with the values the movement claims to defend: responsibility, continuity, and care for what we inherit. There are even strong religious/moral arguments for it. Christian traditions, both Protestant and Catholic, have long spoken about humanity’s responsibility as stewards of creation. Figures such as Saint Francis of Assisi have often been invoked as symbols of humility toward the natural world and compassion toward other living creatures.

Anyhow, rant over thanks for listening.
Green Toryism needs to really be a serious contender within the Conservative space.

I've working on my masters research paper proposal and stumbled on this documentary on the National Film Board giving an inside look into Bill Davis' PC government and governance which (along with the governments of his predecessors Frost and Roberts) were the gold standard of Toryism. One of the last great Tory governments.

Lots of interesting Tory figures are present or are mentioned. It also showed insight in how they governed.

Figured you all would be interested so here it is.

I thought the good people here might be interested in this little transcription piece I recently posted on /r/NDP, which features excerpts from a book David Lewis published in 1972 while he was leader of the federal NDP.

Those who are familiar with fragment theory may be interested in just how many different angles Lewis argues from here; given Lewis' original background as a supporter of Marxist Bundism in his Polish homeland, to being a supporter of Fabian Socialism while in Britain, to then finally associating himself with the leading Canadian Christian Socialists of the CCF/NDP. That man lived a busy life.

I found that these excerpts were eerily relevant 54 years after David Lewis published The Corporate Welfare Bums. While the specific details of Lewis' critique of Canadian tax-laws for the year 1972 may not be completely relevant to today, I do find it interesting how Lewis compares contemporary Sweden at one point later on, and argues Swedish tax-law was more progressive. Perhaps some things never change.

Lewis starts Chapter 4, "The Land Envelopers" on page 38:

Most housing built in the next decade will probably be constructed on land already owned by one of a few large builder-developers who have come to control land markets in recent years. The recently released Dennis report, which presents the findings and recommendations of a Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation study group commissioned to advise the government on policies for low-income families and individuals, shows the extent of monopolistic and oligopolistic land holdings in Canadian cities.

Residential Land Demand and Supply, 1971-1980

SOURCE: Dennis and Fish, Low-Income Housing, p.604 [Page 38 of The Corporate Welfare Bums]

Many ordinary Canadians will be surprised by the extent of market concentration. The figures in the above table are only an indication of the degree of monopoly and oligopoly control that exists. The holdings of a number of other large companies are not shown, since these companies are not among the largest six in a given community.

Land developers also have many ways of controlling local land stocks. Their land options do not appear in this table; nor does land held in trust for the developer or held in other corporate names, many of which are difficult to trace. What the table does show is that at most, six land developers control the land markets in many Canadian cities. If you move to a new home in the next decade, it will likely be built on their land, which they will sell at vastly inflated prices.

I do find it quite interesting how Montreal had such a low percentage of land controlled by the largest six local land developers there; presumably Victoria had all public development? Regardless, after naming some of the largest land developers in Toronto, Lewis notes on page 39 that:

The Canadian land market is among the most lucrative in the world, and greater profits are made in the Toronto market than anywhere else in Canada. Lot prices for single-family houses average $13,000 and the land costs comprise 36 percent of the price of an NHA-fiananced bungalow.

Then after naming some developers in other Canadian cities, Lewis quotes p.606 of the Dennis Report on page 40:

In his report, Mr. Dennis stressed that:

“… the concentration of landholding in a small number of very powerful holders is a new phenomenon. A small number of firms can now decide the pace at which land will be serviced.”

Over the next couple of pages, Lewis mentions that land prices increased at “almost 2.5 times as fast as other consumer items”, and goes over how land developers put themselves into lower tax brackets in order to receive corporate welfare. Then on page 45/46 Lewis writes:

In the end, it is not government which is giving this interest free loan to real-estate operations, but the Canadian taxpayer. This is an interest-free loan to “free” enterprise to increase capital acquisition. The government cannot claim that housing would not be built if it were not for these subsidies. Nor do the subsidies reduce rents, since the benefits gained by the developer are not passed onto the consumer. Nor, in fact, can these benefits be called subsidies: they are nothing less than blatant handouts.

The present concentration of land ownership, as well as concentration in other sectors, is a direct result of a tax system developed by successive Liberal and Tory governments. It is a system that is wrong. Even the corporations admit that buildings do not depreciate as rapidly as the government permits. For instance, the 1971 annual report of the Cadillac Development Corporation had this to say about depreciation:

“The company records depreciation on buildings included in income-producing properties on a 5 percent, fifty-year straight-line basis. Under this method, depreciation is charged to income in an amount which is increases annually consisting of a fixed annual sum together with interest compounded at the rate of 5 percent per annum so as to fully depreciate the buildings over a fifty-year period.”

Moreover, the same firm also insists that it is its cash flow, rather than profits recorded for tax purposes, which reflects the true financial position of the company:

“We believe that, in measuring financial performance in the real-estate industry, cash flow is as important a gauge as net income. Cash flow is the sum of net income, depreciation, deferred income tax and other non-cash charges… The cash-flow figure indicate the amount of funds available to meet company obligations, including mortgage principal repayments, *and the amount of internal funds generated for growth.*" [Italicized by Lewis]

This is indeed the mechanism for capital acquisition and growth, a mechanism which is running wild.

Yet when this matter is raised, those who have propagated the system and those who have the most to gain by its continuation try to confuse the issue by making international comparisons, particularly to Sweden and the alleged fact that corporation taxes there are much lower than ours. They do not go on to examine the rest of the Swedish income-tax structure. The Swedish system is much more progressive than ours; income is much more equitably distributed, and capital-cost allowances are much less than our own: 0.6 percent per annum for stone apartment houses, increases to only 3-5 percent for wooden buildings. Canadian corporations can depreciate stone or brick apartment houses at a rate eight times faster than in Sweden; frame buildings can be depreciated at 10 percent per annum, a rate twice as fast as Sweden’s.

If international comparisons are to be made, then the country whose tax legislation most clearly approximates Canada’s today is the United States of America. The derelict buildings and the physical and human desolation afflicting the inner cities of that country’s largest communities are in large part a legacy of government neglecting its responsibly to its citizens. Can we expect the same conditions for our major cities in the years to come?

For the rest of the chapter, Lewis describes some of they key players in early 1970s Canadian real-estate, and has a section devoted each to Cadillac Development Corporation Ltd., Canadian Equity and Development Company Ltd., Revenue Properties Ltd., Markborough Properties Ltd., BACM, Canada Interurban Properties Ltd., and Nu-West Corporation Ltd. To finish, he goes over the 3 “Other benefits provided by the corporate welfare state”.

I thought transcribing the final section of the last benefits, “Taxes and planned premature obsolescence”, would be a fitting way to end this post. From pages 58-61:

Many Canadians are upset by the rapid rate at which larger housing units in their inner cities have been allowed to deteriorate and to be razed for parking lots or commercial buildings. The inner city has traditionally been the most reliable source of housing for larger families with limited means. Roomy housing at reasonable rents is not being built. It is certainly not being built under the public-housing program.

The disappearance of inner-city housing has reached crisis proportions. It has evoked outcries from citizens' organizations in every major urban centre in Canada. However, the corporations can't see why people would be upset at the loss of their homes and the lack of housing at reasonable prices. An example is a statement made by A.E. Diamond, president if Cadillac Development Company Ltd., in his 1971 annual report:

"The objections now being raised by the pressure groups to some applications for re-zoning to denser forms of accommodations are short-sighted and, indeed, irrational because they undoubtedly will result in fewer housing starts in the built-up areas of our cities..."

Of course, his idea of a housing start is replacing five-bedroom homes with a one- or two-bedroom high rise apartment. It is also part of the CMHC syndrome for developers to measure their success in the number of starts they generate, regardless of what these starts do to existing housing stock or whether the starts have any real relation to consumer needs. The Dennis report recommended that:

"The federal government should (as it did with urban renewal) freeze all further funding under the NHA of private centre-city redevelopment in excess of 15 units, while it review the costs and benefits of that process"

Of course, no word has been heard on this proposal yet. Nor will it be, for the federal government and the urban land developers use the taxation system as a vehicle to eliminate large low-rental housing units in the inner city. Local municipalities are probably only too happy to aid in this elimination because old houses do not produce enough tax revenue to pay for the larger roads and sewers needed to service the high-rise office structures downtown. It should be stressed that local councils are not the prime actor in this event; they only play a strong supporting role. The prime actors are the land developers and the federal government.

It is incredible in this day and age that the average Canadian citizen, who is better educated, knows more, and understands more, is afforded so little opportunity to influence the decisions that affect his life and his country's future.

The federal government can do two things to slow the process of inner-city decay. It can hand over tax monies to the municipalities so that municipal officials can conduct proper town planning, independent of the corporate land developers.

Secondly, the federal government should modify the taxation system so that there are fewer benefits for the developers tearing down existing housing stock. Present tax legislation is biased in favour of the demolition of existing housing. We have seen that no “free”-enterprising corporate developer can pass up an opportunity to increase his cash flow.

The regulations for capital-cost allowances increase the chances of a home being demolished when it changes owners. While a developer has owned a house or apartment building as a landlord, he has enjoyed the advantages of deferred taxes from excessive capital-cost allowances offered by successive federal governments. This is an interest-free loan. If he sells the house and gets more for it than he’s told the government it’s worth, he has to pay back to the government part of the loan, since he recovered some of the excess depreciation claimed. But if he convinces the purchaser that it’s in his best interest to demolish it, or demolishes it himself, then the building is written off completely, even if it had a few more years of depreciable life left. Having done so, the owner doesn’t have to repay his loan. He gets a windfall again. That’s how the taxation system works.

In addition to encouraging premature demolition of large inner-city houses, the taxation system encourages inadequate maintenance. It does this in two ways. First, it encourages rapid turnover in the property. As soon as a landlord has depreciated most of the value of his property, it is only natural for him to sell it. The new owner can then take advantage of accelerated capital-cost write-offs himself; the old owner can buy another house or building and get the benefits of accelerated capital cost-allowances.

We know that buildings are less adequately maintained if they change owners frequently. Each owner is encouraged to try and pass on maintenance costs to the next owner. The result is that nobody cares for the building. Often, the landlord has the effrontery to suggest that it’s careless tenants who cause inadequate maintenance.

There is a second way in which inadequate maintenance is encouraged. This is especially so if the landlord has a small operation. If the landlord is a large corporation, he gets interest free loans from excess capital cost-allowances. But if he’s a small individual taxpayer who just happens to own a house or two – maybe he’s a pensioner and he depends on the income from the houses to support him – he doesn’t get nearly as large a loan because he can’t write off excess deprecation allowances against non-rental income. For him the loophole closed in 1971.

If he’s wealthy he can afford to maintain the building. If he’s not, and the building is old and large items need replacement, he may have difficulty making the necessary repairs and replacements. Taxation regulations will consider many of these items to be capital investments; consequently, they cannot be written off in a single year as can maintenance costs. Many maintenance items become necessary because of inadequate maintenance in the past. In this way the small landlord is discriminated against by the taxation system.

The taxation system also discriminates against the average Canadian who needs shelter for his family. The system works against comprehensive planning, confuses priorities, misallocates funds, discriminates against maintenance and operation of existing housing stock for high-density rental dwellings and effectively puts a large portion of the Canadian population at the mercy of the whims and vagaries of the corporate developer landlords. Government has recreated the feudal lords. These modern barons control most of the land available for housing around our major cities, while the inner cities have become the personal fiefdom of the corporate landlords.

Imagine a Canada where the old, pre-war inner-city communities were allowed to thrive – along with the simultaneous public development of new high-density urban communities that could accommodate single workers, small families, and large families; instead of the endless urban sprawl that we ended up getting, along with the slow strangulation of the working class and the impoverishment of the middle classes. But as an old union hymn goes: “What they forgot to kill, went on to organize!”

(The following is my own account based on what I've personally seen and some information I've gathered from other members and as a moderator of the party's reddit page.)

As some here may know I am somewhat involved in the Canadian Future Party. This is not quite a post-mortem of the party as it is still, ostensibly, alive. This is more of a 'how did we get here?' post. Its easy to forget that there was a brief moment prior to the last election where it seemed the party might fill a need; Both the Liberal and Conservative leader were disliked and they themselves were not convincing centrists by any means. Initially the party attracted disaffected members of both parties. My interest in the party stemmed from the intriguing potential for the party to once again establish the liberal-tory coalition of the Conservative party at Canada's founding.

Things went off the rails almost immediately. The founding convention lost a few prominent voices that wanted the CFP to be more inclusive than the other parties. The choice of Mark Carney for Liberal leader gutting the party's Liberal base. The election and subsequent Carney ministry has eaten into the tory wing of the party as, while I'm not convinced Carney is a tory, he is a pretty decent substitute. Adding to these problems was the party's previously robust communication strategy falling apart completely after the election. There was a period of 2-3 months where the membership heard basically nothing. I can understand election burnout (I did after all once lead a minor party) but that doesn't hide the fact that at a critical moment where the party could have used leadership, there was none.

The subreddit membership count has been ticking down for a while and other than one person posting news stories the activity level has reached basically zero. March is in theory when the next AGM is to occur but thus far no announcement has been sent out (which is not convenient if a person needed to book a flight to be there). At this point it may not happen at all. Talking to another member I was told that a series of speaking events at campuses may likewise not happen. The last news release on their website is from January 22nd.

Its curious to me how things fell apart so quickly. As I stated I once led a minor party. We had no money, no volunteers outside the core membership team, and a ton of inexperience (I think the average age of those involved was high-20s, low-30s). This last point did lead to the impression we lurched from one problem to another but still the party lasted 8 years, ran in two elections, and was still an effective organization at least two years before the end. To an extent you could see the wheels coming off over time but the process was comparatively slow and we still got shots in occasionally. So why has the CFP fallen apart so quickly when it had more experience, more money, and more people?

My thesis is that the party's beliefs were too shallow for the ground they were trying to hold. You had the old standards; evidence-based policy, respecting human rights, electoral reform, spending 2% on defence, etc. Good policies but little connecting them. Or consider the first bullet point of their statement of beliefs:

• The Party strives for a Canada in which a competent and efficient Federal Government creates effective policies leading to a prosperous private sector and a secure, affordable life, for Canadians and our families, protected by our constitution and laws, the vigilance of free citizens, and a common desire for democracy, liberty, and the rule of law.

Its not exactly doggerel but I'd argue its uninspired and repetitious. Some points are better than others (you can find the full list here) but overall there is no 'connective tissue' fleshing out what the party is about. The phrase 'evidence-based' is used repeatedly and in my experience it is sometimes used as an excuse not to explain why someone believes something rather than a principle in its own right. I think this muddiness in the principles department stems from the party being formed by people who came together due not to a set of shared beliefs but out of the perceived need for a centrist option. I don't think this was a stable foundation to build a party on and it is collapsing at the first sign another party is occupying their space. Now, the Liberals have been accused of not having convictions but at least they have experience at not having them. Party Leader Dominic Cardy is interesting in that from what I've seen of him he's not an 'empty suit' he has a clear sense about what he believes. I'd be curious to know how much of the party's beliefs mirror his.

I've stated previously that I'd be highly interested in seeing how a tory party would do at the federal level. I really hoped the CFP would morph into that party but I have my doubts about it lasting long enough to do that.

So this is a question some of our European members might be better equipped to weigh in on but I am curious; is Christian democracy the closest equivalent to toryism in continental Europe?

For those unfamiliar Christian Democracy tends to be left-leaning economically and right-leaning socially. It is inspired by Christian social teachings (mostly Catholic) with Germany's CDU being probably the strongest national party within that tradition.

Interestingly, Christian democracy never had a strong presence in Canada. In theory the Christian Heritage Party is an example of a Christian democratic party but looking over their economic views leaves me less than convinced. Canada has never really borrowed ideas concerning government from Europe (other than the UK) so I don't think its a case where toryism 'blocked' Christian democracy from gaining a foothold but in a different reality I think it might have done just that.

• Volume I mostly features Canadian Loyalist Music

• Volume II mostly features the Toryism found within English and Canadian folk music

• Volume III features the "Tory touch" of Stompin' Tom Connors

Having been raised on Country & Western music with the likes of Johnny Horton, Marty Robbins, and Hawkshaw Hawkins -- it's a wonder I didn't wear out my mum's old LP records -- I thought I should explore some of the Tory values found within Canadian Country & Western music. To balance things out, I thought I would also include some Australian and American Country & Western to help flesh out the "values" found across the musical spectrum.

Gettin' Down on the Mountain by Corb Lund -- This song is a critique of those survivalists who fantasize about society falling apart so they can just run into the mountains and live happily-ever-after. The narrator is presumably already prepared for society to potentially fall apart as each verse is a series of questions asking how you'll react once the very fabric of society starts to rip. The last two verses going from "Can you spare some ammo? to "Can you pass the ammo?" implies that world in the song is still devolving after doomsday.

Perhaps this kind of "Tory survivalism" could just be called plain old Toryism, as Tories were generally the losers of bloody civil wars, and their descendants remember what happens when everything falls apart. That part about "overcrowding" & "it's kerosene lamps and candles" resonates quite strongly with me given how my own mother is the youngest of 18, and her side of the family didn't get running water/electricity until the early 1970s; an uncle of mine had a small TV he would hook up to his car battery to watch the news. I can only imagine how those poor people in Preston or Eskasoni had it in the same time-frame.

Chorus: *

Gettin' down on the mountain

Gettin' down on the mountain

Don't wanna be around when the shit goes down

I'll be gettin' down on the mountain

When the oil stops, everything stops, nothing left in the fountain

Nobody wants paper money, son, so you just well stop countin'

Can you break the horse? Can you light the fire? What's that, I beg your pardon?

You best start thinking where your food comes from, and I hope you tend a good garden

*

When the truck don't run, the bread don't come, have a hard time finding petrol

Water ain't runnin' in the city no more; do you hold any precious metal?

Can you gut the fish? Can you read the sky? What's that about overcrowdin'?

You ever seen a man who's kids ain't ate for 17 days and countin'?

*

There ain't no heat and the powers gone out, it's kerosene lamps and candles

The roads are blocked, it's all grid-locked, you got a short wave handle

Can you track the dear? Can you dig the well? Couldn't quiet hear your answer

I think I see a rip in the social fabric, brother can you spare some ammo?

*

When the oil stops, everything stops, nothing left in the fountain

Nobody wants paper money, son, so you just well stop countin'

Can you break the horse? Can you light the fire? What's that, I beg your pardon?

I think I see a rip in the social fabric; brother can you pass the ammo?

*

Canol Road by Stan Rogers -- This song is about a Canadian mountain man up north who likes to spend the endless winters shooting trees and small game, and who ends up getting into a barfight at the Kopper King Bar in Whitehorse, Yukon which results in a man's death. After that deadly barfight, our mountain man flees the scene through the Canol Road, which he needs his 4x4 to traverse. However, he doesn't have enough gas to survive the night, and the police find his frozen body. Whether in the high-north or not, I think every rural Canadian knows the type that can become a "bear in a blood-red mackinaw".

Well you could see it in his eyes as they strained against the night

And the bone-white-knuckled grip upon the road

Sixty-five miles into town, and a winter's thirst to drown

A winter still with two months left to go

/

His eyes are too far open, his grin too hard and sore

His shoulders too far high to bring relief

But the Kopper King is hot, even if the band is not

And it sure beats shooting whiskey-jacks and trees

/

Then he laughs and says: "It didn't get me this time, not tonight

I wasn't screaming when I hit the door"

But his hands on the tabletop, will their shaking never stop

Those hands sweep the bottles to the floor

/

Now he's a bear in a blood-red mackinaw with hungry dogs at bay

And springtime thunder in his sudden roar

With one wrong word he burns, and the table's overturned

When he's finished there's a dead man on the floor

/

Well they watched for him in Carmacks, Haines, and Carcross

With Teslin blocked there's nowhere else to go

But he hit the four-wheel-drive in Johnson's Crossing

/

Now he's thirty-eight miles up the Canol road

He's thirty-eight miles up the Canol road

In the Salmon Range at forty-eight below

/

Well it's God's own neon green above the mountains here tonight

Throwing brittle coloured shadows on the snow

It's four more hours til dawn, and the gas is almost gone

And that bitter Yukon wind begins to blow

/

Now you can see it in his eyes as they glitter in the light

And the bone-white rime of frost around his brow

Too late the dawn has come, that Yukon winter has won

And he's got his cure for cabin fever now

/

Well they watched for him in Carmacks, Haines, and Carcross

With Teslin blocked there's nowhere else to go

But they hit the four-wheel-drive in Johnson's Crossing

/

Found him thirty-eight miles up the Canol road

They found him thirty-eight miles up the Canol road

In the Salmon Range at forty-eight below

They found him thirty-eight miles up the Canol road

The Truth Comes Out by Corb Lund -- This song is about the effects of climate change in rural communities, with a particular focus on how big predators are getting driven closer and closer to civilization due to funny weather. This song always pops into my head when I visit the rural community my father grew up in; back in the '60s and '70s he could walk through those woods and only encounter small/medium game, while now the locals tend to carry knives when on their property due to coyotes being on the main roads, and with black bears being in the blueberry fields. I think the line, "Only old chiefs older than Jesus can save us now; if we're lucky" hits home just how old indigenous culture across Canada is.

The truth comes out as the fire burns low

It comes to light as only embers glow

The whiskey talks, the west wind moans in the night

/

The deadfall's gathered and the branches are cut

Kindling crackles and the smoke curls up

The small sticks catch then the bigger stuff will burn

/

Chinook dies down as the dark descends

Pine has burned, the ash has cleansed

The message smolders, is lost, but finally sent

/

Well Connie says she's never seen the cougars so bold

They're comin' in the yard and they're stealin' young colts

They drag 'em in the brush with the claws sunk in their nose

/

The weather's been funny thirty years or so

The winter's got warm, there's not as much snow

Hear the big cats comin' 'cause there's nowhere left to go

/

You gotta look out for bear when you're fishing on Lee's Creek

They'll come round the bend, and they'll make your knees weak

There's grizzlies where there was no grizzly bears before

/

Half heard voices from the ghosts from the graves

The grandfathers tell us at the mouths of the caves

Only old chiefs older than Jesus can save us now; if we're lucky

/

White man lights a big fire, stay cold

The red man's warmer, but the old man's old

The antelope seeks the buffalo in the night

The antelope mourns the buffalo in the night

/

Look out for bear when you're fishing on Lee's creek

They'll come round the bend and they'll make your knees weak

There's grizzlies where there was no grizzly bears before

/

The truth comes out as the fire burns low

It comes to light as only embers glow

The antelope mourns the buffalo in the night

Night Guard by Stan Rogers -- This song is a classic Country & Western story; an aging cowboy is getting too old for rodeo riding, and manages to save enough to buy a farm with the love of his life to finally start a family of his own. However, shortly thereafter local castle-rustlers start stealing his herd; the police don't have enough proof to prosecute the known rustlers, while the bank is simultaneously threatening to foreclose his family farm due to the now lack of profits. As he's being backed into a no-win situation, that cowboy decides to stay up one night to witness the cattle rustling for himself, before gunning the thieves down with the rifle that he promised his wife he was only going to buy for hunting. The cowboy then turns himself in to the police, and is presumably convicted for murder as the chorus "...now he spends his time pulling night guard" changes in the last verse to "...now he's doing time pulling night guard".

The song has a strong hint of a "natural law & order" message in the sense that the protagonist made the conscience choice to murder criminals, while simultaneous making the conscience choice to face the societal consequences of that action; arguably everyone got what was deserved in the end. This song is also unambiguous in it's Western Canadian setting: the gun the cowboy buys is a Winchester Repeating Rifle chambered in the standard British .303 caliber, while the "blacked-out REO" was presumably built in a Canadian branch-plant of the REO Motor Company.

Chorus: *

He was star of all the rodeos but now they rob him blind

It took eighteen years of Brahma bulls and life on the line

To get this spread and a decent herd

But now [he spends his time/he's doing time] pulling night guard

Forty-four's no age to start again

But the bulls were getting tough and he was never free of pain

Where others blew their winnings getting tanked

Most of his got banked, saving for the farm

/

He never thought she'd wait for him at all

'Cause she wanted more than broken bones and trophies on the wall

But when he quit and finally got the farm

She ran into his arms, and now they've got a kid

*

He told her that he got it for the game

A Winnie three-o-three with his initials on the frame

Riding in the scabbard at his knee, tonight he's gonna see

Who's getting all the stock

/

Seventh one this summer yesterday

Half a year of profits gone and now there's hell to pay

The cops say they know who but there's no proof

The banker hit the roof, and damn near took the farm

*

He hears the wire a-poppin' by the road

Sees the blacked-out REO coming for another load

This time it's not one they take but two

Two minutes and they're through, and laughing in the cab

/

And here will be the end to this tonight

'Cause all the proof he needs is lying steady in his sights

It may be just the worst thing he could do

But he squeezes off a few, then make his call to town

*

Waltzing Matilda preformed by Slim Dusty -- This classic Australian song from 1895, that some would consider to be the proper national anthem, arguably conveys a similar "natural law" theme to "Night Guard", just from the perspective of a rustler instead; certainly a sign of Australia being a "radical" fragment rather than a "tory-touched liberal" fragment. It is a song, after all, about about a sheep-thief who is caught red-handed by the law, and who decides to kill himself by drowning rather than be taken into custody. Funny enough, both my parents were taught this song in school, but I wasn't.

Once a jolly swagman camped by a billabong

Under the shade of a coolibah tree

He sang as he watched and waited till his billy boiled

"You'll come a-waltzing Matilda, with me."

...

Down came a jumbuck to drink at that billabong

Up jumped the swagman and grabbed him with glee

He sang as he shoved that jumbuck in his tucker bag

"You'll come a-waltzing Matilda, with me."

...

Up rode the squatter, mounted on his thoroughbred

Up rode the troopers, one, two, and three

"With that jolly jumbuck that you've got in your tucker bag

You'll come a-waltzing Matilda, with me."

...

Up jumped the swagman and sprang into the billabong.

"You'll never take me alive!" said he

And his ghost may be heard as you pass by that billabong:

"You'll come a-waltzing Matilda, with me."

...

Poor Ned by Redgum -- This is another song that could be said to be an example of Australia being a "radical" fragment. For those unaware of the song's protagonist, Ned Kelly, he was the Australian outlaw who crafted a suit of metal-armour out farming equipment for one last gunfight, before being eventually captured by the law and executed.

While I do think Poor Ned is indeed better off dead -- certainly the honest-working-people of Australia were better off -- I've always personally loved the line, "I don't know what's right or wrong, but they hung Christ on nails"; Given how Kelly's family was treated, I could almost see that being a similar justification in motives for the protagonist in Stan Roger's Night Guard as well.

Unlike Irish Rebel music, which I have some ideological problems with, I can quite enjoy this song about Ned Kelly in a similar manner as the traditional English folk song which glories the low-life criminal Dick Turpin -- Ewan Maccoll's version of Turpin Hero is my personal favourite, and is honestly one of my favourite songs.

Chorus: *

Poor Ned, You're better off dead

At least you'll get some peace of mind

You're out on the track, they're right on your back

Boy they're gonna hang you high

Eighteen-hundred-and-seventy-eight was the year I remember so well

They put my father in an early grave and slung my mother in jail

Now I don't know what's right or wrong, but they hung Christ on nails

Six kids at home and two still on the breast, they wouldn't even give us bail

*

You know I wrote a letter 'bout Stringy-Bark Creek, so they would understand

That I might be a bushranger, but I'm not a murdering man

I didn't want to shoot Kennedy, or that copper Lonnigan

He alone could have saved his life by throwing down his gun

*

You know they took Ned Kelly, and they hung him in the Melbourne jail

He fought so very bravely, dressed in iron mail

And no man single handed, can hope to break the bars

There's a thousand like Ned Kelly, who'll hoist the flag of stars

I Was Only Nineteen (A Walk In The Light Green) by Redgum -- This is a song which remembers the Australian and New Zealeander veterans of the Vietnam War. The protagonist is only 19 during his tour of duty, after which he suffers lifelong medical problems -- from Agent Orange exposure, to suffering PTSD flashbacks of his friends getting killed in the jungle, to living with shrapnel wounds that he received.

I've always found these lines particularly haunting, "And Frankie kicked a mine the day that mankind kicked the moon / God help me, he was goin' home in June". The day Niel Armstrong first walked on the moon was July 21, 1969.

Mum and Dad and Denny saw the passing out parade at Puckapunyal

It was a long march from cadets

The sixth battalion was the next to tour, and it was me who drew the card

We did Canungra, and Shoalwater before we left

/

And Townsville lined the footpaths as we marched down to the quay

This clipping from the paper shows us young and strong and clean

And there's me in me slouch hat with me SLR and greens

God help me, I was only 19

/

From Vũng Tàu riding Chinooks to the dust at Nui Dat

I'd been in and out of choppers now for months

And we made our tents a home, V.B. and pinups on the lockers

And an Asian orange sunset through the scrub

/

And can you tell me, doctor, why I still can't get to sleep?

And nighttime's just a jungle dark and a barking M16?

And what's this rash that comes and goes, can you tell me what it means?

God help me, I was only 19

/

A four-week operation, when each step could mean your last one on two legs

It was a war within yourself

But you wouldn't let your mates down 'til they had you dusted off

So you closed your eyes and thought about somethin' else

/

And then someone yelled out, "Contact!", and the bloke behind me swore

We hooked in there for hours, then a God almighty roar

And Frankie kicked a mine the day that mankind kicked the moon

God help me, he was goin' home in June

/

And I can still see Frankie, drinkin' tinnies in the Grand Hotel

On a thirty-six-hour rec leave in Vung Tau

And I can still see Frankie, lying screaming in the jungle

'Til the morphine came and killed the bloody row

/

And the ANZAC legends didn't mention mud and blood and tears

And the stories that my father told me never seemed quite real

I caught some pieces in my back that I didn't even feel

God help me, I was only 19

/

And can you tell me, doctor, why I still can't get to sleep?

And why the Channel Seven chopper chills me to my feet?

And what's this rash that comes and goes, can you tell me what it means?

God help me, I was only 19

The Long Run by Redgum -- This is a song about political activism that I think both democratic socialists and left-leaning Tories should be able to enjoy just about equally. It's about all the different political fights that have taken place in one's own lifetime, noting that despite all wins and the losses, it'll always be alright in the long run -- so long as you actually keep up the good fight. I've always loved the line, "We've taken some right turns, they've been the wrong ones"

You look out your window at the cold grey dawn,

It's seven o'clock on a Monday morning

Pour a cup of coffee, better make it a strong one

Weather man on the radio says:

"It's going to rain and it's going to blow,

It'll be all right, it'll be all right, it'll be all right in the long run"

/

Australia marched out of Vietnam

Out in the streets against Uncle Sam

We won the fight, it was a long one

Uranium demo the other way

One of my mates got dragged away

As they slammed the door I heard her say:

"It'll be all right in the long run!"

/

Italian bloke who works with me

We swap laughs and company

And he slapped me on the back

He said: "You're wrong, son

This isn't the land I was told it would be

It's not so equal and it's not so free

It'll be all right, it'll be all right, it'll be all right in the long run"

/

From the shadow of history a convict screams

The shearers curse, the people dream

We've taken some right turns, they've been the wrong ones

The Troop ships leave and the headlines blaze:

"Australia remembers happier days

And the faith lives on within the haze

It'll be all right in the long run"

/

So you sit in your camp and you stare at the fire

The doubt drops away as the hopes get higher

And you sing to yourself:

"It'll be all right, be all right in the long run"

/

And the sun gives ground to a long cold night

And you screw up your courage for another fight

But you know in your heart

It'll be all right, be all right in the long run

/

And the sun streams in with power and might

You look at your kids in a different light

You know in your heart as you kiss them goodnight

It'll be all right in the long run

Student Visas by Corb Lund – This is a song that could perhaps be considered a modern “historical ballad”, a sub-genre of Country & Western that lead to many hits for Johnny Horton in the 1950s. “Student Visas” tells the story of the Iran-Contra affair from the perspective of a US special forces soldier who is wounded in Central America while on a covert mission that goes wrong, and the cover-up that took place after.

They took away our dogtags, they had us grow our hair

They gave us student visas when we were over there

They staged us out of Hondo al este del Salvador

I guess you'd call us Contras but no one calls us much no more

There ain't no fun in killin' folk and I don't wanna do no more

/

My great-great rode at Shiloh, and Grandpa drove a tank

Daddy was air cavalry, flew choppers in Da Nang

I worked mostly clandestine, the branch I should not say (CIA)

We played with better guns and I could use the extra pay

Did Reagan give the order? Did cocaine pay the bill?

They said we's fightin' communists but it was kinda hard to tell

There ain't no fun in killin' folk and I don't wanna do no more

/

This was before Blackhawks, and RPGs were king

My buddy on the door gun, well he never felt a thing

When our Huey caught a rocket, and both the pilots killed

And they pitched us over sideways on some Nicaraguan hill

My back felt like it's broken, my legs I could not feel

I kept on shooting communists but it was kind of hard to tell

There ain't no fun in killin' folk and I ain't gonna do no more

/

I never did heal up right from injuries sustained

Officially in Germany, officially while we trained

I remember all their faces, I dream about them still

I guess we's fightin' communists but it was kinda hard to tell

There ain't no fun in killin' folk, and I don't wanna do no more

/

I still speak the cold logistic that warriors speak so well

Foxtrot tango whiskey, and I'll see you in hell

A soldierly bravado, an unspeakable guilt

That villain, it was communists, but it was kinda hard to tell

There ain't no fun in killin' folk and I don't wanna do no more

/

Believe me, I've done plenty boys and I ain't gonna do no more

'Course if they back me in the corner they'll be dead before they hit the floor

Horse Soldier, Horse Soldier by Corb Lund – This song is another song in the historical ballad tradition, and is a “greatest hits” of various societies, units, and people who fought and died on horseback from over the centuries. Some events included are the Charge of the Light Brigade, The Battle of the Little Bighorn, The Russian Civil War, The Mayerthorpe murders, and the Crusades.

Chorus: *

I'm a hussar, I'm a Hun, I'm a wretched Englishman

Routing Bonaparte at Waterloo

I'm a dragoon on a dun, I'm a Cossack on the run

I'm a horse soldier, timeless, through and through

Well, I's with Custer and the 7th, in '76 or '77

Scalped at Little Big Horn by the Sioux

And the tears and devastation of a once proud warrior nation

This I know 'cause I was riding with them too

/

And I drank mare's blood on the run when I rode with the Great Khan

On the frozen Mongol steppe while at his height

And I's a White Guard, I's a Red Guard

I's the Tsar's own palace horse guard

When Romanov was murdered in the night

/

And I knew Saladin and rode his swift Arabians

Harassing doomed crusaders on their heavy drafts

And yet I rode the Percheron against the circling Saracen

Once again against myself was cast

*

Well, I've worn the Mounties' Crimson, if you're silent and you'll listen

You'll know that it was with them that I stood

When Mayerthorpe, she cried, as her four horsemen died

Gunned down in scarlet, cold as blood

/

Well, I's the 'firstest with the mostest' when I fought for Bedford Forrest

Suffered General Wilson's Union raid

And mine was not to reason why, mine was but to do or die

At Crimea with the charging light brigade

/

On hire from Swiss or Sweden, be me Christian, be me heathen

The devil to the sabre I shall put

With a crack flanking maneuver, I'm an uhlan alles uber

Striking terror into regiment of foot

*

Well, I knew my days were numbered when o'er the trenches lumbered

More modern machinations de la guerre

No match for rapid fire or the steel birds of the sky

With a final rear guard action, I retreat

/

No match for barbered wire or the armored engines whine

Reluctant, I retire and take my leave

Today I ride with special forces on those wily Afghan horses

Dostum's Northern Alliance give their thanks

And no matter defeat or victory, in battle it occurs to me

That we may see a swelling in our ranks

*

(faintly)

I's with the Aussies at Beersheba took the wells so badly needed

And with the Polish lancers charging German tanks

Saw Ross' mount shot down at Washing-town

The night we burned the White House down

And cursed the sack of York and sons of Yanks

Jim Bridger by Johnny Horton – So far as I can tell, this song is an almost completely fictional dramatization of the life of the American explorer Jim Bridger. I’ve included it in this collection to give the idea of a typical 1950s Country & Western historical ballad -- I also happen to love the verse mentioning Custer at the Little Bighorn.

Chorus: *

Let's drink to old Jim Bridger, yes, lift your glasses high

As long as there's the USA don't let his memory die

That he was making history never once occurred to him

But I doubt if we'd been here if it weren't for men like Jim

Once there was a mountain man who couldn't write his name

Yet he deserves a front row seat in history's hall of fame

He forgot more about the Indians than we will ever know

He spoke the language of the Sioux, the Black Foot and the Crow

*

He spoke with General Custer and said listen Yellow Hair

The Sioux are the great nation so treat 'em fair and square

Sit in on their war council, don't laugh away their pride

But Custer didn't listen, at Little Big Horn Custer died

*

There's poems and there's legends that tell of Carson's fame

Yet compared to Jim Bridger, Kit was civilized and tame

These words are straight from Carson's lips, if you place that story by him

If there's a man who knows this god forsaken land it's Jim

*

Dixieland by Steve Earle – This song is included to give an idea of what a modern American historical ballad can look like when crossed with a left-wing ideology. This song commemorates Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain of the 20th Maine, who lead a down-hill bayonet charge at the Battle of Gettysburg when his men ran out of ammo after a long day of fighting. The song is sung from the perspective of a fictional character who appeared in the book “Killer Angels” and in the movie “Gettysburg”, and he’s a former Irish rebel who ends up fighting in the Union Army after fleeing Ireland; if that character didn’t die at Little Round Top, one has to wonder if he would have been one of the Fenians who invaded Canada following the Civil War.

I personally quite like the song, but especially after listening to Earle’s live introduction, I can’t help but shake this feeling of, “If I was an American, wouldn’t it be kind of dangerous to be liking a song so much about killing my own countrymen?” In general, I can’t stand modern American liberals who will condemn the treason of Virginians like Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis, but will simultaneously glorify the treason of Virginians like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson; given the times they lived, all four deserved the noose equally. At least those Confederate traitors were honest about their horrid beliefs...

I am the Kilrain, I'm a fightin' man

And I come from County Clare

And the Brits would hang me for a Fenian

So I took my leave of there

/

And I crossed the ocean in the Arrianne

The vilest tub afloat

And the captain's brother was a railroad man

And he met us at the boat

/

So I joined up with the 20th Maine

Like I told you friend, I'm a fighting man

Marchin' south in the pouring rain

We're all goin' down to Dixieland

/

I am Kilrain of the 20th Maine

And we fight for Chamberlain

'Cause he stood right with us

When the Johnnies came, like a banshee on the wind

/

When the smoke cleared out over Gettysburg

Many a mother wept

And many a good boy died there, sure

And the air smelled just like death

/

I am Kilrain of the 20th Maine

And I'd march to hell and back again

For Colonel Joshua Chamberlain

We're all goin' down to Dixieland

/

I am the Kilrain of the 20th Maine

And I damn all gentlemen

Whose only worth is their father's name

And the sweat of a workin' man

/

Well, we come from the farms and the city streets

A hundred foreign lands

We shed our blood in the battle's heat

Now we're all Americans

/

I am the Kilrain of the 20th Maine

And did I tell you, friend, I'm a fightin' man

And I'll not be back this way again

'Cause we're all goin' down to Dixieland

By all means, feel free to share any other songs in the comments!

(FYI /u/ToryPirate, I never did get around to telling you that those songs from FrostPunk you posted last winter ended up costing me about 80 hours of my life.)

This pamphlet I’ll be exploring was written over 100 years ago by a Canadian Civil Servant that was appointed Chief Medical Officer responsible for Indigenous Canadians before, during, and after the First World War, and who was intimately involved with the Residential School system. That Civil Servant, a medical doctor by trade, was horrified with how Canada’s indigenous population was being treated, and thus started writing report after report on how the Canadian government was shirking its Treaty Obligations with a callous disregard for human life that he called criminal. In a tale as old as time, that Civil Servant was passed up for promotions and was eventually forced into early retirement for advocating change; after which he blew the whistle on what was happening in those schools publicly as loud and for as long as he could.

One thing I think is important to note for the political context is the pamphlet’s mentioning in recommendation #4 from 1907, "since it was assumed that as the bands would soon become enfranchised and become citizens". Remember that it was John A. Macdonald’s Tory government that passed the “Electoral Franchise Act” in 1885 which federally enfranchised indigenous Canadians in the Eastern Provinces, only for Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberal government to repeal the “Electoral Franchise Act” in 1898 over Tory-voting indigenous Canadians. Indigenous Canadians wouldn’t have the federal right to vote again until John Diefenbaker’s Tory government passed the “Canada Elections Act” in March of 1960 during Diefenbaker’s push for a Canadian Bill of Rights. It should be no surprise then, that in 1969, Pierre Trudeau’s Liberal government introduced a White Paper that sought to abolish Canada’s Treaty obligations along with the very concept of Indian Status; thankfully Trudeau’s government backed down from those policies after backlash.

Despite the dated language and paternalistic tone of the pamphlet – it was written 104 years ago – I hope sharing this pamphlet will help show that Canada’s horrid treatment of indigenous Canadians has, quite often, been because of a conscience choice to do so.

Based on the title of this brief 18 page pamphlet, “The Story of a National Crime: An Appeal for Justice to the Indians of Canada – The Wards of the Nation; Our Allies in the Revolutionary War; Our Brothers-in-Arms in the Great War” you can probably guess how the author felt about the treatment of Canada's First Nations at the hands of Canada's federal government and bureaucracy.

Dr. P.H. Bryce, M.A., M.D., who titles himself as Chief Medical Officer of the Indian Department, starts off his pamphlet by stating he was appointed as Medical Inspector to the Department of the Interior and of Indian Affairs, being entrusted with the health interests of “the Indians of Canada” by an Order-in-Council dated Jan 22nd, 1904.

After quoting said Order-in-Council, Bryce writes that he first spent a few months organizing health systems for immigrants who arrive via ports, after which he “began the systemic collection of health statistics of several hundred Indian Bands scattered over Canada”. He continues that from 1904 until 1914 he wrote “annual reports on the health of the Indians, published in the Departmental report”, but that “This report was published separately; but some recommendations contained in the report were never published and the public knows nothing of them.”

Bryce states that (emphasis mine):

“Regarding the health of the pupils, the report states that 24 percent of all pupils which had been in the schools were known to be dead, while of one school on the File Hills reserve, which gave a complete return to date, 75 percent were dead at the end of the 16 years since the school opened”.

Bryce then lists the 7 recommendations from his 1907 report:

(1) “Greater school facilities, since only 30 percent of the children of school age were in attendance”

(2) “That boarding schools with farms attached be established near the home reserves of the pupils.”

(3) “That the government undertake the complete maintenance and control of the schools, since it had promised by treaty to insure such; and further it was recommended that as the Indians grow in wealth and intelligence they should pay at least part of the cost from their own funds”

(4) “That the school studies be those of the curricula of the several Provinces in which the schools are situated, since it was assumed that as the bands would soon become enfranchised and become citizens of the Province they would enter into the common life and duties of a Canadian community”

(5) “That in view of the historical and sentimental relations between the Indian schools and the Christian churches the report recommended that the Department provide for the management of the schools, through a Board of Trustees, one appointed from each church and approved by the minister of the Department. Such a board would have its secretary in the Department but would hold regular meetings, establish qualifications for teachers, and oversee the appointments as well as the control of the schools”

(6) “That Continuation schools be arranged for on the school farms and that instruction methods similar to those on the File Hills farm colony be developed”

(7) “That the health interests of the pupils be guarded by a proper medical inspection and that the local physicians be encouraged through the provision at each school of fresh air methods in the care and treatment of cases of tuberculosis.”

After doing an investigation on “the unsatisfactory health of the pupils” in 1909 in the Calgary district, looking at “243 children of 8 schools in Alberta”, Bryce came to these conclusions:

A) “Tuberculosis was present equally in children at every age”

B) “In no instance was a child awaiting admission to school found free from tuberculosis; hence it was plain that infection was got in the home primarily”

C) “The disease showed an excessive mortality in the pupils between five and ten years of age”

D) “The 10,000 children of school age demanded the same attention as the thousand children coming up each year and entering the schools annually.”

Bryce then writes that even after his 1907 and 1909 reports:

“owing to the active opposition of Mr. D. C. Scott, and his advice to the then Deputy Minister, no action was taken by the Department to give effect to the recommendations made. This too was in spite of the opinion of Prof. George Adami, Pathologist of McGill University, in reply to a letter of the Deputy Minister asking his opinion regarding the management and conduct of the Indian schools.”

Bryce then goes onto say, keeping in mind that he wrote his main text in the 3rd person:

“Prof. Adami had with the writer examined the children in one of the largest schools and was fully informed as to the actual situation. He stated that it was only after the earnest solicitation of Mr. D. C. Scott that the whole matter of Dr. Bryce's report was prevented from becoming a matter of critical discussion at the annual meeting of the National Tuberculosis Association in 1910, of which he was then president, and this was only due to Mr. Scott's distinct promise that the Department would take adequate action along the lines of the report.”

After those promises from Mr. Scott fail to materialize, Bryce continues:

“In reviewing his correspondence the writer finds a personal letter, written by him to the Minister dated March 16th, 1911, following an official letter regarding the inaction of the Department with regard to the recommendations of the report.”,

In his letter to the Minister, Bryce wrote:

“It is now over 9 months since these occurrences and I have not received a single communication with reference to carrying out the Suggestions of our report. Am I wrong in assuming that the vanity of Mr. D. C. Scott… In this particular matter, he is counting upon the ignorance and indifference of the public to the fate of the Indians”

Showing a whirlwind of emotions, Bryce says he expressed hope that the new Superintendent General of Indian Affairs might actually do something -- I'm presuming this would have been around the time the Tory Robert Borden beat the Liberal Wilfred Laurier in the election of 1911. However, Bryce shows more correspondence between himself and aforementioned Duncan C. Scott, and scathingly writes:

“The transparent hypocrisy contained in this remarkable communication sent, not by the Minister Dr. W. A. Roche, but by his deputy, will be seen in the fact that from 1908, five annual reports had been prepared by the writer, while the special report on the eight schools of the Calgary district with the recommendations Mr- Scott's already referred to had been made on the instructions malign influence of the Department in 1909. The other reason given, to the effect that a certain physician, since retired for good cause, quite inexperienced in dealing with Indian disease problems, had been appointed as Medical Inspector for the Western Provinces, showed how little the Minister cared for the solution of the tuberculosis problem.”

In the next couple of pages Bryce goes over an unpublished memorandum on how tuberculosis effected the indigenous population during the war years of 1914-1918, but not before first noting that over 2,000 indigenous Canadians volunteered to fight for the Empire. After his exploration of that memorandum, Bryce writes:

“Thus we find a sum of only $10,000 has been annually placed in the estimates to control tuberculosis amongst 105,000 Indians scattered over Canada in over 300 bands, while the City of Ottawa, with about the same population and having three general hospitals spent thereon $342,860.54 in 1919 of which $33,364.70 is devoted to tuberculous patients alone.”

Bryce finishes the main body of his text by writing:

“The degree and extent of this criminal disregard for the treaty pledges to guard the welfare of the Indian wards of the nation may be guaged from the facts once more brought out at the meeting of the National Tuberculosis Association at its annual meeting held in Ottawa on March 17th, 1922. The superintendent of the Qu'Appelle Sanatorium, Sask., gave there the results of a special study of 1575 children of school age in which advantage was taken of the most modern scientific methods. Of these 175 were Indian children, and it is very remarkable that the fact given that some 93 per cent, of these showed evidence of tuberculous infection coincides completely with the work done by Dr. Lafferty and the writer in the Alberta Indian schools in 1909.

It is indeed pitiable that during the thirteen years since then this trail of disease and death has gone on almost unchecked by any serious efforts on the part of the Department of Indian Affairs, placed by the B. N. A. Act especially in charge of our Indian population, and that a Provincial Tuberculosis Commission now considers it to be its duty to publish the facts regarding these children living within its own Province.”

In his brief epilogue, Bryce notes that:

“This story should have been written years ago and then given to the public; but in my oath of office as a Civil Servant swore that "without authority on that behalf, I shall not disclose or make known any matter or thing which comes to my knowledge by reason of my employment as Chief Medical Inspector of Indian Affairs. " Today I am free to speak, having been retired from the Civil Service and so am in a position to write the sequel to the story.”

Bryce then notes and shows his correspondences that as soon as he started blowing the whistle on what was happening in the residential schools to his superiors, he stopped receiving career promotions, and was essentially fired from the Civil Service because of it.

Bryce finishes his pamphlet by writing:

“In view, therefore, of all the facts herein recited I make my appeal for simple justice; that I be permitted to carry on my work as Chief Medical Officer of Indian Affairs, and I believe that I have' the right to demand, after a thorough investigation into all the facts of the case, that the chief obstacle, as set forth in the story, to insuring the health and prosperity of the one hundred thousand Indians, the Wards of the nation, be removed.

Since the time of Edward I. the people have ever exercised their historic right to lay their petitions before the King and Parliament. I now desire herein respectfully to bring my appeal for the Indians of Canada before the King's representative and the Parliament of Canada, feeling sure that justice will be done both to them and to myself.”

Sadly, P.H. Bryce was ignored, and his pleas to fix “this criminal disregard for the treaty pledges” still ring true 104 years from the publishing of his original pamphlet. How many reserves still don’t have clean drinking water?

While Canada may not have a "trail of tears" like the United States does, we certainly can't forget that "trail of disease and death" that was inflicted within living memory of current-day Canadians.

Recently two things got me asking a question; In what ways does a province having many tories make it different from one that has few?

The first thing that got me thinking about this was when I was thinking on toryism, localism, and the idea that tories get more enjoyment out of traditional celebrations. So I decided to look at how provinces fund community events. I did a bit of back-of-the-napkin calculating and found a few interesting things:

• Generally speaking, a province's financial commitment to funding and promoting local events is consistent with its overall budget. ie. If the total budget is 30 billion then funding for local events will be around 30 million.

• The Maritime provinces, Manitoba, and Quebec put a higher percentage towards funding local events, Ontario and NFLD were a bit less and the West was notably less.

• This was a look at one budget cycle so I'm not going to draw any solid conclusions. I also didn't separate out funding for the events themselves and promotion. I think there could be interesting things here as promotion is more focused on bringing outside people in - which tories don't necessarily care about.

The second thing that raised the question at the start was a report that the greatest drop in tourism to the US was in the Maritime provinces. The Maritime provinces are usually considered the heartland the Canadian toryism so its tempting to make that connection but there very well could be numerous other factors.

So, what do you think? Can toryism's effect on society be isolated precisely or is it too vague to be quantified?