| |
Blog of Adam Daifallah -- author, journalist, law student. Lover of politics, writing, golf, curling, fitness, fashion, bacon and maple products -- not necessarily (but probably) in that order. Partisan of the Anglosphere. Contact me via email at adam@daifallah.com.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Ideologically pure?
Thorough and quite enlightening profile of John Tory in the new edition of Toronto Life. I would say more about Tory, who has had a fascinating career replete with accomplishments (not too different from Mitt Romney's) but this one paragraph has to be singled out:
John Tory represents a less strident brand of conservatism that was once common in this country—one that favours free markets and fiscal prudence, but also believes in social justice and the positive power of government. It’s called Red Toryism, a moniker that has nothing to do with Tory’s family name but is synonymous with his views. It’s the political philosophy whose roots stretch back to Sir John A. Macdonald and the very invention of Canada. In the 1970s and ’80s, during the Bill Davis era in Ontario, it was known as the Big Blue Machine: the ideal combination of organizational strength, political savvy and well-managed, moderate government. In the 1980s, Brian Mulroney borrowed Davis’s formula and his brain trust, riding the Big Blue Machine to two successive federal majority governments. Today, however, few people in Canada equate conservatism with moderation. Federally, the party has taken the Progressive out of its name. Provincially, Mike Harris’s Common Sense Revolution remade the party into one of ideological purity. And the Big Blue Machine of capital-P Progressive Conservatism has been reduced to rusty scraps and popped springs. John Tory has been carrying that broken-down heap on his shoulders since the defeat of the federal PCs in 1993. He is determined to see it rebuilt. He is probably its last hope.
That whole paragraph is chock-full of misrepresentations and half-truths that you would expect to hear from, uhhh, Toronto Life.
First, the term "Big Blue Machine" has nothing to do with the "political philosophy" of the Davies Tories. It referred only to the organizational powerhouse around Davis, consisting of people like John Tory, Hugh Segal, Norman Atkins and others.
Second, the statement that "few people in Canada equate conservatism with moderation" is puzzling. What is the basis for such a statement, and has the author been paying attention to the last 9 months of the Harper government? Is there a study or a poll we can point to?
But more importantly, the Common Sense Revolution did not remake the Ontario PCs into an ideologically pure party.
One, the CSR years were hardly ideologically pure: spending continued to go up in all areas (especially healthcare) and many Red Tories continued to have tremendous sway in the party and held important positions such as party president (Peter Van Loan) and many cabinet spots (Elizabeth Witmer and Janet Ecker spring to mind.)
Two, if the party was ideologically pure, how and why did it elect John Tory as leader?
These points may seem trivial and unimportant, but those of us who care about fairness and accuracy and the way the history of the Harris era will be written need to speak up when we see such things.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 12:16 AM
|
