Diefenbaker and Harper by Ron Dart

Diefenbaker and Harper:
Classical Canadian Tory Meets Republican Conservative
 

I would be quite willing, personally, to leave the Hudson Bay Company awilderness for the next half century, but I fear if  the Englishmen do not go there, Yankees will.

Sir John A. Macdonald 1865 

There were two heads of state that President Kennedy had little patience for and often faced off with in nasty sparring sessions: General Sukarno of Indonesia and Prime Minister John Diefenbaker of Canada. Diefenbaker, again and again, refused to give Kennedy his way. The King of Camelot was never pleased with the way he was treated in Canada.

It was Diefenbaker that gave a red light to taking warheads for the Bomarc missiles in Canada when Kennedy insisted we do so. Ironically, it was Pearon, the peacemaker, in the 1963 election that promised to take the warheads.  

It was Diefenbaker that made it clear that Canada would trade with Cuba and China when the Americans placed trade embargos on these states, and it was Diefenbaker that was quite willing to doubt and question Kennedy’s interpretation of the facts in the Cuban missile crisis. It was Diefenbaker again that wondered whether Canada should join the Organization of American States (a front for American policy in Central America).

In short, Diefenbaker, as a Conservative Prime Minister, dared to doubt and saw through the seductive imperialism of Kennedy’s Camelot. The NDP voted with the Liberals to bring down the Conservative government, and in the 1963 election, Canadians voted against Diefenbaker’s brand of nationalism and brought in the pro-Kennedy liberal Lester Pearson. The integrationist approach of Pearson had many historic ties with other Canadian liberals. 

Lament for Nation (1965), by George Grant, recounts, in a graphic political and philosophic way, this sordid tale. Grant had pleaded with Tommy Douglas not to vote with Pearson to bring down the Conservative government. Grant knew only too well where Pearson’s north star was and why. 

We have, within a few decades, come to the place in which a Conservative Prime Minister doubted and opposed the democratic imperialism of Kennedy to the place in which a Conservative Prime Minister genuflects before the much cruder republican imperialism of Bush and tribe. How have we come to this? 

Prime Minister Harper tends to follow, for the most part, the American lead on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the American opposition to Kyoto and the environment, the abundant fruit of free trade, closer ties with the USA on in economic and trade issues and many other hot button social issues in the culture wars. Harper tends to march lock step with most of Bush’s policies and actions on a variety of issues. Is this, though, at its best and noblest Classical Canadian Conservatism?    

Was Diefenbaker a conservative of the Macdonald variety? Yes! He knew what the Yankees were all about. Is Harper a conservative of the Macdonald and Diefenbaker type? The answer is obvious. Harper and clan are eager and keen to bow low to the New Romans and their Caesar. Such a low bow and slavish obedience could not but make a Classical Conservative of the Macdonald and Diefenbaker clan ill at ease with the betrayal of a nobler way. 

Ron Dart 

Comments

[Andrew Lauman]

"Harper and clan are eager and keen to bow low to the New Romans and their Caesar."

Harper is following a suit of compassionate conservatism that we have not seen in this country for a long time. Harper has pushed forward reforms that will change the agricultural landscape of our country for the much better, campagned for religious freedom of rights in the same sex marriage debate, stood for our troops in a war that isn't easily defined and has continued to reform Canada's government against corruption.

It is unfortunate that a man of your talent and understanding is not engaged in fervent prayer for such an outstanding leader. Who will help through the Holy Spirit, could be someone great. In this thread, you tread where angels fear to go.

[dg hicks]

Harper has reformed the state run wheat board, championed freedom of rights, stood for our troops....Which is an elaborate way of saying: Harper is a Republican. Forget Holy Spirit: more like "Holy Shit!". Funny, but Harper is more a manifestation of Grant's description of a Liberal than he is a Conservative. Someone who is speeding contintental integration whilst making reference to national platitudes.

[Scott Hicks]

Ron:

I agree with this article you have written, but one thing I must point-out is this:

Diefenbaker was not Canada's Head of State.

Her Majesty the Queen is. Only her.

Good post otherwise. Although the Chief was Macdonaldian in his Nationalism, he did show a typically Western-Canadian liberal side - as in his codification of a Bill of Rights, which was a silly devolopment as we already had the protection of the British Constitution working for us.