U.S Republicans are famous for using code words to signal specific meanings to their base while leaving themselves with enough plausible deniability when called on to explain exactly what they mean.
Stephen Harper has drawn from this playbook in his throne speech, which focussed on three terms laden with ideological baggage and hidden meanings.
Those words include family, choice and openness.And those are all good words as long as they mean to Harper's caucus what they mean to a majority of Canadians.
Family values are fine as long as they are inclusive and not an excuse for exclusion. Choice is attractive as long as there are viable social service options.
Open federalism is a promising concept until the federal government is too weak to vigorously pursue a cohesive, innovative and inspiring national vision.
Let's see if we can't unpack these terms and see what the Conservatives might actually have in store for us.
Family - The conservatives have made no bones about their definition of family: one man, one women, and by the way, they'd prefer it if mom stayed at home where she belongs. Already, one of their signature promises has the stink of "traditional" family all over it: their daycare proposal. Their $1,200 a year payoff to stay-at-home mothers will have little benefit for families with two working parents, who will still have to struggle meet rising daycare costs. Their idea of "family" is also deeply rooted in the the fundamentalist Christian view of "traditional Morality."
The Canadian Alliance, on the other hand, has parallels with the new Republican party. Both come out of the new West, determined to wrest control from the eastern party elites. Both are committed to neo-conservative economics. And both have the energetic support of fundamentalist churches seeking to restore traditional moral values – "family values," as they call them.
Choice - Conservatives are very big on choice (unless the subject is abortion). What they proclaim is a commitmtent to the freedom of the individual is actually a rallying cry for the destruction of government programs and the turning over of formerly public services to the private sector. The GOP used this loaded term in their failed assault on social secuirty. Watch for the Conservatives to wield it in their ongoing efforts to dismantle public medicare, where choice will come to mean a wide range of medical options for wealthy Canadians and poorer public health services for the rest of us until the public system collapses due to intentional neglect.
What happened to the old Stephen Harper, the guy who thought that Canadians were content to live in a “second-tier socialistic country,” that the federal Liberals conspired to stack the courts in favour of gay marriage, and that Alberta should build a “firewall” to preserve its values against a hostile federal government?The newly “evolved” Harper may have changed his style, but not his bedrock beliefs or overall strategy to gain power. So say some people who have watched or known Harper for a while.
Take Medicare. Harper recently stuck up for it, telling the Fraser Institute he’s against two-tier health care. But Simon Fraser University political scientist David Laycock believes the Conservative leader would be content to see the public health care system wither away from neglect.
“He thinks – and certainly his close political advisors are of this view – that if you can over time diminish the attractiveness of the public system by making it less useful and less valuable to citizens, then they will vote with their pocketbooks and they will start buying into private systems,” said Laycock, author of The New Right and Democracy in Canada.
Open federalism - Good bye, Ottawa! One of Harper's long held dreams has been to strip the federal government of its power and turn Canada into an archipelago of provincial fiefdoms. The Conservatives couch this in terms of ensuring the federal government stays out of provincial jurisdictions, but the long term goal is actually to reduce the role of the federal government to a few specific areas. Preston Manning and Mike Harris gave us a little glimpse of the utopian conservative Canada in their Orwellian-titled paper "A Canada Strong and Free."
Harper himself has long advocated a radical change to confederation, and outlined his vision in a 20-point plan called the New Confederation, which is now packaged as "open federalism":
1. Natural ResourcesGuarantee exclusive provincial control.
2. Manpower Training
Guarantee exclusive provincial control.
3. Social Services (including welfare, education and health care)
Change the role of the federal government to foster cooperative Interprovincial agreements rather than imposing unilateral standards by withholding transfer payments.
4. Language
Replace the Official Languages Act with a new law, the Regional Bilingualism Act, that would recognize the demographic and linguistic realities of Canada and the practices of provincial authorities.
5. Culture
Make provincial governments the primary providers and guardians of cultural services and primary regulators of cultural industries.
6. Municipal Affairs
Strengthen the role of municipal governments in the delivery of essential services.
7. Housing
Guarantee exclusive provincial control.
8. Tourism
Guarantee exclusive provincial control.
9. Sports and Recreation
Guarantee exclusive provincial control.
10. Spending Power
Forbid new federal spending programs in provincial jurisdiction.
11. Transfers to the Provinces
Replace federal cash block grants with tax point grants.
12. Charter Challenges
End the Court Challenges program and its tax-funded court challenges of provincial legislation.
13. Disallowance, Reserve, and Declaratory Powers
Remain dormant.
REFORM OF INSTITUTIONS
14. House of Commons
Permit greater freedom for individual MP’s; wider use of referenda, citizens’ initiatives and recall.
15. Senate of Canada
All future appointments to the Senate would be made by means of elections on the model of the 1989 Alberta Senate selection process.
16. Supreme Court and Judiciary
Future appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada would be made by the provincial legislatures; all appointments reviewed by elected Senate.
17. Bank of Canada
Future board appointments made by provincial legislatures. Ottawa would continue to select the Governor of the Bank.
18. Lieutenant Governors
Appointed by provincial legislatures.
19. Tax, Debt and Expenditure Limitation
Unilaterally amend the Constitution to forbid deficit spending or rapid spending increases, except when authorized by a national referendum.
20. Constitutional Referendums
Introduce a motion in the House of Commons that all future constitutional amendments must be approved by majorities in all regions of Canada through a referendum.
The Harper agenda is not so much hidden as encoded in language meant to rally the base and obscure their meanings to the wider public. Consider this post the first entry in building a Conservative-to-English dictionary so we can start to assign actual meanings to the noises coming out of Harper's mouth.
Postscript: If anyone wants to suggest additional items for the dictionary, please feel free to do so in the comments, and I'll include them in future installments.
Tim, I am simply agog at that list from bloc-harper.com. Agog and afeard. I shall have to lie down (for several days) before I speak to it.
Family: even for those of us who do settle down in pairs and multiply faithfully: how long does that last for anyone? This is one obsession I truly do not understand except as a way of discouraging women from joining the work force - unless they happen to be single, especially single mothers, in which case we insist that they work for pay, although in a working world that would presumably become less and less egalitarian towards any woman workers?
Choice was, of course, originally the battle-cry of the women's liberation movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, and for a time it had meaning for all marginalized groups. The message was that we all need to be free to choose where we will live, what work we should be able to apply for, what will happen to our own bodies, and so on. That word had meaning then precisely because so many people had been denied the freedom to choose so much.
For at least a generation, though, the neo-cons have worked hard at twisting that term in particular to their own ends. Throughout North America "choice" now tends to mean pretty much the opposite of what the liberation movements fought for. It has become the battle-cry of the majoritarian backlash, the signal that "ordinary" citizens should resent any gains that minorities (or women) have made, that the majority need to squash those because their own freedom to choose has somehow been compromised by the liberation of others.
There's a term to add to your dictionary, Tim: "ordinary Canadians." Maybe "average Canadians" as well. Very us-against-them terms, those.
nicely articulated, tim
you could have also said "newspeak" from 1984 instead of "using code words"
war is peace
freedom is slavery
Good one, skdadl.
Average Canadian - The mythical voter that automatically agrees with - and will undoubtedly benefit from - any idea or policy the Conservative Party is currently pushing. The "average Canadian" usually turns out to be an executive in the oil patch or a member of an evangelical church.
BTW, sorry to freak you out with the list, but I was kind of shaken by it, so I felt it best to share the trauma. I'm generous that way.
There is the whole class-war language that the right uses.
You know, the 'conflict' between the 'latte-drinking, champagne socialst, starbucks frequenting, volvo-driving city-dwelling elitists and the average, everyday, ordinary, hard-working, average Joe, taxpaying, ordinary coffee drinking, Tim Horton's frequenting, hockey rink with the kids attending, pick-up driving, patriotic Canadians.
I see I lingered over my comment too long and skdadl beat me to the punch. I guess great minds think alike and all that..
My favourite Bush code is "ownership society". Hey Ramon - you own that cancer buddy!
Anyway, all of this is very interesting, but the real test will come if and when these dingbats actually try to implement any such measures. It's one thing to send signals to Crazy Base World (thanks, Jon Stewart), but it's another matter altogether to radically alter the Constitution or gut public health insurance.
They may be shocked to discover that the average Canadian doesn't have the same world view as the panting bootlicks that eagerly support the crap that emanates from the Calgary School Bubble.
Actually, Declan, there's nuance in your comment that merits it own entries. How about this:
Class war - Rhetorical frame used to pit the "average Canadian" (see related entry)against the "elitists." (see related entry)
Elitists - Any group that opposes a Conservative government policy. (Commonly combined with "eastern".) i.e. "Gay marriage was pushed on us by eastern urban elitists to the detriment of the average Canadian family."
Feel free to edit.
For me, the ultimate scary article about "branding Republicanism" for "average" people is Mark Danner's "How Bush Really Won", published in January 2005 in NYRB. It is dead brilliant, and reveals how a conservative party can transform political labels into signifiers for "honesty," "strength" and above all "masculinity," while portraying their opponents as shrill, effete, elitist, and (ironically enough) reality detached idiots living in a dream world.
It is a bit longish, but it's one of those articles I wish everybody read once.
Two of those twenty points stood out for me: #5 and #12.
Number 5 because making provinces the primary cultural guardians would effectively kill the CBC by dismantling it into provincial or regional parts.
Number 12 because ending taxpayer-funded Charter challenges to provincial legislation would make it that much easier for Gordon Campbell, or the next Ralph Klein or Mike Harris, to stomp all over minority rights.
As for the rest of them, thumbs down, except maybe for #6 -- no, wait, I misread it. "Strengthen the role of municipal governments in the delivery of essential services." No mention of providing funding for same, so clearly it's not intended. Two thumbs 'way down where the sun don't shine for that one, too.
Good read on those, North. Number five does seem like a missile aimed right at the CBC, doesn't it?
Well, and what about the Canada Council, and SSHRC, and so many other federal bodies that fund basic research, training, and publishing in this country? Without public investment, almost no cultural or intellectual activity can continue in Canada unless it aims at an American market - the Canadian market is just too small.
The neo-cons will claim, of course, that they are creating a meritocracy by kicking out public supports for culture, sifting out the mediocrity, but that is economic nonsense. The Americans are famously not a market for anyone else's cultural products except those of the very lowest common denominator or a tiny elite layer; artists and intellectuals here need support not because they are talentless but because we just don't have the numbers.
So there's another word for your list, Tim: "meritocracy."
And Jason, I hope you realize that you have just condemned yourself as a latte-sipping Chardonnay socialist / limousine liberal by admitting that you actually read the NYRB.
What can I say? Me too.
I really enjoy reading your blog every day. Thanks for the thought provoking commentary.
Thanks, Indie. I've visited your blog as well. If you had comments enabled, I would have dropped you a line.
Skdadl - Meritocracy is a perfect entry. Any idea how it might read?
Good call on meritocracy-as-American-Idol-should-be-our-culture. As for latte-swilling pinkoism - the new issue has a review online of the Kos book. *swills*
Did anyone catch The Candidate last night, played twice on Visiontv?
I love the bit near the end where Robert Redford is starting to lose it and re-mixes his whistlestop speech along with impressions of the Republican opponents...
"Ladies and gents. The time has passed. The time has passed. Got to be a better way. I say to you, can't any longer, oh no, can't any longer, play off black against old, young against poor.
This country cannot house its houseless. Feed its foodless. They're demanding a government of the people. Peopled by people. Our faith. Our compassion. Our courage on the gridiron. The basic
indifference that made this country great... So vote once, vote twice, for Bill MacKay. You middle-class honkies!"
Meritocracy: "See here, young man/woman! I went through it, so you can go through it too." *harrumph*
"What do you mean, there are no jobs? I climbed over other people's bodies, so you can do that too." *harrumph*
"The cream rises to the top, you know." *harrumph*
Unfortunately, scum also rises to the top.
How about "stakeholders" for all – corporate entities, big business & party supporters in particular – who support their POV, policies, proposals etc., versus "special interests" meaning any individual or group who is opposed? One should also note that invariably the former always have a seat at the negotiating table or are called upon to give their knowledge-based expertise whereas the latter are granted neither privilege due to their inherent bias.
Excellent entry, Cee. I'll add it to the list.
I've managed to save up roughly $70815 in my bank account, but I'm not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?