Red Toryism Is Not Isolationism

But oddly enough, David Orchard seems to think so

One may wonder if Liberal leader Stephane Dion is disappointed or relieved that David Orchard, his star candidate in Desthene-Missinni-Churchill River riding, has manged to produce so little press coverage.

When the press did bite at that particular worm, it was

In a recent candidates debate in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, Orchard talked about what a few of his priorities are.

“One of my priorities is the war,” Orchard announced.

Indeed. Orchard priorities the war so highly that he's decided to join the party that deployed Canadian forces to Afghanistan in the first place, under a leader who was a member of the cabinet that decided to do so.

Orchard's views on the war are far from secret. In February of this year, Orchard published an article on Globalresearch.ca in which he makes some remarkable comments.

Orchard essentially compares Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to slavery, and also attempts to cast doubts on previous humanitarian interventions in Yugoslavia and Haiti.

Orchard would likely portray his comments as embodying the concerns with national sovereignty so deeply held within Red Toryism. But apparently Orchard never received the memo that Red Toryism does not condone genocides, such as those being perpetrated by Slobodan Milosevic.

Nor does Red Toryism condone unarmed civilians caught in the midst of civil conflicts being left to their own devices.

Nor does Red Toryism condone harbouring terrorists while they plan attacks against foreign countries.

In short, Red Toryism is not isolationism, and never has been. In fact, it never could have been.

Most historians agree that the very notion of Canadian sovereignty was born out of the two World Wars. Most Canadians felt our sovereingty had been earned in those conflicts, and many of the things that came in the immediate aftermath seem to bear this to be true.

In fact, the Canadian citizenship act wasn't passed until 1946. Prior to that, there was actually no such thing as a Canadian citizenship. Rather, Canadians were generally viewed as citizens of the British empire.

In 1926, between the two wars, Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King was instrumental in prompting the Balfour Declaration of 1926, which declared equality amongst Commonwealth countries.

It simply isn't logical for Red Toryism to be so offended by the notion of a foreign intervention, where necessary, considering that the very element with which it remains so preoccupied -- sovereignty -- was born out of such an intervention.

After all, Canada's involvement in the Second World War didn't end at the German border, nor did it end at the Italian coastline.

The great legacy of that war -- deposing one of history's brutal dictator and preventing the wholesale genocide of Jewish people in Europe -- remains an accomplishment of which all Canadians worthy of the name remain proud.

If Canada hadn't entered the Second World War not only would this legacy never have been achieved, but it's likely that key links between the United States and Britain would never have been forged. Without this support it's unlikely that Britain could have turned away the German attack, and that other preoccupation of so many Red Tories -- distress over ever-closer links between Canada and the United States -- would have come to to pass much, much sooner.

Ironically, Red Toryism never could have come to truly exist if Canada's leaders of the day had thought in the inherently isolationist vein that David Orchard does today.

Orchard also writes in a manner that suggests he believes Canadian forces bombed civilian targets indiscriminately in Afghanistan, Haiti and former Yugoslavia.

But even more concerning is Orchard's equation of Canada's efforts abroad with slavery.

"Military assaults against the poverty stricken farmers of Afghanistan and Haiti, and an Iraqi population struggling for its very survival, are part of a long, barbarous tradition going back to slave ships and colonial resource wars and will some day, I believe, be seen in that context," Orchard writes.

Unfortuantely for Mr Orchard, this is most unequivocally not the case. Should Canadian troops start herding Afghans on to slave galleons and forcing them to row their way across the ocean to pick cotton on plantations, then the war in Afghanistan will be seen in that context.

David Orchard can feel free to hold his breath until that happens if he so wishes. It wouldn't be a very good idea, but he's free to try it.

In the end, it seems, there's a reason why David Orchard is a marginal figure in Canadian political history, who only managed to attain a brief semblance of prominence when the Progressive Conservative party was already on its deathbed.

It's because he's a marginal thinker. Only a marginal thinker could look at the conflict in Afghanistan, look at the government that was deposed there, and see the Amistad.

Only a marginal thinker like David Orchard.

More Dress-Up Fun With Marty Rayner

His mouth is writing even more cheques his brain can't cash

Martin Rayner's bizarre behaviour of late may turn out to have a more rational explanation than it would seem.

He may be experiencing something of an identity crisis.

Rayner recently took time out of his... eh, busy... schedule to respond to this particular comment, found on a post at Return of the Trusty Tory:

"Red Tory, please, for the sake of clarity, remove Tory or any other symbol of Canada or Conservative from your name as you are nothing but a Canada hating, America bashing apologist. You would be best served in the mosque of a radical imam or the Communist party of Canada, which, it appears the Liberals have become."

For the sake of fairness, it's necessary to point out that the commenter is a bit of a nut. Mr Rayner is perfectly entitled to take issue with being accused of hating Canada.

He's said nothing to suggest to anyone that he hates Canada.

The nonsense about Muslim Imams and the Communist party clearly indicates that the commenter is more than a little unbalanced.

But Rayner's own response indicates that the commenter has managed to strike a nerve:

"Look, as long as I have preeminent ranking on Google for the term “Red Tory” and in the absence of any truly compelling argument that I am in some respect unworthy of that estimable term, I’m keeping the name. In the meantime, allow me to draw your attention to what was said by many about one of my fondest personal heroes Oscar Wilde way back when…"

Rayner's response seems to be best embodied in the insistence that "if Google says so, then it must be true". (The sad state of western society when allegedly educated individuals look to Google as the absolute arbiter of truth will remain uncommented on here -- for now.)

Beneath the inane rantings, the commenter raises an important point: how is it that Mr Rayner can justify blogging under the pseudonym "Red Tory" when so much of his behaviour strongly indicates that he has little idea what a Red Tory actually is?

In order to understand why, one needs to direct their attention to an excellent definition of Red Toryism offered by the seemingly now-defunct Deep Red Tory:

"A red tory is a compassionate conservative, driven by a concern for community over individualism, the collective well-being over personal self-interest, Burke over Mill, social responsibility over token rights, societal responsibility over state responsibility, fiscal responsibility over socialism, and responsible government over mob rule."

In particular, attention needs to be paid to the concern for community over individualism -- it's become thematic for various commentators over the last twenty years in particular, from Benjamin Barber to John Ralston Saul.

To put it most simply, Red Tories prefer strong democracy -- built around a participatory model -- to thin democracy -- built around a corporatist, negotiatory model.

Building community is at the very heart of strong democracy. But one has to keep in mind precisely what is necessary to build a community in the first place, then make it strong enough for participatory democracy.

At the very core of participatory (strong) democracy is a social compact that acknowledges that all citizens have a stake in their community. As such, all the citizens of a community have a right -- and an obligation -- to participate in the political life of their community.

But one also has to consider what kind of conditions need to exist in order for all of a community's citizens to participate in that community's political life.

Recently a farce was intentionally made of the concept of civility, a farce that Rayner himself was obnoxiously dismissive of.

Certainly, the exercise was, as Rayner himself notes, "facetious". It was less an attempt to refine the conduct of the Canadian political blogosphere and more a slap in the face to the very concept of civility.

Now, in all fairness, it's important to note that the importance of civility should be imposed to nearly all of Canada's bloggers (myself here at the Nexus included).

But civility is necessary to build the kind of environment in which a participatory (strong) democracy can prosper. Strong democracy is built on the principle that all of a community's citizens are equal citizens.

It's safe to say that someone who believes he can dismiss 30% of his country's population as "retards" is not prepared to engage in a participatory democracy on the pretenses that those so-called "retards" are his equal. Equally so for someone like Rayner who consistently condones that kind of conduct.

In fact, it's safer to say that individual will do everything he can to avoid having to "dirty his hands" engaging with such people under the pretenses of equality, and will probably avoid that by making his community's political environment as toxic, discouraging and unwelcoming as possible.

A legitimate Red Tory would stand up and oppose the behaviour of individuals like this -- not act as an apologist (or, as he himself insists, "intemperate") for them.

A legitimate Red Tory may not like the ideas espoused by their fellow citizens, but is more interested in consensus building -- Barber's metaphor of building a communal menu that reflects community tastes -- rather than fostering corporatist factionalism between "interest groups" -- Barber's metaphor of fighting over whose individual tastes the communal menu will reflect.

A legitimate Red Tory should recognize that even those with whom they disagree can serve the purposes of Red Toryism. For an example we can turn to Deep Red Tory's four interrelated principles of Red Toryism:

"1. Tradition & Incrementalism: The tory philosophy is one in which society evolves gradually, remains stable but not static, and relies on tradition as a guide for the future."

Most Red Tories don't favour social conservatism. But a committed Red Tory should recognize that, even as they personally favour progressive political values, social conservatives who would otherwise be viewed as political opponents can instead serve as a "brake" on those progressive values, preventing fast-and-hard Utopian societal upheaval, and all the instability that inevitably comes with it.

"2. Organicism & the Social Fabric: Core to the red tory ideology is the belief that society is more than a sum of its parts. It was Burke who invoked the term "social fabric" as a metaphor to describe society as a collection of individuals who, when woven together like threads, produce a much stronger and grander entity."

But in order for such a "stronger and grander entity" to be created, one has to work with the parts that are available. A strong social fabric cannot be woven without all of its members. As such, even the political beliefs and ideologies with which one disagrees or one disapproves of must have a place -- most importantly, an equal place -- in that social fabric.

The idea is to create a society wherein the bonds of citizenship and mutual obligation are so strong that efforts at accommodation are actually unnecessary.

3. Ascription & Imperfection: The very essence of toryism is rooted in the Protestant belief in human imperfection, and the existence of a ‘natural hierarchy’ in society such that only the most capable should assume positions of authority. For red tories, while the social ladder exists, it is still accessible to those with lower social status, who may climb it gradually through their lifetimes and initiative, or over the course of several generations."

Even the dissent of those who disagree with the direction in which a community serves a purpose. It reminds citizens of the imperfections in their society, and serves as the impetus for the continual -- incremental -- progressive improvement of that community.

This dissent can come from the left (typically, the engine although sometimes the brake) or the right (typically vice versa).

"4. Paternalism & Noblesse Oblige: In essence, then, toryism is a belief system that combines paternalism and collectivism through the concept of ‘noblesse oblige’. In the tory view of community, one discovers a sense of mutual obligation – of duties and privileges, rights and responsibilities – such that those in positions of privilege owe concern to those of lower social and political status, while the latter owe a certain degree of deference to elites. Labeled "tory democracy", this set of values may help to explain the ebbing of red toryism in an age of declining social and political deference."

Of course, this fourth principle is a matter of some debate. There are those that argue that low taxes allow for more money left in the hands of those who earn it, allowing for more charity (although they themselves have to remember Irving Kristol's insistence that if the market wants to be predominant, then it must accept responsibility for eliminating poverty).

Of course, others argue that only the state can manage all of a community's needs, and that the unencumbered free market rarely provides for the needs of the underprivileged. This, more often than not, has turned out to be true.

The role of a Red Tory should be to build a consensus between the two -- not overwhelmingly side with one against the other, as many people seem to think Rayner has done.

The fact that Rayner would take time out of his day to respond to a half-baked admonition from a largely anonymous individual suggests in itself that he is a little conflicted about his professed beliefs.

Either he never really knew what a Red Tory is in the first place, or has simply lost his way.

One way or the other, he should actually find it harder to justify his insistence that he's a Red Tory than simply "well, Google says so". Whether or not he's capable of being honest enough with himself to realize it has yet to be seen.

All the Fun Things You Can Be On Your Own Say-So

Martin Rayner misses the point -- again -- in spectacular fashion

Speaking of people who just don't get it, here's a classic example: Martin Rayner aka "Red Tory".

Some may recall Rayner's impotent sputtering in response to a recent post here at the Nexus that insisted that Canadian Cynic and his mindless coterie of sheep aren't progressives.

Rayner's response? "You can't define what a progressive is, so you can't tell us we aren't progressives."

Well, unfortunate for mr Rayner, there are numerous ways of defining progressivism.

But the point really goes much deeper than this, and one is surprised that he just can't seem to grasp it. (No one is surprised that the demagogues over at Cynic's blog don't get it -- we've long ago realized they just aren't all that bright.)

The underlying question is: how does one justify a claim that they are part of an organization, institution or movement? By their own say-so? Or are there requirements?

For example: could one consider oneself a Jew merely by their own say so? Or do they have to possess the beliefs that characterize Judaism, live according to the philosophy of Judaism, or possess some formal relationship with a Synagogue?

It's no different than progressivism. If an individual can be demonstrated to not legitimately hold the beliefs that -- by any number of definitions -- characterize progressives, refuses to behave in a manner that characterizes a progressive philosophy, and possesses no formal relationship with the progressive movement (although the progressive movement is notably large enough that no one person could possess a formal relationship with it, unless indirectly) then that person can't call themselves a progressive.

Having accepted Mr Rayner's insistence (that one can claim to be something despite failing to meet the requirements), I've decided to indulge myself in the following things:

-I am now a citizen of Ireland. I've always wanted to be a formal citizen of Ireland. And despite the fact that I wasn't born there, and have no formal affiliation with the state of Ireland, I am now an Irish citizen. Because I said so.

-I've always thought it would be kind of cool to be a prince. Despite the fact that I wasn't born into the House of Windsor, and have never married into it, I now declare myself a member of the British Royal family. Because I said I am. Apparently, that's enough.

-I've always wanted to be part of a multi-platinum selling rock band as well. As such, I'm declaring myself to be a member of Metallica, despite the fact that I don't play any of the instruments the band uses, have never met any members of the band, never tried out, and never been formally affiliated with the band. But I'm now a member of Metallica because I say so. In Martin Rayner's dream world, this is enough.

To top it all off, I'm a member of the Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic and Green parties. I don't share the beliefs of any of these parties and haven't paid a membership fee to any of them, but I'm a member of all four. Because I say so.

Marty's dream world may not quite be the real world, but it's much more fun than the real world. Still, it's not quite reality, is it?

(This is the kind of shit that really shouldn't have to be explained to people.)