1. Well, I’ve been stuck grading a huge number of papers by the overachieving Berry College students yesterday and today. We in the sticks don’t have graders, and our students actually seem to both have fun with and take very seriously their assignments.
2. So I’m just taking a break and remembered that we haven’t had a battle with our friends, the Porchers, lately. I went over to their exceedingly sophisticated and high-tech website to find some outrage. Unfortunately, nothing jumped out. I did remember that I never wrote a post on the fact that RED TORY is a genuine oxymoron. Russell Kirk, we remember, was a BOHEMIAN TORY, and that makes a lot more sense. As the Canadians have shown us, there’s no way that RED policies or even RED exaggeration of our misery under “capitalism” can support TORY “values.” At Pomona College (very liberal, sophisticated and all that [and home of the wonderful Porcher Susan McWilliams]), a student finally asked me after my outrageous remarks if it’s really true that I’m not GREEN. And my response was that’s right, and I’m not RED either. Maybe BLUE. And I added that mixing RED and GREEN might produce a result uglier than either of those colors by itself.
3. I was reminded by one student’s paper of the Porchers’ ambivalent relationship to Marx, which to some extent flows from their tendency, sometimes, to confuse Marx’s polemics with actual fair-and-balanced description.
4. I offer two quotes from a paper analyzing (with a kind of astuteness and informal directness) Marx. They are both quite unfairly ripped out of context. The first explains why the Porchers are, in one way, hostile to Marx:
“Marx claims that as the world modernizes, it becomes more and more immune to rural idiocy. The global war against laziness and ignorance is a good thing.”
5. The other expresses my (and in some way Marx’s) Porcher sympathy: “Liberal societies are mch more heartless than the middle ages in that there’s no place for the fat middle-aged man who needs a chance to start over.”
May 2nd, 2010 | 3:05 pm
As the Canadians have shown us, there’s no way that RED policies or even RED exaggeration of our misery under “capitalism” can support TORY “values.”
They did? When did they do that? And how? It seems to me that there is significant room for disagreement here, but if The Great White North really has in fact conclusively proven the complete incompatibility of the terms, consider me anxious to be enlightened.
May 2nd, 2010 | 9:21 pm
I’ll leave it others to talk in detail about Canada. But I do have to write to answer an email wondering whether I was identifying with the Blue Tories of Canada. The answer is no, I was picking a random pretty color loved especially by Catholics. The question, at least, is whether the Red Tories of Canada have succeeded in mixing paternalistic socialism with traditions of status and deference, a strong place for traditional religion in public life, close ties with the monarchy and the Tory tradition in England etc. Or is it true now, in Canada, that the most robust social and cultural conservatives don’t fit themselves in some Tory political tradition at all and often favor liberal political reforms for nonlibertarian ends? Is the Canada that George Grant imagined as a cultural alternative to American Lockeanism really around today–we’d have to begin here with his view of religion and his strong pro-life views? Or is there actually more Christian and other political resistance to Lockean extemism and bureaucratic, politically correct despotism in America? I might add that I think a number of the policy ideas of P. Blond are quite sensible English corrections to Thatcherism–even though I wouldn’t call Thatcherism brutal capitalism myself.
May 3rd, 2010 | 10:13 am
I’VE GOT SEVERAL GREAT EMAILS FROM ACTUAL CANADIANS WANTING EITHER TO REINFORCE OR QUALIFY IN IMPORTANT WAYS MY COMMENT ABOVE. HERE’S THE MOST INTERESTING AND DETAILED ONE:
I suspect you’ll be successful in stirring up some controversy on the Porch with your comments about the Red Tories. As a Canadian, I’d say that you’re mostly correct. Canada is, by and large, more successful in combining the most ruthless elements of techno-capitalist domination of nature with a truly obnoxious cult of political correctness than any other place I’ve been (and I’ve been to France).
Notwithstanding this fact, however, there are pretty important regional differences in Canada that might present a challenge to your thesis. The Maritime provinces (where I’m from) differ significantly from the rest of Canada (particularly the Ontario crowd, whom we Maritimers call “Upper Canadians), and could represent the last remnants of the Red Tory project in action. In my home province of New Brunswick, for instance, our cultural Catholicism (from the Irish and the Acadians) has proven hard to shake– to wit, even though there is a largely public health care system in NB, it doesn’t fund abortion. Perhaps the starkest example of the contrast between Maritime culture and “Upper Canadian” culture is that Henry Morgentaler (the crusading abortion “doctor” who attempted to Enlighten NB by opening an abortion clinic in the capital city of Fredericton) was awarded the Order of Canada by Upper Canadian elites, after being run out of the province by we cave-people out East. Public Roman Catholic schools, furthermore, persist: I was educated from kindergarden through my Bachelor’s degree in public, Roman Catholic institutions, with real nuns and priests, morning prayer in school, and Mass on special occasions.
Of course places like New Brunswick are well on their way to the end of history, and represent an extreme numerical minority in Canada. Certainly people like my wife and I who move to Texas for graduate school don’t help the situation, nor do the thousands of folks my age who migrate to Alberta to work high paying jobs in the tar sands. It might nevertheless be notable that some elements of Red Toryism have survived there for as long as they have. It might be even more notable that it has survived in a Catholic rather than CoE context. A better account of what makes Maritime culture unique and resistant is found in the writings of David Adams Richards, Canada’s best novelist who just so happens to be from my hometown of Miramichi (start with Mercy Among the Children, which is as good as Faulkner but legitimately Christian and not Heideggerian).
May 3rd, 2010 | 10:16 am
AND HERE’S AN EMAILED HUNCH ABOUT GEORGE GRANT THAT’S WORTH THINKING ABOUT: i’m pretty sure the red tory thing was a necessary compromise given his political context–everything had to be red, at least in name, to get taken seriously. but he wanted to emphasize the need for toryism to combat the excesses of the reds. anyway, all that is just a hunch
May 3rd, 2010 | 11:30 am
Its worth noting that George Grant (to my knowledge) did not coin the phrase “red tory” nor did he ever refer to himself as one.
Its also probably worth noting that whereas George Grant was socially conservative but fiscally opposed to pure capitalism, the term “red tory” is now used (by the Canadian media, at least), to refer to fiscal conservatives who are social liberals.
Finally, I would go significantly further than the Atlantic Texan above and say that in many respects Canada is a remarkably conservative nation. Our government is far more conservative than the current U.S. administration. And while it is true that we have universal health care (a program from a bygone era), we have had no major new social programs introduced in about 30 years. We have (more or less) run a balanced budget for 10 years. We avoided the banking crisis. Ontario (our largest province) fully funds Catholic schools (as do several other provinces.) We are pro free-trade.
Of course there are many things to complain about (and lurking dangers as well). But the point is that, in many respects, Canada is more conservative than the U.S.
May 3rd, 2010 | 12:15 pm
Pat, Thanks. Given those facts about the term “red tory,” we wonder why the porchers are grabbing on to it. Generally, it’s probably as true in Canada as here that the old Tory elite has gone socially liberal, as have their Episcopalian and Anglican churches.
May 3rd, 2010 | 1:44 pm
That comment from the Maritime Catholic was special! I had no idea. It looks like there may be places up north to flee to once the president is finished Mau-Mauing the United States.
I can see the headline now, “American Refugees flee to the Canadian Provinces, Canadians close border.”
May 3rd, 2010 | 2:46 pm
Peter,
I appreciate the commentary which your post has generated, so thanks for that. However, it seems to me that your original claim–namely 1) that the phrase “Red Tory” is a “genuine oxymoron,” and 2) that “the Canadians” (all of them?) have proved that “Red” policies and “Tory” values are incompatible (and therefore, presumably, oxymoronic)–is still hanging there, unsubstantiated. The best which can be concluded, after the couple of days worth of discussion posted here, is that the phrase isn’t oxymoronic, and therefore apparently not incompatible, but it is quite rare, and apparently becoming even rarer all the time. On this, I can’t see any FP fan of the term (of which, honestly, there’s probably only about four of us) disagreeing. Of course, the response could be that the fact of the rarity of the term’s political salience is itself a comment on its coherence…and I suppose that if your primary (or at least one of your primary) political interests is building an effective political platform for partisan action, then that response would hold a great deal of water. But still, demonstrating that something makes for a less than commanding political slogan in the midst of the triumph of globalized, absentee, democratic capitalism, is not quite the same as demonstrating that it has been proven an “oxymoron.”
May 4th, 2010 | 12:08 pm
SO HERE’S AN EMAIL SNIPPET FROM A GRAD STUDENT IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY AT THE FABULOUS PROGRAM AT BAYLOR: And we’re the choice for smart conservative Canadians. Which brings me to my real point and response to your blog post. Sure, Canada is better at conservative goals and heartfelt social policy (the latter, I suspect without evidence is not now driven not so much by Toryism but antipathy to being like the heartless United States) and probably better than any other country. But, where do these smart conservative Canadians choose to go to school? I count many Canadians among my dearest friends and I’ve learned much from them, but on some level, there’s something self-deceptive about praising Canada’s principles and policies while sitting and sweating under the Texas sun. So, I’ll be the gauche pro-American and say that I believe the United States has ways of resisting Locke superior to Canada. Canadians err in thinking that resisting the United States is the same as keeping Locke out. I REALLY LIKE THE LAST SENTENCE, COURSE.
May 4th, 2010 | 12:10 pm
So to Russell: The common sense of the matter is that Red (socialist) policies aren’t the way to get or sustain Tory (traditionalist, localist) results. (See, for example, Tocqueville.) And then we have the testimony of all the above experts. The burden of proof, I think, is on you.
May 4th, 2010 | 1:46 pm
Peter,
I realize that I regularly demonstrate my ignorance on a regular basis in my blatherings on FPR and my own blog, and I’m loathe to do it even more here–but I fear I must. Just what, in fact, has been proven here? You insist that the “common sense of the matter” is that socialist policies and traditionalist ends never fit together. I still am unaware of where you have laid out this common sense for your readers. You further point towards “the testimony of all the above experts”–testimony which, I take it, demonstrates that which you say in common sense. To be blunt…huh? The e-mail immediate above claims forthrightly that Canada does pretty well as bringing together “conservative goals and heartfelt social policy.” The author then says that it is his/her suspicion is that that accomplishment is driven more by anti-Americanism than Toryism…but then also acknowledges they have no evidence of that fact. (Seems like the sort of thing that would need to be demonstrated!) And then, interestingly, they provide as a sort-of evidence of their point the fact that…they know a lot of Canadian conservatives who have come to America to go to graduate school. Well. Do I get to count my Canadian friend from graduate school at CUA who considers himself a conservative and went back to Canada and went to work for the Ontario Health Ministry, because he couldn’t stand the lack of commonweal in the U.S.? And if I do get to count him, what, exactly, would I be counting him for?
Again, no doubt from your perspective I’m missing the obvious, but if the philosophical incompatibility of “Red” and “Tory” has been proven here (as opposed to having been shown to be rare; of that there’s no dispute), I’m not seeing it.
May 13th, 2010 | 4:03 am
“As the Canadians have shown us, blah blah blah RED blah RED blah blah. At Pomona College blah blah blah GREEN. blah blah RED blah BLUE. And I added that mixing RED and GREEN might produce a result uglier than either of those colors by itself.”
Do/can post-modernists understand the problem of mistaking the map for the territory?
June 17th, 2010 | 11:02 pm
[...] Red Tory ideology that is actually a kind of simplistic mirror image of that which Peter Lawler has regularly advanced on the Postmodern Conservative blog: that Red Toryism is just a weird, incoherent longing by [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact