Why the Harper Conservatives are not Tories

Here's a definition from today's Slate that finally clarifies the distinction for me -- in an essay on the thought of columnist Henry Fairlie.

The characteristics of the Tory, which separate him from the conservative, may briefly be summarized: 1.) his almost passionate belief in strong central government, which has of course always been the symbolic importance to him of the monarchy; 2.) his detestation of "capitalism," of what Cardinal Newman and T.S. Eliot called "usury," of which he himself calls "trade"; and 3.) his trust in the ultimate good sense of the People, whom he capitalizes in this way, because the People are a real entity to him, beyond social and economic divisions, and whom he believes can be appealed to, and relied on, as the final repository of decency in a free nation. The King and the People, against the barons and the capitalists, is the motto of the Tory.

Smell the wafting of the fragrance of G.K. Chesterton, as I do? Chesterton, who wore a cape and carried a sword-cane just in case he might have an heroic adventure thrust upon him?

Further in this essay, we read:

[I]t is time that it was acknowledged that there are now only two choices: one can be either for strong government for the few and the rich, or for strong government for the unrich and the many. There is no longer a third way. This is what the American election this year [1976, USA] is about: not whether there should be "big government" or not—that is a false issue—but whom the "big government" should serve.

By that standard, I agree 100% (or "110%", on the hockey player's scale.) The government inherently has powers, mostly involving coercion, that trump private players. A small government in that sense -- small army, small police, small or ineffective justice system -- does not lead to a modest and unobtrusive government -- it leads to a failed state. And failed states are so ugly that almost any other format of un-failed state is preferable.

So, who do our governments serve? The bullies and userers of the private domain have mobilized their profits in part to ensure that the first of Fairlie's options holds sway. This is their nature and is to be expected. It is not to be encouraged, however. The most pragmatic reason, not involving ideals like "democracy" and "freedom", is that the more profit-driven a society, and the more disproportionate those profits to the services supplied, the less efficient, resilient and diversified the culture will be.

By Fairlie’s definition I find to my surprise that I am a pretty strong Tory. I only wish the Harperites were.

Noni Mausa