The term Red Tory has been revived in recent years by individuals such as the British philosopher
Phillip Blond, also Director of the
ResPublica think tank, to promote a radical
communitarian traditionalist conservatism. It inveighs against welfare states as well as market monopolies. Instead, it respects traditional values and institutions,
localism, devolution of powers from the central governments to local communities, small businesses, and volunteerism and favours empowering
social enterprises, charities and other elements of civil society to solve problems such as poverty.
[2]
It is also used to describe the British Labour Party post-
New Labour, particularly in Scotland
[3][4] as they campaign under the colour red, but their policies are seen by some, including supporters of the
SNP, as indistinguishable from those of the
Conservative Party.
Philosophy[edit]
Historically, Canadian conservatism has been derived from the
Tory tradition, with a distinctive concern for a balance between individual rights and collectivism, as mediated through a traditional pre-industrial standard of morality – which has never been as evident in American conservatism.
[5]
Red Toryism derives largely from a classical conservative tradition that maintained the unequal division of wealth and political privilege among social classes can be justified if members of the privileged class practiced
noblesse oblige and contributed to the common good. Red Tories supported traditional institutions such as religion and the monarchy, and maintenance of the social order. Later, this position was manifested in their support for some aspects of the
welfare state. This belief in a common good, as expanded on in Colin Campbell and
William Christian's
Political Parties and Ideologies in Canada, is at the root of Red Toryism.
Origins[edit]
In distinction to the American experience where class divisions were seen as undemocratic (although still existing), Canadian Tories adopted a more paternalistic view of government. Monarchy, public order and good government – understood as dedication to the common good – preceded, moderated and balanced an unequivocal belief in individual rights and liberty.
In Victorian times, these points were the pre-eminent strains of conservative thought in the British Empire, and were advanced by many in the Tory faction of
Sir John A. Macdonald's conservative coalition in the Canadas. None of this lineage denies that Tory traditions of communitarianism and
collectivism had existed in the British North American colonies since the Loyalist exodus from the American colonies between 1776 and 1796. It is this aspect that is one of the primary points of difference between the conservative political cultures of Canada and the United States.
[6]
The explicit notion of a "Red" Toryism was developed by
Gad Horowitz in the 1960s, who argued that there was a significant Tory ideology in Canada.
[7] This vision contrasted Canada with the United States, which was seen as lacking this collectivist tradition, as it was expunged from the American political culture after the
American Revolution and the exodus of the
United Empire Loyalists. Horowitz argued that Canada's stronger
socialist movement grew from
Toryism, and that this explains why socialism has never had much electoral success in the United States. This also meant that Canadian conceptions of liberty were more collective and communitarian, and could be seen as more directly derivative of the
English tradition, than that of American practices and theories.
Horowitz identified
George Grant and
Eugene Forsey as exemplars of this strain of thought, which saw a central role for Christianity in public affairs and was profoundly critical of capitalism and the dominant business élites. Forsey became a
Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) member, while Grant remained a Conservative – although he became disdainful of an overall shift in policy toward liberal economics and
continentalism, something Forsey saw happening decades earlier. When the Conservative government of
John Diefenbaker fell in 1963, largely due to
the BOMARC controversy, Grant wrote
Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, a book about the nature of traditional Canadian nationhood and independence that would become a
lodestar of Red Toryism. Grant defined an essential difference between the founding of the Canadian and American nations as "Canada was predicated on the rights of nations as well as on the rights of individuals."
[8] This definition recognized Canada's dual founding nature as an English-speaking, aboriginal and
Francophone nation.
The adjective "red" refers to the left-leaning nature of Red Toryism, since socialist parties have traditionally used the colour red. In Canada today, however, red is commonly associated with the centrist
Liberal Party. The term reflects the broad ideological range traditionally found within conservatism in Canada.
Predominance[edit]
The main bastions of Red Toryism were Ontario, the Atlantic provinces, and urban Manitoba, areas where the Red Tories dominated provincial politics. The
Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, which has held power in that province for most of the time since Confederation, was often labelled as Red Tory, especially under the leadership of
Bill Davisfrom 1971 to 1985.
Throughout the
Atlantic provinces, traditional Red Tories are the dominant force in the provincial Progressive Conservative parties because of their support of the welfare state.
Decline[edit]
The dominance of Red Toryism can be seen as a part of the international
post-war consensus that saw the
welfare stateembraced by the major parties of most of the western world. In the late 1970s and 1980s, the federal Progressive Conservative Party suffered a string of electoral defeats under Red Tory leaders
Robert Stanfield and
Joe Clark. Pressure began to grow within the party for a new approach. Joe Clark's leadership was successfully challenged, and in the
1983 PC leadership convention, members endorsed
Brian Mulroney who rejected free trade with the United States as proposed by another right-wing candidate,
John Crosbie. Despite this early perception, the eagerness in which Mulroney's ministry embraced the
MacDonald Commission's advocacy of bilateral free trade would come to indicate a sharp drift toward
libertarian economic policies, comparable to such contemporaries as
Ronald Reagan and
Margaret Thatcher.
Following Mulroney, the Canadian conservative movement suffered a profound schism in the
1993 election, splitting into the distinct Progressive Conservative and Reform parties. The Red Tory tradition remained loyal to the Progressive Conservatives, while many "blue" Tories aligned with
social conservatives in the
Reform Party. Various
Unite the Rightefforts achieved only modest success in the 1990s and early 2000s – most notably, while the creation of the
Canadian Alliance in 2000 attracted a small number of Progressive Conservatives, it failed to attract those in the Red Tory tradition or to replace the Progressive Conservatives.
Merger of federal parties[edit]
When first created, one of the most important issues facing the Conservative Party was what Red Tories would do. The union resulted in a number of Red Tories leaving the new party, either to retire or to defect to the
Liberal Party.
Members of Parliament (MPs)
André Bachand,
John Herron,
Joe Clark and
Scott Brison declined to join the new party – Brison immediately crossed the floor to the Liberals, Bachand and Clark sat out the remainder of the
37th Canadian Parliamentas Progressive Conservatives and then retired from office in the
2004 election, and Herron sat as a Progressive Conservative for the remainder of the term but then ran for re-election in 2004 as a Liberal.
Clark, a former Prime Minister, gave a tepid endorsement to the Liberals in the 2004 election, calling
Paul Martin "the devil we know".
[10] Rick Borotsik joined the new party, but openly criticized it from within, did not run for re-election in 2004, and also publicly endorsed the Liberals over the Conservatives during the campaign.
Additionally, three of the twenty-six Progressive Conservative
Senators,
Lowell Murray,
Norman Atkins and
William Doody, decided to continue serving as Progressive Conservatives, rejecting membership in the new party. Atkins is closely allied with the still existent
Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, and Murray, from Atlantic Canada, opposed the merger of the federal PC party. Most, like prominent Senator
Marjory LeBreton, came to endorse the new party and have been vocal and visible supporters of the party both between and during elections.
Elaine McCoy and
Nancy Ruth were later appointed to the Senate by Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, and chose to designate themselves as Progressive Conservatives. Doody has since died, and Ruth joined the Conservative Party caucus in 2006.
Despite the union, some former Progressive Conservative members still identify themselves as Red Tory, including high profile political strategist turned Senator
Hugh Segal, who in 2013 continued to self describe as a Red Tory, which has put him at increasing odds with the government on several occasions.
[11]
A 'grassroots' movement gathered signatures on the Elections Canada forms from over 200 registered members of the Progressive Conservatives, and applied to re-register as the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. This name was refused by
Elections Canada. Having anticipated such a rejection the coordinators had had the 'SignaTories' also sign a second application to at least continue with the ballot name "PC Party". On March 26, 2004, the
Progressive Canadian Party was registered with
Elections Canada. It aimed to be perceived as a continuation of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, but has only achieved very minor results.
Definition drift[edit]
For example, in the
2004 Conservative Party leadership election,
Tony Clement was sometimes referred to as a Red Tory even though he advocated privatization, tax cuts, curtailment of social and economic development spending and free trade with the United States. Traditional Red Tories would reject most, if not all, of these stances.
More recently,
Phillip Blond, director of British think tank ResPublica, has gained traction with his so-called Red Tory thesis which criticizes what he refers to as the welfare state and the market state. He has been mentioned as a major influence on the thinking of
David Cameron and other Tories in the wake of the 2008 credit crisis. He advocates a civic state as the ideal, where the common good of society is valued and solutions emerge from local communities.
[12] Blond's ideas also parallel the socioeconomic tradition of
distributism, as is evidenced by Blond's appearance at a distributist conference at
Oxford University in 2009 sponsored by the G. K. Chesterton Institute for Faith and Culture.
[13] Blond's Red Toryism has been embraced by
traditionalist conservatives in the United States, such as journalists
Rod Dreher, and economist John Medaille.
[14] The editors of the web log
Front Porch Republic, however, define Red Toryism as a "
left or
socialist conservatism" and further go on to say that it is "not a traditionalism that happened to oddly pick up a few egalitarian rhetorical tropes along the way."
[15]
Revival in provincial politics[edit]
Pink Tory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
,_1st_Baron_Belasyse_of_Worlaby_by_Gilbert_Jackson.jpg)
