From Joseph Mitchell to Rob Ford to Herman Cain. They Just Don't Get It.

The Canadian Manifesto: How the American Neoconservatives Stole My Country

In 1960, the city council of Newburgh, New York, looking to clean up the slums created by migrant workers, who made the area a permanent home, hired Joseph McDowell Mitchell as City Manager.  Mitchell had earned a reputation as a hard nose "fixer" and he immediately ordered a survey of their relief program.  Thirty borderline cases were cut off and the food relief allotment reduced, to help pay for snow removal.

Then concluding that the city was too generous to the terminally lazy, Mitchell drafted thirteen measures in an attempt to not only limit welfare expenditures, but also drive the mostly black unemployed out of town.

They included a three-month limitation on relief payments, except for the physically handicapped and the aged; unmarried mothers who bore any more illegitimate children would be cut off from assistance; whenever possible, food and rent vouchers would be issued instead of cash; able-bodied males on relief would have to work 40 hours each week for the city building-maintenance department and newcomers who settled in Newburgh without specific job offers would be limited to one week of relief payments. (1)

However, the State Board of Social Welfare, which reimbursed Newburgh for 33% of its relief costs, concluded that at least two provisions—the three-month cutoff, and the discrimination against unwed mothers—violated both state and federal standards.

When the national media picked up the story, alerted by Mitchell himself (2), there was overwhelming support for his program, and the more that the media denounced Mitchell, the stronger the support.  He made it OK to hate poor people.

Encouraged, Newburgh's rising star, began grandstanding, challenging the State's position and making life even more miserable for those barely living.  In one publicity stunt, he sent letters to all welfare recipients stating "Your welfare check is being held for you at the police department.  Please report to the police department and pick up your check there."  A reporter from the local newspaper described the scene:

At 2:15 P.M. yesterday there were approximately 60 persons standing in a Y-shaped line at police headquarters waiting for their [welfare] checks. They were interrogated in a small, drab back room which ordinarily serves as a communications center and fingerprinting room. Each applicant was asked to produce proper identification. They were questioned about their marital status, the number of their dependents, their address, and when they last worked. (2)

In other words, they were treated like common criminals.  The Republicans took notice, including Barry Goldwater, who sent Mitchell a personal note, applauding the Newburgh program "as refreshing as the clear air of Arizona ... I would like to see every city adopt the plan. I don't like to see my taxes paid for children born out of wedlock." (1)

Thirty years later conservatives were still extolling Mitchell, despite the fact that he would eventually lose his job, not for his Draconian welfare clean up, but for taking bribes.

According to Sam Roberts in a 1992 piece for the New York Times:

When Mr. Mitchell was driven into political oblivion from his job as City Manager of Newburgh, N.Y., leaders of the welfare-rights movement heaved a collective sigh of relief. Fully 30 years later, though, he haunts the national welfare debate that he briefly dominated ... What is so striking about the 13 welfare regulations he sought to impose three decades ago is not how Draconian they seem in retrospect, but how many of them have been adopted, proposed or rationally discussed in recent months by Republicans and even than a few Democrats.

Before Mr. Mitchell's regulations were voided by the State Supreme Court in 1962, they transformed Newburgh from an obscure Hudson River city of 31,000 into a national symbol of revolt against Federally mandated welfare programs, benefits that critics maintained redistributed wealth from productive taxpayers to an expanding and parasitic dependent class. (4)

What Mitchell's crusade accomplished  was the idea that "it is a suckers game to spend one's money on the weak element in society."

The evidence displayed during the Newburgh controversy that many good Americans who contribute regularly to their Community Chest, donate their clothing to flood victims, and sponsor Christmas parties for orphans scorn those on relief shocked many welfare officials secure in their semi- private world of forms and statistics. A large segment of the public despises, even hates the poor. (2)

And neoconservatives have been exploiting this hatred for decades.  Mike Harris built it into his platform in Ontario, secure in the belief that his overhaul of the welfare system could proceed with little public opposition.  In fact, like Mitchell, he had many fans, and the more the progressives complained, the stronger the support for the Harris government.

When FDR implemented the New Deal, critics claimed that people didn't want to work, and relief payments would only exacerbate unemployment.  He proved them wrong.  In Ontario, many people on welfare voted for Harris because they thought that his tough stand meant that he would find them the jobs they were unable to get on their own.  What they found instead, was that they were cut off if they were able to work, despite the fact that the unemployment rate hindered their ability to work, in the same way that a physical handicap might.

When Harris was asked about the rise in the use of foodbanks, he shrugged and said that it was a good organization, and that he and his wife had just dropped off a bag of groceries.

When his government released a monthly food plan for those whose benefits had been slashed, Harris justified it by saying that he knew what it was like to live on beans and tuna.  His embarrassed parents told the press that Mikey's silver spoon had never so much as touched a bean.

The cartoon at the top of the page is from a 1944 book by B.A. Trestail: Stand Up and Be Counted, written to discredit the CCF (now the NDP) and State Socialism.  It was hyperbolic, but written at the time when the conservative movement was getting started, and the doctrine of individual responsibility, was being chiseled into their stone tablet.

And yet it is not unlike ads being used by neoconservatives today.

Republican presidential hopeful, Herman Cain, when speaking of the Occupy Wall Street movement, suggests that if people would just work harder, they too could be among the top 1%.

If all it took was hard work; labourers, teachers, nurses, food service workers, construction workers, bricklayers, police officers, fire fighters, social workers, paramedics, bus drivers, truck drivers,  et al, would all be billionaires!

Rob Ford's father was in Mike Harris's caucus, and his son has developed a similar attitude, as mayor of Toronto.  Currently, he is threatening to gut union contracts, even training managers to operate heavy equipment.  Joseph Mitchell may have tested our commitment to social justice, but Ford's initiative could backfire, if it means that traffic in Toronto is brought to a standstill, or garbage lines the streets.  People like Don Cherry may say "I love what yous guys 'r doin'", but others may take a different view.

A report released in the United States, shows that 45 million U.S. citizens are now on food stamps and 1 in 15 Americans are living well below the poverty line.  And there is not only a growing gap between rich and poor, but also between young and old.  There is little out there for people graduating from college or university.

Does Cain really believe that they just need to work a little harder? And how will this impact future generations?  Socialism may not be the enemy of capitalism.  Capitalism will kill itself, if this is the best it can do for those living under it.

B.A. Trestail used cartoons to get his message across in several pamphlets and books, so maybe we need to develop neocon cartoons and joke books.  They provide so much good material.  Their bumper sticker slogans have not changed in more than half a century, so we just need to tweak a few classics.

Like the neoconservative who was undergoing surgery, and worried about the lasting affects of the anaesthetic.  He asked his doctor: "How long after I take this will I be able to think clearly and intelligently?", to which the doctor replied: "I think you are expecting too much of the anaesthetic."

Sources:

1. New York: The Welfare City, Time Magazine, July 28, 1961

2. The Despised Poor: Newburgh's War on Welfare, By Joseph P. Ritz, Beacon Press, 1966

3. Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, By Rick Perlstein, Nation Books, 2001, ISBN: 0-8090-2858-1, p. 131-133

4. METRO MATTERS; Spirit of Newburgh Past Haunts Political Present, By Sam Roberts, The New York Times, March 09, 1992

Adam Smith and the State-Corporate Complex

The Canadian Manifesto: How the American Neoconservatives Stole My Country

In a videotaped address to the crowd at the Fraser Institute's 30th-anniversary celebration, Stephen Harper showed off his $45 Fraser Institute silk Adam Smith tie, and confirmed he was a big fan of the institute.  In fact, he is such a fan, that he often plucks staff and candidates directly from the conservative think-tank.

The Fraser also had reason to show their appreciation to the prime minister.  Buried in his first budget, was a provision to exempt tax donations of stock to charity, from capital gains. (1)  Believe it or not, the Fraser is a registered charity, as are most of the think-tanks and Astro turf groups working in the shadows of the Conservative Movement.  This new exemption means that the donor pays only 40 percent of the dollars they donate. Taxpayers pick up the rest.

Wall Street uses the same tactics when negotiating salaries for their executives, keeping below any board restrictions, by offering stock instead of salary as part of their remuneration.

The father of modern economics and capitalism, Adam Smith is the patron saint of neoconservatives and his Wealth of Nations, the Bible for the "religion of market knows best".

The Sovereignty of the Consumer

Adam Smith (1723-1790) created the philosophy of the sovereignty of the consumer, believing that the butcher and baker needed no central planning to engage in commerce, since consumers set the price.  In many ways that is true, however, many of the government regulations that are anathema to neoconservatives, came about because the business world sought the government's help in protecting their investments.

Trade marks, copyrights, grants for expansion or research, employee training.  All paid for from the public purse.  Other things like public education and healthcare, also benefit companies by providing an intelligent and healthy labour force.

A perfect example of this, though there are many, is the case of Knott's Berry Farm.

In 1932, the Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Plant Industry, received a letter reporting a rumor of a new berry being developed by a Mr. Boysen of Orange County, California.  Using taxpayer money, representatives of the Department of Agriculture, made their way to California, to investigate the possibility of a new product for their growers.

They met with Mr. Rudolph Boysen, then working as a park superintendent in Anaheim, who confirmed that he had indeed been experimenting with a hybrid: the cross between a raspberry, loganberry and blackberry, but was having difficulty with the cultivation.

Intrigued, Walter Knott, whose family sold berries, berry preserves and pies from a roadside stand, asked if he could tag along, when the men made the visit to Boysen's farm.  The abandoned vines were found in the weeds, and since Boysen no longer had any interest in the pursuit, he gave Knott permission to try to cultivate the berry for profit.  He did, made a fortune, and opened his Knott's Berry Farm theme park, which had it not been for the taxpayer funded Department of Agriculture, would have never existed.

Yet Knott added a "Freedom Center" to the grounds, where a former college president and a former minister, toiled full-time spreading the free-market gospel. Knott called it the "One Man's Crusade for Everybody's Freedom." (2) He became a staunch supporter of Barry Goldwater, who was preaching a similar sermon.

Goldwater, the multi-millionaire, who also reaped benefits from taxpayer funded programs, that helped to develop Arizona, and provide consumers for his family's department store chain.

They just don't get it.  "Self -made" men and women, rarely succeed without the "invisible hand" of government and taxpayers.

Actors like Michael Cain and Bruce Willis, are now bemoaning the amount of income tax they pay on their enormous salaries.  But would they get those kind of movie deals without taxpayers protecting them against pirating?  What if there were no government regulations in place, that forbid us from simply copying the film and selling it at a roadside stand?

Consumers determine the price but "big government" tells consumers where they can purchase their ticket or video of the movie.

Masters of Mankind

Did you ever wonder why headlines of a weak economy, run concurrently with headlines of strong profits, often "record profits"?  High unemployment and "record profits"?  Runaway deficit and "record profits"?

It is part of Adam Smith's warning against "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind".  In his day they were the  "merchants and manufacturers," who were the "principal architects" of state policy, using their power to bring "dreadful misfortunes" to the vast realms they subjugated.

Smith was then referring to imperialism and colonialism, especially in India, but today those being subjugated are the 99% of taxpayers propping up the fortunes of the top 1%.  The neoconservatives love to refer to Western nations an "nanny states" because of "generous" social programs, but the current nanny state rocks the cradles of the corporate elite.  Our growth is being stunted because corporations are getting all of the nourishment.

Noam Chomsky refers to this as the state-corporate complex and he says:  "Today the masters of mankind are multinational corporations and financial institutions, but the lesson still applies and it helps explain why the state-corporate complex is indeed a threat to freedom"  (3) and in fact threaten our very survival by not allowing governments to fight against climate change because it could affect their profits.  Even war is now a form of corporate welfare, as it has become so profitable that the corporate sector will never allow peace, especially in the Middle East. 

The most recent economic crisis that has allowed governments to table "austerity" budgets, was created by the state-corporate complex.  The crash was the result of deregulation that allowed Wall Street to gamble with our financial future, yet when the whole thing came tumbling down, the perpetrators were rewarded with taxpayer funded bailouts, while the victims of the crime continue to suffer.

Expect policy to be even further geared toward helping the wealthiest citizens.  On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government may not ban corporations from political spending on elections.  The New York Times said that the ruling “strikes at the heart of democracy” by having “paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.”

It wasn't enough that corporate executives and lobbyists had been moved into the halls of power.  They can now legally buy politicians.

In 2004, in a Supreme Court case fittingly named Harper vs Canada, Stephen Harper challenged the restrictions on third party advertising.  In fact, in 1993, the National Citizens Coalition donated $50,000 to his campaign in Calgary West, on a promise that he would put an end to what they called "gag laws". (4)

The first step toward that accomplishment since being named prime minister, was ending the voter subsidies.  These were put in place by Jean Chretien, to replace corporate donations, making for a fairer system.  It meant less than $2.00 being given to the party of your choice, as reward for upholding our democracy by getting out to vote.

We can expect this term, Harper will make sure that corporations can again buy political favours, and given that the NDP will have trouble getting corporate sponsorship, it will be attempt to create a one-party system.  Another reason why we must rebuild the middle.

The Sovereignty of the Nation

The Fraser Institute is not the only conservative think-tank espousing the theories of Adam Smith.  Many others share the adoration, forgetting that Smith also claimed that "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

One of those think tanks is the Montreal Institute, once headed up by Conservative MP Maxime Bernier.  In a speech he gave just before stepping down to run for the Conservative Party of Canada (Reform-Alliance), he said that "Individual sovereignty is what is important – not sovereignty of the state. Indeed, the sovereign state is, by its very nature, a steam-roller of the individual ... " (5)

And from the Globe and Mail in 2006:

... since being named to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet in February, the rookie 43-year-old MP from Quebec's rural Beauce riding has demonstrated a stern resolve to get government out of the way of business. It is a perhaps an unusual stance for an industry minister.  The holder of that post is commonly seen as the champion of government programs aimed at helping Canadian companies compete with global titans and foster innovation at home. (6)

He would also ask of the interviewer, who expressed concern with foreign takeovers of Canadian companies, especially in the area of telecommunications:  "With economic globalization, is nationality important?", and claimed  "That is the question I'm asking myself now regarding telecommunications."

Stephen Harper shares Bernier's beliefs.  At the G-20 summit in Canada, he claimed that there was no longer any such thing as a Canadian economy, only a global economy. And yet during the last election campaign he said that all party leaders should be focusing on the Canadian economy, and suggested that he alone could preserve it.  In other words, he is the best to handle something that he himself claims not to exist.

At the same summit, when speaking of surrendering our economy to global interests, he said "I know some people don't like it.  It is a loss of national sovereignty."

David Ricardo (1772-1823), another leading founder of modern economics, worried about loss of sovereignty in a global market, hoping that “men of property [would] be satisfied with the low rate of profits in their own country rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations. These are feelings that I would be sorry to see weakened.”  Even Adam Smith said that "if business turned abroad, England would suffer."

Politicians and captains of interest are losing their commitment to their own countries, in their bid to maximise profits.  They will do nothing to address climate change, despite the fact that it will have a devastating impact on their own children and grandchildren.  They are not stupid, but instead have allowed greed to come before anything and everything else.

Sources:

1.  Harperstein, By Donald Gutstein, Straight.com, July 6, 2006

2. Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, By Rick Perlstein, Nation Books, 2001, ISBN: 0-8090-2858-1, p. 127-128

3. The State-Corporate Complex: A Threat to Freedom and Survival, Noam Chomsky, Text of lecture given at the University of Toronto, April 7, 2011

4. Loyal to the Core: Stephen Harper Me and the NCC, By: Gerry Nicholls, Freedom Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-9732757-8-0

5.  The Growth of Government in the 20th Century and the importance of debating ideas, By Maxime Bernier, Bishop’s University, December 3, 2005

6. How Far Will This Free Marketeer Go:  Telecom sector is Bernier's next target for reform? By Konrad Yakabuski, Globe and Mail, September 26, 2006

Chapter Six: Charles Manion and Political Realignment

The Canadian Manifesto: How the American Neoconservatives Stole My Country

Many political scientists use the term "political realignment" to describe a single election with a major upset.

However, in the context of a political movement, it is something much bigger.  The term means a calculated attempt to realign political parties, to change the ethos of an entire nation.

In the case of the United States, the idea was that instead of moderate Republicans and right-wing Democrats, all moderates would belong to the "liberal" class and all right-wing would be "conservative".

There would be no middle, only two clear choices: right or left.

But to accomplish  this would take time and a lot of political turmoil.

To Party or Not to Party

Clarence E. Manion was one of the men committed to reshaping American politics, to fight FDR's New Deal and what he saw as a communist threat.  Originally a Democrat from Kentucky, he worried that FDR was establishing such a large government, with so many tenets, that it would be easily taken over by the Soviets, with all the necessary offices already in place.

While still a Democrat, he campaigned for Dwight D. Eisenhower, bringing many fellow Democrats into the Eisenhower camp.  He expected to be rewarded with a major cabinet position, but instead was named chairman of President Eisenhower's Commission on Intergovernmental (federal-state) Relations, a job he took very seriously.

During the war he had been a leader of the America First Committee that had agitated against U.S. involvement in the conflict.  " You didn't pay your taxes so that Washington could fight England's quarrels" (1).  Now in his position as an authority in federal-state relations, he would be the prime advocate for the Bricker Amendment (John Bricker R-Ohio), that sought to limit the powers of the President.

Manion believed in the proposed amendment in its purest form, with the requirement of a referendum in all forty-eight states before any treaty could go into effect.  Of concern was the United Nations' Genocide Convention, which conservatives feared "would allow Communist countries to punish the United States for segregation, or the pending treaty to establish a UN World Court, which they feared the Communists would use to shut down every line of resistance against them" (2).

Eisenhower would say that the Bricker Amendment was the biggest threat he faced during his presidency, and with Manion boasting "that he has spoken for the Bricker amendment in all the 48 states" (3), on his return he was promptly fired.  Something many felt that Eisenhower should have done long before.

But Manion supporters saw things differently.  The Fort Wayne Sentinel suggested that: "President Eisenhower finally yielded to the insistent clamor of a vicious internationalist cabal, spearheaded by the New York Times and the Henry Luce Time-Life smear brigade ... "   In a television interview immediately after, Manion said: "Some of the left-wing Communists, who have had an unfortunate effectiveness in this administration,  served notice on me that I would be fired because of my advocacy of the Bricker Amendment." (2)

However, he saw this not as the end but as the beginning.  Without the constraints of the establishment he could now work "to break the Wall Street boys' hammerlock on the Democrats and the Republicans once and for all".

He decided that what was needed was a new party, and came up with a plan.  First he created yet another group:  "For America" which was co-chaired by himself and and another arch anti-communist, General Robert E. Wood.  Its manifesto promised to fight for an "enlightened nationalism" to replace "our costly, imperialistic foreign policy of tragic super-interventionism and policing this world single-handed with American blood and treasure." (4)

They met with several senators, including John Bricker and Barry Goldwater, and even solicited the support of Vice President Nixon, hoping to establish a "conclave of  25 to 50 leading Republicans and Democrats to discuss the whole idea of realignment off the record." (5)

In the meantime, Manion laid the groundwork with a weekly radio broadcast, The Manion Forum, where he warned.  "The leftwing, please remember, is strong, well-organized and well-financed. Many gigantic fortunes, built by virtue of private enterprise under the Constitution, have fallen under the direction of Internationalists, One-Worlders, Socialists and Communists. Much of this vast horde of money is being used to 'socialize' the United States."

Manion also came up with an idea for launching a new party of like-minded "conservatives", before the next election.  For America would present a controversial leader at both the Republican and Democrat national conventions, ones he was sure that the delegates would reject.  He could then convince supporters of both, to choose one, and that candidate would run for the new party.

As a Republican he chose Orval Faubus, Governor of Arkansas, who is best remembered for his 1957 stand against the desegregation of Little Rock public schools during the infamous Little Rock Crisis.  Challenging for the nod from the Democrats, would be General Wood himself.

The idea never got off the ground.  The most that For America could raise was $1,667, not nearly enough for their grandiose plan.

Clarence "Pat" Manion never gave up.  He became a member of the John Birch Society, who helped to select Barry Goldwater as a presidential candidate, was on the advisory board of the American Enterprise Institute and was instrumental in the creation of Young Americans for Freedom.

Meanwhile North of the Border

Canada was not immune to the anti-communist sentiment, and at the same time that Manion was trying to realign American politics, there was a similar movement afoot here.  According to Alberta's long-serving Social Credit MPP, Alf Hooke.

On at least two occasions Mr. Manning told me in his office that he had been approached by several very influential and wealthy Canadians and that they wanted him to head up a party of the right with a view to preventing the onslaught of socialism these men could see developing in Canada. They had apparently indicated to him that money was no object and they were prepared to spend any amount of money to stop the socialistic tide ... Mr. Manning indicated to me also that he was working on a book which he would hope to publish ... in which he would endeavour to outline the views these men represented and recommendations he would make in keeping with their views. (6)

It would appear that most of the money would come from the oil patch, not unlike the money that went into Movement Conservatism in the U.S. 

The book that Mr. Hooke alluded was Political Realignment.  In it Manning laments that the lines had been erased that once separated Conservatives and Liberals, in much the same way that Manion bemoaned the "moderate Republicans" and "right-wing Democrats".

Manning called for a realignment, similar to the one proposed by his American counterpart, nixing the idea of another federal party. 

In the case of Canada's two traditional parties, a number of factors have caused the policies and actions of both to become increasingly divorced from philosophical foundations. The distinctions between the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties are rapidly being reduced to the superficial distinctions of party image, party labels, and party personalities. Many Canadians are convinced, rightly or wrongly, that "there is no real difference between them". The citizen who wishes to cast his ballot on the basis of principles clearly defined and embodied in practical policy finds himself virtually disenfranchised. The fact that voters are thus denied the opportunity to choose between meaningful alternatives relative to the management of their public affairs, represents a serious restriction on the effective exercise of political freedom. (7)

When John Diefenbaker was in office, he was approached by Social Credit, with an interest in a merger.  Diefenbaker toyed with the idea until a member of his caucus, Jim MacDonnell, whose father was a friend of Sir John A.'s; exclaimed that MacDonald  "would now turn over in his grave!" (9)

Manning tried again in 1967 at the PC leadership convention, but Robert Stanfield, a Red Tory, won, and again he was rebuffed.  Instead he had his SC colleague Robert N. Thompson run for the PCs, hoping he could exact some change from within, but while Thompson won his seat, he did little else for the cause.

Manning would have to wait it out.

A Realignment of Another Sort

One issue pressing Ernest Manning was the rise of the CCF under the capable leadership of Tommy Douglas.  Douglas embodied everything that movement conservatives feared, but worse, Douglas was not a "Godless communist" but an evangelical socialist.

And the CCF was going through their own realignment.  Pairing up with the Canadian Labour Congress, they formed the New Democrat Party (NDP), with their own agenda.  According to Nelson Wiseman, the sentiment for a new political alignment was common among those on the fringe of the CCF, but was now more realistic.

Suddenly there was a great deal of enthusiasm for a "formal political realignment".

...the aftermath of the federal Conservative victory of 1958 was an opportunity for Canada's socialists to achieve major party status. A social democratic party, in this view, would gain at the expense of one of the older parties, as had occurred earlier in the century in Britain. "If there is any logic in Canadian affairs ... now is the time when there should be a good chance for a third party to slip in and take the place formerly occupied by the Liberals against the older Conservatives." (9)

After the results of the most recent federal election were announced, Paul Wells reminded Canadians of a piece he had written soon after Stephen Harper was named prime minister, in 2006.  "  ... the contours of the emerging parliamentary battlefield became clearer. It quickly became almost as interesting to watch the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois as to watch the two larger parties. Something big is afoot." (10)

He suspected then that Harper and Jack Layton had teamed up to destroy the Liberals.  Later it was revealed that they had actually formed a coalition in 2004, to take down Paul Martin at the throne speech, as confirmed by a letter released to the public by Gilles Duceppe, who was part of the team. (11)

This should not have been a surprise to anyone, since it was the realization of  two plans, set in motion a half century ago.

What we need now is re-realignment, because this one clearly isn't working.  As promised, when Harper bought out the rights to the federal PC party, he purged the moderates.

"Red Tories must be jettisoned from the party", he said, "and alliances forged with ethnic and immigrant communities who currently vote Liberal but espouse traditional family values. This was the successful strategy counselled by the neocons under Ronald Reagan to pull conservative Democrats into the Republican tent."13)

Just as the middle class is being erased, so to is a place for centrists like myself.  I don't want to choose right or left.  It makes for polarized politics.  We need to pull in all moderates from both the NDP and Liberals, to present a challenge to Harper's American style conservatism.

Whether that's a new party or just a new direction for existing parties, I don't care.  We need to rebuild the middle, which was not "mushy" but served our country well.  A party that can work with big business, not against it, but demand that they play by our rules.

And we need to do it soon.

Sources:

1. Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, By Rick Perlstein, Nation Books, 2001, ISBN: 0-8090-2858-1, p. 4

2. Perlstein, 2001, p. 9-10

3. National Affairs: The Gold-Bricker, Time Magazine, February 08, 1954

4. Perlstein, 2001, p. 11

5. ibid

6. 30+5 I know, I was There, A first-hand account of the workings and history of the Social Credit Government in Alberta, Canada 1935-68, by Alfred J Hooke, Douglas Social Credit Secretariat, Chapter 19

7. Political Realignment: Challenge to Thoughtful Canadians, By Ernest Manning, McLelland and Stewart, 1967, 226195, p. 11

8. One Canada: Memoirs of the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, 1956 to 1962, By John G' Diefenbaker, the MacMillan Company of Canada, ISBN: 0-7705-1443-X, p. 3-4

9. Social democracy in Manitoba: a history of the CCF-NDP, By Nelson Wiseman, University of Manitoba Press, 1985, ISBN: 978-0-8875-5615-9, p. 90

10. From the archive: The secret plot to destroy the Liberals, By Paul Wells, Macleans, May 5, 2011

11. Harper's coalition attacks come back to haunt him, By: Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star, March 27, 2011

12. Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy:  Close advisers schooled in 'the noble lie' and 'regime change.', By Donald Gutstein, The Tyee, November 29, 2005

Chapter Eleven: "We as Young Conservatives Believe ...."

The Canadian Manifesto: How the American Neoconservatives Stole My Country

When William F. Buckley Jr. began his education at the very conservative Yale University, he ruffled more than a few feathers. He began by taking on the school's hierarchy, challenging school policy. Not because it was then a place of injustice - no blacks or women allowed, but because he feared a growing liberal presence, that threatened his natural place in society.

This was not the first incident of this kind for the young Buckley. While attending Millbrook School, an exclusive private institute in New York, he appeared uninvited at a faculty meeting to complain about his teachers' politics, which he believed were too liberal.

Maybe he missed the school's motto before enrolling - Non Sibi Sed Cunctis, which is Latin for "Not for Ones Self but for All", a view he would continue to challenge throughout his life.

The Crusade for Christianity and Capitalism, Not Necessarily in That Order

William Buckley's father, William Frank Sr., was a Texas oil tycoon, who had holdings in many other countries, including Canada. His son's anti-communist leanings came directly from him, which were cemented by his experience as an oil baron in Mexico.

In 1913, military leader Victoriano Huerta, overthrew the democratically elected government of Francisco Madero. Buckley kept out of the conflict, since it had not changed how he conducted his business. However, when Pancho Villa took the field against Huerta, and threatened to expropriate foreign oil holdings, Buckley began to pay attention, and despite the fact that his own country's president, Woodrow Wilson, took the side of Villa's rebels, sending in troops to assist them, Buckley remained loyal to Huerta.

When the rebels successfully ousted Huerta, Buckley funded coups against the new government, aided fleeing priests, and lobbied Washington to intervene against the revolutionaries. In 1921, when one of his agents was caught smuggling guns into Mexico to aid anti-government forces, Buckley was kicked out of the country and his properties were confiscated. (1)

This experience indelibly shaped his worldview, seeing the Mexican revolutionaries as part of a worldwide Bolshevik takeover, and himself as a crusader, fighting a worldwide movement that was against capitalism and Christianity. In foreign affairs, he did not support his country's idea of making the world safe for democracy, but felt that authoritarianism was the best way to keep the masses in line.

He was a member of Charles Manion's America First Committee that had agitated against U.S. involvement in European wars, preferring to take sides in smaller conflicts, that would ensure U.S. control of natural resources, thus keeping communism in check.

During the Spanish Civil War, he enthusiastically backed the dictatorship of  Catholic Francisco Franco, and during WWII, wanted the United States to stand aside and allow Hitler to defeat the Soviet Union, which, according to a visitor to the Buckley home, he saw as "an infinitely greater threat than Nazi Germany." (2)

The Creation of a Philosophical Anarchist

The Buckley children were home-schooled, where they were instructed in the fine arts, and indoctrinated into the religion of the free market.

A regular guest in the Buckley home was the philosopher, Albert Jay Nock, who had created the theory of a Remnant Society. The Remnant, according to Nock, consisted of a small minority who understood the nature of the state and society, and "who would become influential only after the current dangerous course had become thoroughly and obviously untenable", a situation which might not occur until far into the future.

This small minority, of course, was the country's elite, and the "current dangerous course", FDR's New Deal and the "state" as a creature of the "mass-man". In his book, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, Nock claimed that only a few members of society were capable of being properly educated, seeing it as a fact of nature, "like the fact that few are six feet tall" and that "there are practicable ranges of intellectual and spiritual experience which nature has opened to some and closed to others"

The very tall Buckley (well over six feet) admitted that Superfluous Man, was his favourite book, I suppose because it validated his sense of superiority. He was one of the Remnants, a "Nockian counter-revolutionary remnant", who must spend his life fighting a "global contest between Christian individualism and atheistic communism". (1)

In his day, Nock (d. 1945), realized that his thinking would not be accepted by society, and referred to himself as a Philosophical Anarchist.

Buckley, while a gifted writer, was never really a deep thinker. His views were written in stone, and his pedantry, allowed him to effectively challenge those with conflicting ideas. Many liberal intellectuals, drew him into debate, only to find themselves reduced to rubble.

In his book, God and Man at Yale, Buckley debunked "academic freedom" as a screen behind which the faculty was indoctrinating gullible students in liberalism and atheism. He even named the offending professors and exposed what he "supposed to be their brainwashing techniques". "As a believer in God, a Republican, and a Yale graduate," wrote McGeorge Bundy, one of the targeted profs, "I find that the book is dishonest in its use of facts, false in its theory, and a discredit to its author." (3) However, the arguments failed to prevent it from becoming a best seller. In fact, they may have helped to make it so.

Bright Young People With Stars in Their Eyes

During the 1960 Republican convention, a large group of noisy young people, created quite a sensation. Calling themselves Youth for Goldwater, they attempted to take over the Republican leadership and turn the Party into a strict conservative body. Barry Goldwater was their chosen leader, because of his staunch anti-communist, anti-Civil Rights Movement, pro-military and pro-business, views.

However, Goldwater claimed that he wasn't ready, so instead Richard Nixon was given the nod. Nixon of course, lost to a young senator from Massachusetts, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Though they had been defeated in battle, the war had just begun, as a well known conservative activist, Marvin Liebman, recruited the young soldiers for a new kind of army.

Liebman's firm, Marvin Liebman Associates, Inc., provided organizational, fundraising and public relations expertise to the anti-communist and conservative movements, so he worked his magic, becoming a father figure to the young radicals. A meeting was scheduled for September 9, 1960, at William Buckley's Sharon Connecticut estate - Great Elm.

"Let's go for September 9 at Great Elm, in Sharon, Connecticut. That's the Buckleys'—Bill Buckley's—family home, plenty of room." The word went out, and a month and a half after the convention, as summer lingered in New England, a hundred young people gathered at Great Elm, where, over three days, they would lay the foundation of Young Americans for Freedom. (4)

The location was not without its symbolism. Buckley's father, William Sr. chose an area, where as a Conservative Catholic Texan, he would be surrounded by liberal protestant Easterners. They would have to take notice. He no doubt used the same logic when choosing the progressive Millbrook School in New York, for young Will, who immediately took on the establishment.

So while most young people were pushing for equality, an end to nuclear armament and the military-industrial complex; this group of 100 met to push for the exact opposite.

"They're politically minded, some of them active in state and national organizations upholding loyalty oaths, campaigning for the right to work without joining a union, supporting investigating committees in the tradition of Senator McCarthy. "What's special about them," Marvin [Liebman] continued, "is how they feel the call of a mission where Communism is concerned." (5)And they were of the the right sort. "These kids—grown kids; they're in their late teens and twenties—have names like Adams and Baker." (5)

The meeting resulted in the creation of The Sharon Statement comprised of a series of clauses, introduced by the words, "We, as young conservatives believe..."

They could have just as easily been led by the words, "We, as young conservatives don't accept...", because they were against almost everything. Eisenhower, nuclear disarmament, the censor of Joseph McCarthy, the Welfare State, unions, Civil Rights, liberals .... all on the YAF "hit list".

But they did adopt three basic principles: the acknowledgement of God, states' rights (segregation), and the sovereignty of the free market.

On March 16, 1962; Time magazine covered YAF's first major rally at Madison Square Garden. One reader commented the following week: "I attended the Young Americans for Freedom rally at Madison Square Garden and was duly impressed with the rousing example of patriotism. I was a Republican, but am now a confirmed conservative. Perhaps a new political party is what this country needs." WILLIAM H. WISDOM Cherry Hill, N.J. (6)

But another reader was not as impressed with the attacks on the New deal and the Welfare State, and their trumpeted war cries: "Why it should surprise anyone that the bulk of ultraconservatives are under 30 puzzles me. Why not? They missed the Depression, so can't understand the desperation that led to social-welfare bills. Never having been hungry and without work, they can't understand why they should have to pay to help those who are. They missed World War II and Korea, and seem to think that war is some grand chess game. They've lived so long in the soothing syrup of security of job and home that they can't tolerate the insecurity of the cold war. I'd rather be dead than Red, too, but first I'd like a chance to fight the battle without bombs." SHIRLEY PUDAS Charlotte, N.C (7)

Since then, according to a new book - A Generation Awakes: Young Americans for Freedom and the Creation of the Conservative Movement, by former YAF leader Wayne Thorburn: "hundreds of thousands of young conservatives have passed through YAF on their way to becoming conservative leaders -- among them a Vice President of the United States, 26 members of Congress, eight U.S. Circuit Court Judges, numerous media personalities and journalists, college presidents and professors, authors, and leaders of every kind of conservative and libertarian organization in America."

The vice-president was Dan Quayle.

Other important alumni, include, David Keene, President of the National Rifle Association; Michelle Easton, Founder and President of Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute; which is promoted by Ezra Levant, Geert Wilders and Sun TV; Christopher Long, now President of the paleoconservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute, begun by Buckley Jr. in 1953; and Richard Viguerie, pioneer of direct mail political fundraising.  They have also helped many Republicans get elected, including Ronald Reagan.

The Republican Party Destroyed

When William F. Buckley Jr. got off his plane in July of 1964, to attend the Republican National Convention in San Francisco, he was greeted by a large contingent of YAF members, detonating confetti bombs and singing "Won't You Come Home Bill Buckley". (8)

Since their formation, four years before, Young Americans for Freedom had grown, and young people dressed like Bill Buckley was a common sight on college and university campuses. He was their hero.

And while they cheered and hooted for Buckley's arrival, a different scene played out for Dwight D. Eisenhower. There Yafers showed their support for Barry Goldwater, holding up signs and chanting "We want Barry", letting the former president know that his support for Goldwater's rival, William Scranton, would not be appreciated.

Throughout the convention, wherever Barry Goldwater went, his noisy young fans went with him, standing in front of both the Confederate flag and the Stars and Stripes. Journalists were shouted down and mowed down, though they did manage to capture a few quotes, including the gem from a Goldwater supporter: "The nigger issue will put him in the White House!" he roared, when asked about the Civil Rights groups protesting outside.

Creating bookends in the Cow Palace, where the convention was held, one side would yell Viva! while the other would promptly answer Ole! Norman Mailer, who was in the crowd, called it a "mystical communion", reminiscent of Seig Heil. (9)

The moderate Republicans, of whom there were many, began to panic. What if Goldwater won on a platform of inequality, union busting and nuclear attacks on perceived enemies? Scranton warned that "Godwaterism has come to stand for a whole crazy-quilt collection of absurd and dangerous positions that would be soundly repudiated by the American people." He was right, although a colleague presented the biggest Question of the day:

"WHAT IN GOD'S NAME HAS HAPPENED TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?" Little did he know that it was going to get a whole lot worse.

One of the young Goldwaterites, was the seventeen-year-old Morton Blackwell, who continues to train young conservative warriors, at his Leadership Institute. He helped Preston Manning create his version of the school, with a $10 million donation from a single corporate sponsor, who asked to remain anonymous.
The strong influence of the American neoconservatives, now has me asking "WHAT IN GOD'S NAME HAS HAPPENED TO CANADIAN POLITICS?", though I already know the answer.

This is what happened.

Sources:

1. The Remnant: William F. Buckley, Counter-Revolutionary, By John Judis, The New Republic, March 26, 2008

2. ibid

3. Columnists: The Sniper, Time magazine, November 03, 1967

4. Flying High: Remembering Barry Goldwater, By William F. Buckley Jr. , Basic Books, 2008, ISBN: 978-0-465-00836-0, p. 18

5. ibid

6. Letters: Time Magazine, March 23, 1962

7. ibid

8. Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, By Rick Perlstein, Nation Books, 2001, ISBN: 0-8090-2858-1, p. 372

9. Perlstein, 2001, p. 382(4)

The Canadian Manifesto: Chapter Three: Laying the Foundation

The Canadian Manifesto: How the American Neoconservatives Stole My Country

If we had to name one person who had the biggest impact on movement conservatism, it would have to be William F. Buckley Jr.

Before joining the cause, it was being led by cranky old men, but Buckley was able to inspire young people to become political activists.

Stephen Harper once said that the term 'Progressive Conservative', was an oxymoron.  I suppose he was right.

However, "movement conservatism" or the "new conservative", also fit that description.

While they did fight for the status quo, especially in terms of whites being supreme, and the rich maintaining their role as the ruling class, they also wanted to radically change traditional conservatism.

Most radical movements were bottom up, with the poor and downtrodden overthrowing the self serving elite class.  But this one is top down, with the elite class manipulating the poor and downtrodden to secure their positions, and not only hold on to their wealth, but add to it, often at the expense of those suffering the most.

When the Reform Party was first establishing itself as a party for the people, Stephen Harper shocked a reporter when he blurted out "It's amazing what you can get them [the members] to do once you convince them that it's the leader who is telling them".

Populism redefined.

Rebel in Reverse

In 1951, Time Magazine ran a story on William Buckley Jr., referring to him as a "rebel in reverse, a fire-eating youthful conservative". (1)  His first book, God and Man at Yale, had just been published, and was causing a few shock waves in the academic world.

Buckley accused American universities, in particular Yale, of "sabotaging God" and trying to destroy Capitalism.

"the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world . . . [and] the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level." Under the "protective label of 'academic freedom,' " says he, Yale has become "one of the most extraordinary incongruities of our time: the institution that derives its moral and financial support from Christian individualists and then addresses itself to the task of persuading the sons of these supporters to be atheistic socialists." (1)

The book was hyperbolic, because at the time only 5 of the 1100 members of the Yale faculty could be defined as atheist or agnostic.  The same five who preached about the excesses of capitalism.  But it didn't matter.  As Harper's mentor Tom Flanagan once said, "It doesn't have to be true, just plausible."

The same attacks on academia by the new right, are being conducted today in Canada by Preston Manning and his centre for destroying democracy.

At Carleton University, a workshop sponsored by Manning's centre, in conjunction with the Ontario Progressive Conservative Campus Association, instructed those in attendance to take over student elections and organizations.  Documents and tapes were released on Wikileaks.

"Presenters and participants are caught on tape advocating for the creation of front groups for the Conservative Party to masquerade as non-partisan grassroots organizations, influencing the political discourse on campus, stacking student elections with Party members, and conspiring to defeat non-profit organizations because of political differences, all with the intention of hiding their affiliations to the Party in the process.  ... Sometimes you can't attach the party's name to something. You just can't. If it's a really controversial issue on campus or something that might show up in the newspaper, you want to be careful. You just have your shell organization and have the Campus Coalition for Liberty and two other Tory front groups which are front organizations, all of those groups might actually qualify for funding too," said Ryan O'Connor, a workshop facilitator and former member of the OPCCA. (2)

These activities are not confined to Ontario universities, but are taking place across the country.

In the United States, Morton Blackwell, the man who helped Preston Manning to create his school for stormtroopers, also runs a Campus Leadership Training program, promoting the same cloaked activities.  Journalist Jeff Horowitz went undercover, posing as a potential radical, and reported:

Unlike chapter-based political organizations, CLP clubs are unaffiliated with either the Leadership Institute or each other. According to Blackwell, this trait offers a serious advantage: "No purges." The clubs' independence also comes with the benefit of plausible deniability. "You can get away with stuff that you would take a lot of flak for doing in the College Republicans," says CLP director Dan Flynn. (3)

Blackwell, through another organization called Youth for Western Civilization, is also launching personal attacks on faculty members with progressive ideas.

Retired university professor Michael Yates has written extensively on the topic and says that he's glad he left academia before the worst of it:  "At least I did not have to face the nasty right-wing students who spy on their professors and do the bidding of the professional witch hunters who spew hatred on radio talk shows, and television programs."  It's a new form of McCarthyism.

Recently, two Canadian university professors, complained that they were being targeted.

Two University of Ottawa professors, vocal critics of the federal Conservative government, say they have become targets of a new political intimidation tactic, aimed at using their private, personal information against them.  Professors Errol Mendes and Amir Attaran, frequently castigated as Liberal sympathizers by the Conservatives, were notified in recent weeks of two unusually massive freedom-of-information requests at the University of Ottawa, demanding details of the professors’ employment, expenses and teaching records. (4)

All part of "movement conservatism", better defined as "radical conservatism".  How's that for an oxymoron?

The Foundation of Movement Conservatism is Money

The reason for the success of movement conservatism, is that it was always well funded.  Often dubbed the "revolt of the rich", those at the top were way at the top.  Buckley himself came from a wealthy family, who made most of their money in oil.

His equally wealthy associates sponsored a magazine of "conservative" ideas, called the National Review, where Buckley, before learning to speak in code, rallied the white folks, even promoting the use of violence if necessary, to keep blacks in their place. (5)

Eventually they took over a big chunk of the media, but their biggest success came from something they had decided on six decades ago.  They knew then that to be really successful they would have to take over one of the major political parties, and set their sights on the Republicans.

Sources:

1. Education:  Rebel in Reverse, Time Magazine, October 29, 1951

2. Tory student groups hijack democracy on Ontario campuses, The Dominion, March 14, 2009 

3. My Right-wing Degree,  By Jeff Horowitz, May 24, 2005

4. Tories accused of digging up dirt on 'liberal' profs, By Susan Delacourt and Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star,  February 11, 2011

5. The Conscience of a Liberal, By Paul Krugamn, W. W. Norton & Co., 2007, ISBN: 13 978-0-393-06069-0, p. 103

The Canadian Manifesto: Chapter Two: Anointed With Oil

The Canadian Manifesto: How the American Neoconservatives Stole My Country

According to Paul Krugman in The Conscience of a Liberal, "movement conservatism" began in the 1940's, when a group of Republicans, bitterly opposed to FDR's "New Deal", created what they referred to as "New Conservatism".

These "new conservatives" would join forces with the Neoconservatives, who provided the scholarly backup required for legitimacy, and eventually, on the advice of the man who calls himself the Godfather of Neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, they merged with the Religious Right.

The first bold act for the movement took place in 1964, when a large group of new conservative activists seized control of the Republican National Convention, nominating Barry Goldwater to run for the presidency.

Goldwater, dubbed the "merchant prince", came from a wealthy business-class family, and was thought a good choice, by like-minded souls, to push back against not only the "welfare state", but the Civil Rights Movement and the growing influence of unions.

He was well funded in his bid, by monied Americans, including Texas oil tycoon, H.L. Hunt, a vocal opponent of FDR.

But there was another Goldwater financial backer, who is of interest to Canadians.  His name was Joseph Howard Pew, and he would be responsible for not only creating the tar sands environmental mess, but for bringing Republican style politics to Canada.

Ernest and Howard

On February 13, 1947, Leduc Alberta struck liquid gold and the world took notice, especially the American oilmen.

Since 1947, when Imperial Oil, Ltd.'s Leduc No. 1 gushed from a snow-covered Alberta plain, 45 new oilfields have been spudded in across the province. Portable derricks, lumbering over the land like giant steel giraffes, have drilled more than two new wells a day. More than 300 million U.S. dollars, one of the freest and fastest streams of American private capital ever sluiced into a foreign country, have been invested in Alberta oil. Reserves of 2 billion bbls. are already proved, and experts say that that is only the first tide from a great oily sea buried deep under the province's fields, lakes and mountains. (1)

Time Magazine began referring to Alberta as "Texas North", but with all of that U.S. money, came a unique U.S. culture.

Oil company owners, many of them American themselves, identified strongly with their U.S. cousins, and Alberta was often described as a sort of second-string Texas. The American free-enterprise spirit and the cult of the individual is strongly embodied in the oil-patch culture. (2)

Ernest Manning couldn't be happier.  Before the Leduc gusher, he was scrambling for solutions to the province's economic woes.  He  had inherited the Social Credit Party from William Aberhart, but would have to prove himself capable in his own right, or risk losing his job.

Now he was being courted by some of the biggest names in the American oil industry, including J. Howard Pew.  The two formed a business and personal relationship, beginning in 1949.  Both were fundamentalist Christians who believed in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Their wives also became friends, and for one week every year, the two couples vacationed together at Lake Louise. (3)

A Profitable Friendship

Howard Pew's Sun Oil Company, owed much of its success to two world wars.   They had supplied most of the lubricating oils used by the Allies in WWI and were a leading supplier of aviation fuel in WWII. 

However, with no new war on the horizon, it became necessary to search for profits elsewhere, and where better than Canada, with crude just begging to be tapped into, and with a potential ban on the export of oil from the U.S., (4) the situation became even more critical.

So in 1954, the Pews bought into the Great Canadian Oil Sands consortium, acquiring a 75 percent interest from Abasand Oils. But not everyone was on board with their plans.  According to Alastair Sweeny in his book, Black Bonanza:

The project ran into a major roadblock in November 1960, when the Alberta Oil and Gas Conservation Board rejected the project on technical and economic grounds. As feared, conventional oilmen were mounting a ferocious lobby against bitumen extraction because of a continuing oil glut in Alberta, and they were afraid that prices would drop even further. For a time, the Alberta government stalled all oil sands development for the same reason. To show the depth of rage felt by conventional oil people, Suncor veteran Joe Fitzgerald tells of being accosted in the Petroleum Club in Calgary where an angry and over-refreshed oil executive threatened to have him expelled because he was not a "real oilman". (5)

So Howard Pew went to his old friend Manning and poured on the charm.  Consequently the following headline appeared on April 13, 1964:

ALBERTA GOVERNMENT GIVES FORMAL APPROVAL TO GREAT CANADIAN OIL SANDS FOR $190 MILLION OIL SANDS PROJECT

In return, Pew began to channel $10,000 a year into Manning's radio program, Back to the Bible Hour. (6)

I believe this is what they refer to as Divine Intervention.

On September 30, 1967,  the Great Canadian Oil Sands at Fort McMurray, now controlled by Pew's Suncor (Sunoco), was officially opened for business, with Manning addressing  the adoring throng of oil soaked  revellers.

"This is a red-letter day," said Ernest Manning, "not only for Canada but for all North America. No other event in Canada's centennial year is more important or significant. It is fitting," he said, taking the goals of the site to the higher plane of the lay preacher that he was, "that we are gathered here today to dedicate this plant not merely to the production of oil but to the continual progress and enrichment of mankind". (5)

I would hardly call the tar sands "the enrichment of mankind", but they certainly did a great deal to enrich Howard Pew.

The Gift That Keeps on Giving

According to his bio, Pew (d. 1971) was a philanthropist, guided by his deep Christian faith.  After all, he did finance Billy Graham's crusades, and invested heavily into several Christian magazines.

But there is another side to Pew, that is far more revealing and relative to the political climate in Canada today. 

Throughout his lifetime, he supported many extreme-right organizations, campaigns and publications.

In the 1930's, along with the DuPont family, he backed the American Liberty League, a pro-active group opposing the New Deal.  It was believed that they were simply a front for the Republican National Committee.

In 1946, he help to fund the Foundation for Economic Education , a  “think tank” with  a get-government-off-people’s-backs philosophy. 'By 1950, it was under investigation for illegal lobbying activities. A radio commentator then called it “one of the biggest and best financed, pressure outfits in America.... the fountainhead for half-truths and distortions, designed to deceive the American public” and “a vicious anti-labor propaganda outfit [that] spreads its venom…to crush organized labor.” The CIO News sarcastically said the FEE’s goal was to “convince the average American that the country is going socialist…and that…social security, unemployment compensation, public housing, rent and other price controls are depriving him of his freedom to go hungry and unsheltered.” '(7)

Christian Freedom Foundation was started as a tax-exempt outfit in 1950, and before his death he had contributed $2.3 million, some of it being channeled into Third Century Publishers to fuel ultra-right Christian politics. In 1976, the CFF’s goal was to make America a “Christian Republic” by electing Christian conservatives to Congress.

Christian Economic Foundation (CEF):  'In the 1950s, after failing to move the National Council of Churches to the far right, Pew helped create the CEF. In the 1960s, it sowed the seeds of the Christian Right by sending its free magazine, Christian Economics, to clergy across the U.S.' (7)

John Birch Society (JBS): J.H. Pew was a longtime supporter and close friend of Robert Welch, who founded the JBS in 1959. For many years, it led America’s far-right, rabidly anti-communist pack. By 1963, funded largely by J.H. Pew and other oil and military corporations, the JBS had 1,000 chapters and 80,000 members.  Though pushed to the sidelines after calling Eisenhower a Communist, the John Birch Society is now one of the sponsors of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

The Pew Family foundations continue to support several right-wing organizations, associated with the Republican Party in the U.S. and the Conservative Party in Canada, including:

The American Enterprise Institute: an arch-conservative lobby group with ties to Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle,  Dick Cheney and his wife Lynn. 

George Bush pulled 20 staffers from AEI, to join his administration, including David Frum, the person who organized the Winds of Change, dedicated to uniting the right (aka: the hostile takeover of the Tory Party by the Reform-Alliance), and is now a voice in our own neoconservative government.  Frum was a speechwriter for Bush, and coined the term "axis of evil".

AEI's ties to Canada go back further than Frum, however, as they also influenced the Saskatchewan government of Grant Devine.  In Privatizing a Province: The New Right in Saskatchewan, James M. Pitsula and Ken Rasmussen, write:

The new right's attack on the welfare state included a moral component contributed by the new Christian right, which claims to find sanction for private enterprise economics in the Bible. A good example of this approach comes from Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute: "I advise intelligent, ambitious, and morally serious young Christians and Jews to awaken to the growing dangers of statism. They will better save their souls and serve the cause of the Kingdom of God all around the world by restoring the liberty and power of the private sector than by working for the state."' The private sector would not only make you rich, it would save your soul. (8)

Michael Novak is also a regular speaker at the Manning Centre and the Fraser Institute, and according to Lloyd Mackey, has influenced the thinking of Stephen Harper. (9)

Another ultra-right wing group to enjoy the benefit of Pew dollars, is The Heritage Foundation.  According to SourceWatch: 'Its stated mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of "free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." It is widely considered one of the world's most influential public policy research institutes.'  The Heritage Foundation also receives funds from the Koch Brothers, who finance the Tea Party, and have a stake in the Alberta tar sands.

According to Reuters, Stephen Harper is using our tax dollars to build them a pipeline.

The Keystone XL pipeline, awaiting a thumbs up or down on a presidential permit, would increase the import of heavy oil from Canada's oil sands to the U.S. by as much as 510,000 barrels a day ... what's been left out of the ferocious debate over the pipeline, however, is the prospect that if president Obama allows a permit for the Keystone XL to be granted, he would be handing a big victory and great financial opportunity to Charles and David Koch, his bitterest political enemies and among the most powerful opponents of his clean economy agenda.

The Koch brothers are not run-of-the-mill political opponents. An investigative report last year by the New Yorker magazine on the secretive and deep-pocketed pair have shown them to be "waging a war against Obama."  They have bankrolled the Tea Party movement, climate change skepticism and right-wing think tanks, such as the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Obama has not shown his cards on the pipeline permit, even after Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a personal appeal for swift approval at a White House meeting last week ....  After they finished with their prepared remarks, a Canadian reporter asked Harper if he had discussed the pipeline permit with President Obama. The prime minister said that "we did discuss the matter you raised," but he provided no fresh details, only a rambling rationale for why approval of the permit would be in the American interest. When Harper was done, the president offered no comment. He quickly took the next question. (10)

Yes, our man Harper.  The new shill for the Koch Brothers.

The pipeline, which will send many good Canadian jobs in the industry, South, (11) is meeting with a lot of opposition.  A decision is expected to be reached by the end of 2011.
However, if you think that Howard Pew has done enough for Canada, I'm afraid there's more to come.

Sources:

1. CANADA: Texas of the North, Time Magazine, September 24, 1951

2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, p. 14

3. Preston Manning: Roots of Reform, By: Frank Dabbs, Greystone, 2000, ISBN -13-97815-50547504 4, p. 44

4. Nickle Oil Bulletin, Calgary,  January 30, 1948

5. Black Bonanza: Canada's Oil Sands and the Race to Secure North America's Energy Future, By Alastair Sweeny,  John Wiley and Sons, 2010, ISBN: 978 0470 161 388

6. The Good Steward: The Ernest Manning Story, by Brian Brennan, Historical Society of Alberta, Winter 2009 

7. J. Howard Pew, By Richard Sanders, Editor, Press for Conversion magazine, Issue # 53, "Facing the Corporate Roots of American Fascism," March 2004

8. Privatizing a Province: The New Right in Saskatchewan, By: James M. Pitsula and Ken Rasmussen, New Star Books, 1990, ISBN: 0-921586-10-8, Pg. 7

9. The Pilgramage of Stephen Harper, By: Lloyd Mackey, ECW Press, 2005, ISBN: 10-1-55022-713-0 , p. 94 & p. 209

10. Koch Brothers Positioned to be BigWinners if Keystone XL Pipeline is Approved, By David Sassoon, Reuters, February 10, 2011

11. Pipeline would ship oil and jobs south, By Dave Coles, Toronto Star, August 8, 2010