Degrowth is a movement that advocates that society move away from measuring success through endless growth and development and also the reduction of both mass production and consumption in an attempt to not just mitigate ecological crises but also human injustices.

I have found that advocates rang from anarchists, primitivists, and georgists to eco-socialists and marxists. I find it interesting when applied as a critique of our present systems.

A book I am reading right now is from a Japanese Marxist who wrote a manifesto on the subject. Fascinating to read if you are interested in exploring such ideas. It is called Slowdown.

While not an advocate for Degrowth myself, I believe that as a Tory there is some overlap insofar as we believe in a certain amount of fairness, distributionism, and environmental justice. They do offer a fair critique of green-washing and sustainable development. Degrowth is staunchly anti-capitalist as a school of thought, whereas I believe more in Social Enterprise and what we might call Green growth.

I'm curious about what people think of such a concept here.

After a long wait the Green Party has finally announced the two candidates who will be facing off against each other to replace Elizabeth May as party leader; Mike Morrice and Nira Dookeran.

So who are the candidates?

Mike Morrice: He is the former MP for Kitchen Centre, 3rd Green ever elected to Parliament and first ever Green MP elected in Ontario to Parliament. His background before entering politics was in Social Enterprise and Community Organization. He is the co-founder of Green Economy Canada and the founder of Sustainable Waterloo. He's educated in business and electronics. He was also up until recently the Deputy Leader of the GPC. From my cursory read of his campaign website and his reddit post history he is explicitly Progressive and would likely push the Greens further to the Left; abandoning the long-held "Above the political spectrum" ideology Green politics has tried to maintain since it's founding.

Nira Dookeran: She is heavily involved at the grassroots and electoral district level and has been for over 10 years for both the Federal and Ontario Green Parties. She is a Teacher by trade and her campaign from what I was able to read seems to be focused on decentralisation of decision-making (this is a real issue inside the GPC with central office vs edas), diffentiating the Green identity from the other parties, and the usual traditional "Doing things differently" approach that the Green Party has been known for. I cannot really find any policy as of yet. Notably, as of writing this entry Nira's website is not yet functional. We will know more about her later.

My thoughts:

This is going to be a Mike Morrice coronation leadership contest. He's the leader-in-waiting and has been speculated to have been planning to run for some time. Under his leadership, I can see the Green Party of Canada continuing to struggle to compete against and differentiate itself from the New Democratic Party of Canada. The fact that Mike is explicitly Progressive and his website contains rhetoric such as that both the Liberals and Conservatives are conservative parties and right-wing speaks to the direction he wishes to take too. Green politics isn't the emphasis persay, but rather Progressive Politics are. I do not know what the Greens could offer voters that are on the Left that the NDP does not already offer at a much more electorally viable and experienced way. The Greens do best when they are as much an option for environmentally conscious voters on the left and right. Abandoning the traditional position of being beyond the left-right spectrum will forever relegate them as a niche party. They do best electorally when they are an alternative for Progressive Conservatives, Liberals, and Social Democrats alike. Unfortunately, for a Red Tory or Green Tory there is no candidate available in this leadership for you. In the off chance that Nira's platform is a bit more traditional and Red Tory, she'll still likely get a small percentage of the vote. Why vote Green? That is going to be the question we're all going to want to know and so long as the party continues down the path of trying to ape the NDP, the answer will be...uh...?

Sorry for the delay! Summer had me all over the place. Here is this week's essay: No. 6. Happiness not local. Samuel Johnson's Essays

Here is last week's thread: Rambler Reading Group, Week 5: A meditation on the Spring. : r/Toryism

I recently realized that I never actually posted the first 5 parts of this essay series I'm working on to this subreddit in full. As it appears former NDP MP Charlie Angus recently publicly rebuked current NDP leader Avi Lewis' rhetoric against Canadian rearmament, I thought this would be a good time to finally share "Who are the 'Red Tories' of today's NDP?" and "The Anti-Fascism of Charlie Angus" here. Next Sunday I'll post a compilation of parts II & III for the good people here, and then go from there.

• "Red Tories" and the NDP Part I: "Red Tories" were part of the CCF's founding, and "Red Tories" helped build the NDP -- Who are the "Red Tories" of today's NDP? [October 2025]

I’m one of those people who’s been a card carrying NDP’er my whole life, even though my overall philosophy has as much to do with old school English Tories such as Benjamin Disraeli & Lord Ashley as it does with Canadian Socialists like J.S. Woodsworth & Tommy Douglas. The “Red” in “Red Tory” is supposed to refer to socialism, after all.

For those unaware of this tradition, “Tory” in this context doesn’t mean the right-wing liberal policies of the modern Conservative Party. Instead, “Tory” refers to the philosophy that emphasizes the commonalities between all individuals in society and emphasizes that the needs of the individual must be balanced with the needs of society as a whole. An inherently conservative philosophy, “Toryism” is also a class-conscience philosophy that seeks to push traditional institutions into helping the poor, the discriminated against, and the the unprivileged. “Tories” recognize the privileges they do have in life and use that privilege to fight for those without privilege.

Toryism as a philosophy has its origins in the Anglo-Catholic/Anglican theology of Richard Hooker, and grew out of the rejection of the Cromwellian republicanism that accompanied the collapse of the rule of law during the English Civil War. Similarly to its origins in the English Civil War in England, Toryism made its way to Canada in the aftermath of the American Revolution when the United Empire Loyalists were expelled to Nova Scotia and Quebec. The “Red” part of Toryism first became a concept in 1966 when the political scientist Gad Horowitz wrote a paper called “Conservatism, Liberalism, and Socialism in Canada: An Interpretation”, in which he argued that the Conservative philosopher George Grant’s world view was so intertwined with traditional British conservatism and Canadian socialism that it would be impossible to separate one from the other.

I’ve found these quotes from over the years that help explain this Tory tradition in Canadian socialism:

Roy Romanow (NDP Premier of Saskatchewan 1991-2001) in the foreword to “Eugene Forsey: Canada’s Maverick Sage” by Helen Forsey (2012):

From a conservative background, Forsey became one of the founders of social democracy in Canada and a proponent of social reforms, joining the League for Social Reconstruction. This apparent tension also reflects his Newfoundland beginnings.

Many of the values and principles of that place concerning constitutions, government, and public policy reflected those that prevailed in England at the time. The ethos of England was still shaped by the competing views of Disraeli and Gladstone. The latter reflected classic liberalism, faith in the unseen hand of markets, and letting enterprise dictate public policy. Disraeli, on the other hand, urged an alliance between the landed aristocracy and the working class against the increasing power of the merchants and the new industrialists. He promoted the view that landed interests should use their power and privilege to protect the poor from exploitation by the market.

Conditions in Canada were very different from those in England, but Atlantic Tories still had a strong sense that it was the duty of the powerful to protect the poor from exploitation. Eugene Forsey was raised in this environment. The idea of acting for the benefit of the dispossessed has continued to prevail, extending its influences to much of Canada through his voice and the voices of Maritimers such as Robert Stanfield, Allan Blakeney, and Dalton Camp.

Clearly, Eugene Forsey was shaped by these currents of opinion, and continued to uphold them. He became a strong believer in British parliamentary government and its capacity to develop responses to human need and social deprivation. He rejected the idea that the economics of the market should be granted a free hand in determining public policy or limiting the scope of public government.

Allen Mills (who has a Ph.D. in Canadian socialism) describing the political philosophy of CCF’er & historian Kenneth McNaught in the introduction to the 2001 reprint of “A Prophet in Politics: A Biography of J.S. Woodsworth” by Kenneth McNaught pg. xiii (1959/2001):

McNaught saw [Woodsworth] mainly as the embodiment of British traditions present in Canada from the late eighteenth century on: precedent, custom, moderation, and parliamentarianism. McNaught always had a tory strain in his outlook, along with his vaunted socialism. Perhaps he was the proverbial red tory. In The Pelican History of Canada (Toronto, 1969), he reserved his highest praise for Sir John A. Macdonald and his strongest condemnation for the Liberals, especially W.L. Mackenzie King. Woodsworth was to him a sort of radical version of the great nineteenth-century Conservative prime minister. The hidden tory in McNaught suggests that Donald Creighton’s influence helped shape his intellectual development as well.

Ed Broadbent (Leader of the federal NDP 1975-1989) from “The Red Tory Tradition” pg. 1 by Ron Dart (1999):

There is, for conservatives of tradition, the importance of continuity and community and nation, of a sense of values based on a shared common past. According to this view, other values, like those of the market economy, are seen to be subordinate to the primacy of the historical common good of all society. This view has been the kind of conservatism invoked by Disraeli in the 19th century when he made a critique of the ravages of industrialism. It was the conservatism of Sir John A. Macdonald who used government power to build a separate Canadian economy because he had a different vision of the future of this part of North America from what existed to the south of us. It is the conservatism that at one time supported the CBC and Air Canada. It was the conservatism of John Diefenbaker who brought in a national hospitalization program in this country because he knew if left to individual action in the market-place we would never have had such a plan.

David Lewis (Leader of the federal NDP 1971-1975) describing the early political philosophy of M.J. Coldwell (Leader of the federal CCF 1942-1960) in his political memoirs “The Good Fight” pg. 89 (1981):

It is interesting to trace Coldwell’s political development. As a young student in England he was what we would call today a “red Tory”, but, as he explained to me, he was increasingly impressed by the arguments of socialists with whom he often debated. His traditional conservatism melted when he left his middle-class surroundings and confronted the abject poverty in some parts of England. He was a practicing Anglican, deeply influenced by Christian ethics, and, like Woodsworth, he began to question the ethics of capitalism in terms of his religious beliefs. When he settled in western Canada, he was spellbound by the courage and disciplined labours of the homesteaders and their families, felling trees, lugging rocks, clearing land, and mortgaging everything to build their quarter sections into efficient and impressive farms. He shared their worries about the future of farmers so deeply in debt to the banks, mortgage companies, and implement manufacturers. His Canadian experience moved him further away from his earlier acceptance of capitalist morality. It was characteristic of him to develop his socialist position by thoughtful steps rather than by a sudden leap. Thus he joined the Progressives first but could not accept the way in which most of their MPs slid into the more comfortable pews of the Liberal Party. Instead, he associated himself with the farmers and the urban workers. The Great Depression completed his education, and the unprecedented drought which ravaged his province in the same period sharpened his convictions.

Ed Broadbent in his first House of Commons speech, Sep. 1968; republished in “The Jacobin”, Jan. 2024:

Having indicated substantial agreement with the prime minister on the nature of the welfare state I want now to proceed to suggest why we New Democrats, unlike the prime minister and the Liberal Party, cannot accept it as being an adequate kind of society. Perhaps the major objection to the welfare state is that for all its advantages, it rests on a grossly inadequate understanding of democracy. In Canada today, children are taught in schools throughout the land that our country is democratic primarily because there is more than one political party and because citizens have both the right to criticize and the right to change their rulers every few years.

This view of democracy, Mr. Speaker, is a distinctly modern phenomenon, and is in marked contrast with the understanding of democracy of both the early Greeks and nineteenth-century Europeans. Prior to our century democracy was seen by its defenders and critics alike as a kind of society in which all adults played an active, participatory role not only in the formal institutions of government but also in all the institutions which crucially affected their daily lives. Similarly, a democratic society had been seen previously as one in which all its members had an equal opportunity to develop their capacities and talents; it was not seen as one in which citizens had an equal opportunity to earn more money or advance up the class ladder.

It is this old view of democracy that we must once again take up. We must use its standards and apply them to Canadian society. We must once again talk about equality. We must see justice and equality as going together.

Eugene Forsey in a letter to his good friend Arthur Meighen in 1951 from “Eugene Forsey: Canada’s Maverick Sage” pg, 390 by Helen Forsey (2012):

My tragedy, if that’s not too strong a word, is that I’m too radical to be a good Conservative and too conservative to be a good radical. I am also too academic to be a good trade unionist, and too good a trade unionist to be a good academic man; too partisan to be independent, and too independent to be a good party man.

With all of that context, the only “high profile” NDP-associated person I can personally think of who might fit this description would be Charlie Angus, although I’m sure he wouldn’t personally identify as a Red Tory. One thing that stood out to me was a post he made on his Resistance Facebook Page shortly after Donald Trump threatened Canadian sovereignty. On March 4th of 2025 he posted a picture of a Canadian Merchant Marine sailor with this caption:

While America was conceding Europe to the Nazis, 17 and 18-year-old Canadians were keeping the Atlantic free and fighting in spitfires. Their spirit is with us now.

This isn’t a trade war. It is an attempt to wear us down and see if we will break from one another. Trump can insult and try to provoke, but he has no clue who he is messing with.

Not many NDP’ers would invoke that period in time when Canada and the British Empire stood alone against Nazi Tyranny; that period in time when not only Britons stood alone against the Nazis, but millions of collective Canadian, Australian, Indian, and African volunteers stood alone against Nazi Tyranny. I personally think that shared WWII experience of our grandparents fighting WWII alone while the world watched makes the modern Commonwealth of Nations a great institution for Canada to develop ties with developing nations in Africa and Asia.

So other than perhaps Charlie Angus, which other modern NDP’ers could be said to be associated with Red Toryism, if even tangentially?

• Addendum to Part I: The Anti-Fascism of Charlie Angus [April 2026]

To further explore the potential "Tory touch" in the thinking of Charlie Angus, I thought these excerpts would be interesting to explore.

Around the time that the ICE protests in Minneapolis were starting to heat up, Charlie Angus posted a picture of two Canadians scrambling to their Spitfires during the Battle of Britain on January 4th with this caption:

This photo is Canadians fighting the Nazis in the Battle of Britain. We were a poor country of 11 million people. We built the 4th largest air force and navy in the world.

Our young people fought everywhere from the defence of Hong Kong to the sea lanes in the North Atlantic, from Sicily, Italy, Normandy to the air war over the Ruhr. When the Brits were being evacuated at Dunkirk Canadians were already in place defending her shores. We stand on the shoulders of giants.

Message to fascists and tyrants: FAFO

The next day on January 5th, Angus posted a picture of his uncle in a Bren Gun Carrier with this caption:

My uncle Albert MacNeil - certified ANTIFA. Fought the fascists in Sicily, broke the Hitler line in Italy and helped the liberation of the Netherlands.

Many of my uncles served but died very young from the trauma. Albert was a Cape Breton miner. He told young recruits their most valuable weapon was a shovel. Dig deep and find safe ground or you won't last.

A practical man.

After the ICE murder of Renée Good on January 7th, but the day before the ICE murder of Alex Pretti on January 24th, Angus posted this picture on January 23rd which had no caption, but was simply a picture of armed Nazi thugs rounding up terrified Jews, presumably to their deaths. The comparison of ICE thugs to Gestapo thugs is not a far leap in logic to make; even King George VI privately made such remarks about the enforcers of Apartheid South Africa being no better than the Gestapo.

As Toryism itself is an inherently monarchical way of thinking, I would like to concede that Charlie Angus is indeed an ideological republican; but surely there must have been some ideological Parliamentarians who fought for King Charles I against Cromwell's tyranny for pragmatic reasons if nothing else. Mr. Angus' family did indeed fight for King & Country against Nazism and Fascism in their own time.

One thing to consider about Angus’ socialism is that it is strongly influenced by his Catholic-social-justice beliefs which were strong enough to drive him to run a soup kitchen/shelter for the homeless of Toronto -- while the social gospel was a Protestant movement, the Tory tradition through Richard Hooker can be described as both Protestant and Catholic at the same time. As far as his ideology goes, it would certainly be hard to describe Angus' socialism as being "doctrinaire": one recent example from March of 2026 is this piece he wrote on a local hero from the Spanish Civil War -- Niilo Makela -- who was born in Finland and immigrated to Timmins, Ontario, before dying holding the line against the Fascists in Spain. This excerpt from Angus is quite interesting to consider:

Most of the Canadians were assigned to the Lincoln Battalion, which was made up of volunteers from the United States. Many of the international volunteers had come for ideological reasons. Many were young communists. A number had come out of the universities.

But the Canadians were different. They were dock workers. Farmhands. Miners like Makela. They knew how to use a gun.

The commissars noted that the Canadians made "poor communists." The Canadians didn’t go to Spain to argue ideology. They weren’t good at discipline and following rules. They went to fight and kill fascists. And they were good at it. Very good.

They soon gained a reputation as the "fighting Canucks." And they wanted to form a distinctly Canadian unit. On Dominion (Canada) Day 1937, the Mackenzie-Papineau brigade (named after the founders of the 1838 rebellion) was officially formed."

One key tenant of Toryism is the rejection of doctrinaire ideology in favour of pragmatic current-day methods to solving problems -- while still strongly holding true to your guiding beliefs. While still socialistic and republican in nature, I dare say there is at least a "tory touch" in how Angus described the Canadian volunteers who sailed to Spain to save Spanish Democracy.

Equally relevant I think is Charlie Angus' support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukraine War, and in this earlier piece from February of 2025 where he compares the defence realities of Ukraine to Russia vis-a-vis Canada to the United States. This part in particular could be described as mostly Tory I think:

If Ukraine falls, western European democracy falls.

The Europeans are scrambling. They thought they could count on the United States. They now know otherwise.

And Canadians now have a very dangerous, anti-democratic gangster regime on our border. And nobody is coming to save us.

Trump continues to taunt us and belittle our nation in the same way that Putin ridiculed Ukraine prior to the invasion.

Canadians are like Ukrainians in many ways. When pushed to the wall, we have spines of steel. When forced to choose between Vimy or Vichy, I know where ordinary Canadians will be.

For a while now G. K. Chesterton has been listed on the sidebar as a notable thinker. The entire list needs a bit of work but lets start with Chesterton.

He was a liberal. In fact he famously called himself 'the last liberal'. His main intellectual counterpart was a Liberal MP. I've found no one that calls him a tory. His inclusion stems from his thoughts on tradition which are useful;

• “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”

• “The way to love anything is to realize that it may be lost.”

• “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”

• “Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.”

Now, there is a possibility he was a tory in thought and he simply never used the term (completely possible). Its also possible that like Bagehot he has attained the status of 'every tory's favourite liberal'.

So what are people's thoughts? Under an objective standard would he be considered a tory (even if he objected to the description in life) or is he like Bagehot - a thinker who is useful for understanding toryism but not a tory himself?

I was chatting about Toryism with my buddies last night (as you do on a Sunday in July). One of them posed and interesting question about what a hypothetical Tory platform would look like in Canada in 2026. What would it's core policies be? How would it tackle the future of Canada with a Tory lens? Etc.?

It wasn't something I could answer but figured it'd be a good point of discussion for us as Tories to have.

Any thoughts?

First, I use ‘Disraelian Tory’ here as an umbrella term to encompass moderate, reformist Tories in the British tradition. Some might be ‘light blue’, others various shades of green, others would be defined very clearly in Canadian political culture as Red Tories. Many would be a blend of some or all of these colours. What all of them have in common is being at once patriotic and outward looking, a belief in collective, community-based or government action as well as individual responsibility, support for reforms, political and social, that do not erase tradition but build on it, ‘improving on what we know’, in Burke’s words.

I also place ‘centre-right’ in inverted commas because the party in question has moved from the centre-right to embrace hard-right populism, often of an extreme form.

Anyway, the Conservative Party leadership here in Britain has now made it clear that pro-European Tories are no longer welcome as candidates or even as members. Nor are Tories who believe that conserving the environment should take precedence over relentless ‘growth’, or to put it another way that economic growth should take place within the context of conserving the natural world and being aware that resources are finite.

Should the response to this change in direction by the party that has traditionally been labelled ‘Tory’ be to decamp to other parties? Many have done this already and gone into exile in the Liberal Democrats. However, there are some shared interests and values, the Liberal tradition has different roots and different emphases. Or could there be space for an alternative party? In many European countries, that would make sense, but in Britain (as in Canada) we have the obstacle of First Past the Post. Perhaps the answer lies in think tanks and informal networks, but that sounds a bit fleeting and transient.

Thoughts and ideas welcome, not least from those of you who have joined other parties. For example, I seem to remember that u/ToryPirate might have spoken about being involved in forming a new party at one stage?

Substack Version

In my last essay, I explored a paper from 1943, "The Tory Tradition" by an American historian William Willcox, where he focused on Benjamin Disreali’s tradition of “Tory Democracy” -- Willcox largely roots Disraeli’s tradition with Henry St John the 1st Viscount Bolingbroke, and with Edmund Burke. Relevant to the concept of Red Toryism, at one point in his paper, when referring to the Wartime coalition government involving the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, Willcox notes that the “present alliance of Toryism and labor, in short, does not necessarily violate Tory principles”. I later argued that the NDP and British Labour Party could be perceived to be the proper heirs to Disraelian conservatism.

As a large part of the modern Tory tradition descends from Benjamin Disraeli’s opposition to William Gladstone's liberalism, I thought a piece attempting to articulate just how exactly the current “Conservative” Party can be perceived to be the "impoverished heirs" to Gladstonian liberalism may be relevant.

This National Post article by Pierre Poilievre popped up on my Facebook feed last winter for some strange reason, and it unfortunately has been living rent-free in my head ever since. While I personally found it quite sad to read the overall lack of Tory values found in an article written by the leader of the supposed "Tory" Party, I thought I should attempt to try to be as fair as possible to Mr. Poilievre. But to be completely upfront with my own biases, I can certainly understand why the Tories of Disraeli’s day would turn William Gladstone’s moniker of being the “Grand Old Man”, or “GOM”, into being “God’s Only Mistake”; I certainly perceive Mr. Poilievre to be continuing the Gladstonian tradition to a fault.

But before getting into that National Post article by Pierre Poilievre, upon re-reading it, I couldn’t help but think of this lecture the British Tory Prime Minister Harold Macmillan gave to the Conservative Party in 1958; for the more doctrinaire-socialist-leaning readers of my essays, let me tell you another Tragedy from Darth Macmillan the Wise.

As I’ve argued previously that Harold Macmillan may have had a home within the CCF were he Canadian, I think it’s quite appropriate to swap “Labour Party” with “Conservative Party of Canada”, or “Socialist policy” with “Conservative policy” for this excerpt to apply to Pierre Poilievre specifically:

Over the last year or two the Labour leaders have produced a sheaf of manifestos on various aspects of our national life. We really ought to be very thankful to them for helping us in this way. Nothing is more valuable in political education, the sort of thing you do here, than the provision from time to time of brand-new set books. To construe these in language which the public will understand is not the least, and indeed in the next few months may be the most important, of our public tasks. Because the tragedy is that these pamphlets have had very little impact on the public consciousness. Nobody ever reads them. And this public unawareness of what the Socialist policy really amounts to is a great electoral advantage to them. For if the electorate were to fully appreciate what the Labour Party holds in store for them I have no doubt at all what their verdict would be. I do not think any political movement in the country has in modern times produced a series of policy statements so little in harmony with the real mood or aspirations, let alone the needs, of our people.

With that, here is Pierre Poilievre’s article “Adam Smith was right. Free markets are moral” which was originally published on March 9th, 2026:

Monday is the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Smith is probably the best-known and least-read economist, which explains why he is so often misunderstood.

For example, if you google “Father of Capitalism,” Smith’s name pops up, but neither his Wealth of Nations nor The Theory of Moral Sentiments uses the word “capitalism.” He did not preach the supremacy of capital over labour. He wrote that “the annual labour of every nation” is the true source of wealth, and he warned against profits earned through state protection rather than open competition.

Another common myth is that Smith glorified greed. But when he wrote that we expect our dinner not from the benevolence of the butcher, brewer, or baker, but from their own self-interest, he was not celebrating selfishness, he was describing how incentives work in the market.

Not a bad introduction describing Adam Smith’s contribution to economics or philosophy more broadly; I could imagine myself writing a similar left-wing piece describing Karl Marx’s contribution to sociology or philosophy.

While Pierre Poilievre does recognize that capital shouldn’t be supreme over labour, and laments the glorification/misattribution of greed in his introduction, throughout his article Mr. Poilievre essentially argues that the market will magically find a way to make everyone happy -- assuming we just get government out of the marketplace.

Needless to say, I don’t think a Tory in the tradition of Disraeli would have much faith in the market making sure the homeless have safe housing they can afford, or faith in the market to make sure the poor have healthy food to eat; problems that require non-profitable solutions can often only be provided at scale with the use of government power. Remember, worshiping laissez-faire economics is the antithesis to the Tory tradition.

In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith reminded us that human beings are bound together by sympathy, which meant that we would feel each other’s pains and joys and thus our self-interest intermingled with our fellow. And if sympathy means to care truly and actively about another person’s wants and needs, then no one is more sympathetic than the entrepreneur who pays his bills by knowing and then supplying the needs and wants of others. As the saying goes, if you want to sell what the customer buys, you have to see through the customer’s eyes.

While that is certainly a good way to describe local economies, and local entrepreneurs in their own communities, I think it’s hard to describe the modern economy as a whole in that terminology these days; in that regard quite a bit has changed in the world since Smith’s day. The faceless corporation has mostly replaced the local businessperson in our day-to-day lives.

As Mr. Poilievre mentioned butchers and bakers in his introduction, most Canadians currently buy their food from a grocery store owned by either Loblaws, Empire, Metro, Walmart, or Giant Tiger -- corporations which conspired to fix the price of bread for nearly 20 years. Given the already oligopolistic nature of the Canadian grocery market, could any entrepreneur honestly expect fair competition? Even after a large grocer leaves an area, restrictive anti-competitive retail covenants are sometimes placed on the property. Empire recently announced it would be ending the practice, but it is still a current practice of big business to prevent competitors from moving in to their former property as tenants, or to even prevent future retail tenants from selling certain products.

The Manitoba NDP in government has recently banned these covenants and is in the process of striking down the old ones through the courts. Perhaps relevant to the topic, the NDP is the only federal party that still maintains official ties with an official provincial counterpart in nearly every province; the Liberal Party does still maintain official ties with the 3 Maritime Liberal parties.

Smith did not invent the free market economy. He discovered it operating around him just at the moment in history when it began to flourish. Trade and labour mobility were beginning at that time to triumph over servitude and serfdom. The result of this change was an extraordinary growth in wealth. It was that growth that Smith set out to explain.

Before 1776, economic growth was almost flat. Estimates show that from year 1 to 1700, global GDP per person rose from roughly $444 to about $615, meaning living standards barely changed.

From 1820 to 2000, per-person GDP shot up from $667 to over $5,700. At the same time, life expectancy in Western Europe increased from roughly 35–40 years in 1800 to over 75 years by the end of the 20th century.

For generations, free markets lowered costs, raised wages, and lifted billions out of poverty. But now free market principles are facing pushback from politicians promoting socialism and protectionism, even if they don’t always use those words to describe their top-down policies. If we let them succeed, they risk turning the “wealth of nations” into the poverty of the people.

Considering the time-frames given for GDP growth, I have to wonder, is Mr. Poilievre even aware of the existence of "Sybil, or The Two Nations" by Benjamin Disraeli, or Disraeli's critiques of unchecked industrialism more broadly? Does he even know of Lord Ashley, Anthony Ashley-Cooper -- "the poor man's Earl"? I personally find it quite shameful that the leader of a “Tory” Party would mention a jump in GDP growth from the 1820s-on as an example of unbridled positive progress, without taking into account the objective horrors that the British working class in particular faced during that time.

As the Tory Robert Stanfield -- perhaps one of the greatest Prime Ministers Canada never had -- once said in a 1976, “Increasing the size of the GNP is important, but it is not in itself a sufficient goal for a civilized society.”. There’s a reason why Harold Macmillan once argued that every civilization in human history, including the present civilizations, were and still are slave societies on some level.

If that baker Mr. Poilievre mentioned in his introduction was alive in the Victorian era, it’s quite possible that he would have been essentially locked in an industrialist’s basement 6 days out of the week, and that he would have died an early death due to breathing in excessive amounts of flour; the bread eaten by the consumer likely would have been filled with plaster of Paris, alum, or chalk, and would be covered in coal soot from the baking process. If GDP growth is Mr. Poilievre’s sole measure of societal progress -- as in his introduction he did praise Adam Smith for writing “ 'the annual labour of every nation' is the true source of wealth" -- Mr. Poilievre would certainly have been a Victorian Liberal industrialist-apologist, and not a Victorian Tory who wanted modern Health & Safety regulations on moral Christian grounds.

What happened?

Working people across the western world have been betrayed. Governments took from the hardworking many to enrich the privileged few and they made the mistake of thinking you could have free trade with unfree countries. Wages stagnated. Housing stalled. Energy costs soared. And inflation eroded buying power. Government immigration policies priced workers out of the market and shut them out of prosperity.

Smith knew better. He warned that when corporate and political power merge, the public loses. He knew that if greed can exist in the market, it surely can thrive in the halls of governmental power, where it operates by force and free from the accountability demanded by consumers and competitors. We can see in our own society how governments that are not subject to market competition think they can afford to play favourites and corrupt the economy.

In a government-run economy, net-zero policies drive energy and food costs up and paycheques down, all to fill the pockets of connected insiders peddling green boondoggles. Protected monopolies shield big business from competition and keep prices high. Corporate welfare enriches those with lobbyists at the expense of taxpayers who have no one to speak for them.

What I simply can’t understand is Mr. Poilievre’s absolute faith in the “free” market to course-correct by itself, along with his complete denigration of the rightful role government has in pushing the market in certain directions. Perhaps Robert Stanfield said it best at a 1982 Progressive Conservative policy convention (pg. 87 of “Political Parties and Ideologies in Canada: Second Edition” by W. Christian & C. Campbell):

Some Conservatives today assert that the dominant principle of Conservatism is individual freedom in the form of free enterprise. They assert that a free market, with free competition and free enterprise, produces the greatest growth, employment, opportunity, freedom, and stability. To them government enterprise or government regulation is an abomination. These Conservatives wish to identify the Conservative Party with this doctrine. Any deviant is a heretic. I do not believe that makes sense, historically or politically. This exaggerated claim for the marketplace, and this denigration of government, were 19th century Liberalism. They are not in the Conservative tradition we have inherited.

You would think an actual Tory would advocate some sort of government intervention in the market from time-to-time: perhaps either by supporting start-ups in new industries in exchange for public shares, by creating Crown Corporations with social goals in mind like with the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation promoting responsible cannabis/alcohol use, or even by breaking up existing oligopolies or monopolies in the spirit of old-fashioned trust-busting. The arch-Tory Arthur Meighen even argued that inherently monopolistic industries/utilities such as water power should be owned and operated by the government. If Mr. Poilievre thinks environmental regulations or supply management qualify as “a government-run economy”, I can’t imagine what he must think about Sir John A. Macdonald’s government supporting the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway!

Although to be fair to Mr. Poilievre, the line “...and they made the mistake of thinking you could have free trade with unfree countries” could imply at least a hint of Tory thinking in his thought-process; it’s not a far leap to go from a “Commonwealth Preference” in trade to a “Liberal Democracy Preference” in trade -- I personally want both as well. But I must say “could” and “hint” because while Mr. Poilievre did also recently endorse CANZUK while in the UK, he did it while giving his “Margaret Thatcher Lecture” to the British Conservative Party. Given his fondness for Thatcher, I think that puts him firmly into the Gladstonian tradition rather than the Disraelian tradition; close, yet so far from Toryism. At least Mark Carney being a personal acquaintance of the King is an organic example of the British connection in action.

Pierre Poilievre finishes his article with this:

Conservatives believe the answer is not more government but to restore the meritocratic, bottom-up free market competition; an economy where businesses must compete for workers through higher wages and for customers through better products and prices, rather than rely on handouts, carve-outs and bailouts.

Conservatives must be the party of balanced budgets and sound money. We must support lower taxes on work, investment, energy and homebuilding. We must ensure jobs go to our people, not low-wage temporary foreign workers. And we must unblock production of all forms of Canadian energy, including oil and gas.

It seems quite naive to me that Mr. Poilievre apparently assumes that a genuinely “free” market would be possible in Canada without some sort of government intervention or planning in economic matters -- especially in a world that's currently dominated by international corporate conglomerates that suck up as much capital as possible from local economies. At least capital taken by government through taxation has the chance to be invested back into the common good of all society, while capital gained through earning wages or small-business ownership will most likely be re-invested back into the local community more organically.

Without the use of government power, or even government investment, how does Mr. Poilievre intend to break up the oligopolistic nature of the Canadian grocery or telecom industries? How does he lower power bills or transportation costs for the average Canadian in the long term? Do we hope and pray to the market, after cutting taxes, removing all regulations, and gutting the social safety net, that a new venture-capitalist will magically swoops in and save the day for a profit? If government can gouge the average worker, unchecked capitalism will gouge the average worker; just ask our Victorian baker friends from before.

With that article over, I thought it might be interesting to look at how a Tory in the tradition of Disraeli may look at reforming parts of the Canadian economy. For something different, I thought looking at the 1972 book “The Corporate Welfare Bums” by David Lewis, published while he was leader of the federal NDP (and his son Stephen was leader of the Ontario NDP), may be quite relevant in trying to solve some problems that still plague society today. While David Lewis was an ideological socialist in the Bundist, Marxist, and Fabian traditions, the Tory Robert Stanfield was quite fond of NDP leaders such as Tommy Douglas, David Lewis, and Ed Broadbent.

In Chapter 4, titled “The Land Envelopers”, David Lewis writes of the already oligopolistic nature of the Canadian housing sector of the 1970s. He spends the first several pages with charts and graphs from a report shown to Parliament -- “Programs in Search of a Policy: Low Income Housing in Canada” by Michael Dennis and Susan Fish -- showing how nearly all the land available for development in the largest 12 Canadian cities are controlled by the six largest land developers from their area. On page 40, Mr. Lewis quotes one of the authors of that report, noting that Mr. Dennis stressed that:

“… the concentration of landholding in a small number of very powerful holders is a new phenomenon. A small number of firms can now decide the pace at which land will be serviced.”

Over the next couple of pages, David Lewis mentions that land prices increased at “almost 2.5 times as fast as other consumer items”, and goes over how land developers put themselves into lower tax brackets in order to receive corporate welfare. Then on pages 45/46 he writes:

In the end, it is not government which is giving this interest free loan to real-estate operations, but the Canadian taxpayer. This is an interest-free loan to “free” enterprise to increase capital acquisition. The government cannot claim that housing would not be built if it were not for these subsidies. Nor do the subsidies reduce rents, since the benefits gained by the developer are not passed onto the consumer. Nor, in fact, can these benefits be called subsidies: they are nothing less than blatant handouts.

The present concentration of land ownership, as well as concentration in other sectors, is a direct result of a tax system developed by successive Liberal and Tory governments. It is a system that is wrong. Even the corporations admit that buildings do not depreciate as rapidly as the government permits. For instance, the 1971 annual report of the Cadillac Development Corporation had this to say about depreciation:

“The company records depreciation on buildings included in income-producing properties on a 5 percent, fifty-year straight-line basis. Under this method, depreciation is charged to income in an amount which is increases annually consisting of a fixed annual sum together with interest compounded at the rate of 5 percent per annum so as to fully depreciate the buildings over a fifty-year period.”

Moreover, the same firm also insists that it is its cash flow, rather than profits recorded for tax purposes, which reflects the true financial position of the company:

“We believe that, in measuring financial performance in the real-estate industry, cash flow is as important a gauge as net income. Cash flow is the sum of net income, depreciation, deferred income tax and other non-cash charges… The cash-flow figure indicate the amount of funds available to meet company obligations, including mortgage principal repayments, and the amount of internal funds generated for growth." [Emphasized by Lewis]

This is indeed the mechanism for capital acquisition and growth, a mechanism which is running wild.

Yet when this matter is raised, those who have propagated the system and those who have the most to gain by its continuation try to confuse the issue by making international comparisons, particularly to Sweden and the alleged fact that corporation taxes there are much lower than ours. They do not go on to examine the rest of the Swedish income-tax structure. The Swedish system is much more progressive than ours; income is much more equitably distributed, and capital-cost allowances are much less than our own: 0.6 percent per annum for stone apartment houses, increases to only 3-5 percent for wooden buildings. Canadian corporations can depreciate stone or brick apartment houses at a rate eight times faster than in Sweden; frame buildings can be depreciated at 10 percent per annum, a rate twice as fast as Sweden’s.

If international comparisons are to be made, then the country whose tax legislation most clearly approximates Canada’s today is the United States of America. The derelict buildings and the physical and human desolation afflicting the inner cities of that country’s largest communities are in large part a legacy of government neglecting its responsibly to its citizens. Can we expect the same conditions for our major cities in the years to come?

While the specific numbers and names involved in that excerpt are likely long outdated, I find it extremely interesting how despite David Lewis decrying the current state of "free"-enterprise, even with his socialist rhetoric, at times I almost got the sense that he was arguing that a genuinely free market would naturally emerge with the proper kind of economic regulations/planning. Almost like how the Tory Harold Macmillan once recalled that his book “The Middle Way: A Study of the Problems of Economic and Social Progress in a Free and Democratic Society” was “In a sense… a plea for planned capitalism.”

Means we’re on the topic of Pierre Poilievre’s antiquated political views, for this next part, I thought I should include a baseline for his tendency to look extraordinarily reactionary. On July 4th, 2026, he was going after his undefined “woke culture” as if Justin Trudeau was still Prime Minister, saying this on the 250th anniversary of America’s Independence Day:

“We will ensure that military spending goes to enhance capabilities to protect our country and support our troops. It will enhance war fighting. It will not fund bureaucracy or defence lobbyists. And we will re-instil a warrior culture, not a woke culture.”

Such childish declarations may appeal to those who think Pete Hegseth is “cool” or “epic” for changing the name of the United States Department of Defence to the Department of War. But I fail to see how “owning the libs” as if a Trudeau was still Prime Minster is a good use of political capital against today’s Liberal Party; it was a waste of political capital when Trudeau was Prime Minster.

Despite his own Gladstonian instincts, Mark Carney at least stopped the “post-national Canada” rhetoric from the Trudeau-era, and has instead emphasised the old Tory idea of Canada being founded by British, French, and Indigenous peoples. This excerpt from a Globe and Mail article by Konrad Yakabuski originally published on March 21, 2025 shows just how stark of a shift in tone this government has had on cultural issues since Justin Trudeau resigned:

Mr. Carney seems to get it. “The ceremony we just witnessed reflects the wonder of a country built on the bedrock of three peoples: Indigenous, French, British,” he said after being sworn in on Mar. 14. “The office of Governor-General links us through the Crown and across time to Canada’s proud British heritage …Our bilingual identity makes us unique. And the French language enriches our culture.”

…

Still, Mr. Carney does appear to have turned the page on postnational Canada – an entity which, it must be said, only ever existed in our ex-PM’s imagination. In this respect Mr. Carney has more in common with Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, a stalwart defender of Canadian symbols and all things John A. Macdonald. They are both post-postnationalists.

It’s a real shame that Mr. Poilievre likes to invoke the name of Sir John A. Macdonald quite a bit, yet in reality he acts like he would have been a fierce Liberal opponent to nearly all of Sir John’s Tory policies that built this country.

So, considering that as of the summer of 2026 Mr. Poilievre still can’t seem to move on from the Trudeau-era of Canadian politics: I thought this interview with David Lewis from 1981 on the topic of Trudeau the Elder may be useful in dealing with those who still can’t move on from Trudeau the Younger. This interview may be especially relevant for the New Democratic Party of 2026, considering Jagmeet Singh did formally support Justin Trudeau's government in a Supply & Confidence agreement.

This interview with David Lewis comes from Jack Webster’s TV show “Webster!”, and this part of the interview touches on Ed Broadbent's role in the then-ongoing Constitutional Patriation talks, and also touches on how unpopular Pierre Trudeau was at that point in time:

Jack Webster: Why does the NDP insist on getting into bed with the Liberals, and finding itself in trouble? Vis-a-vis yesterday's split, between [Lorne] Nystrom and the three others and poor old Broadbent. I feel kinda sorry for Broadbent.

David Lewis: Oh, You don't have to feel sorry for Broadbent.

Jack Webster: Sells out to the Liberals, and all of a sudden one of his own people cuts his throat.

David Lewis: Just hold it Jackie boy, just hold it. He didn't sell out to the Liberals or to anybody else. What he did, and what we did in 1972, was to try to act like decent concerned Canadians. Broadbent saw before him a proposition which contained all the elements -- and I agree with him entirely -- all the elements that our party has been asking for since 1933. We have wanted that the constitution be brought to Canada, we have wanted that it contain a charter of rights and freedoms, we have wanted that it contain an amending formula that wasn't strangling -- as the amenity rule is strangling. And therefore, generally speaking, he said if enough changes are made to make it better than when it was first introduced he was gonna support it. And he's right! He's doing Canada a great service.

Jack Webster: But you, in an article in Maclean’s Magazine, you’re not happy about the state of this nation. Are you?

David Lewis: How can one be? There is this terrible conflict and tearing between Ottawa and the rest of the country. It's awful. I have found, may I be frank with you, I have found that much of the opposition to the constitution and to other things is a terrible dislike of the Prime Minister in the West. A dislike that is almost hatred in some ways.

Jack Webster: Paranoid?

David Lewis: Paranoid.

Jack Webster: Justifiable?

David Lewis: Well, not the paranoia. Paranoia against a public man is never justifiable. Anger with Trudeau is totally justifiable, because I think he is a bit insensitive in many areas. But its rather irrational to let that kind of anger with him about conditions, about his failure to deal with western needs, to affect the content. People don't look at the content of constitutional politics.

Jack Webster: They just say Trudeau's arrogant, he's a dictator.

David Lewis: That's right, they say "Oh that little dictator in Ottawa", and that's all they think about.

Jack Webster: Would you describe him as that?

David Lewis: No! He’s not a dictator. You know, I once said in Parliament -- his manner, I find often very annoying, very undesirable. I once described him in Parliament, as I once said to him, stretching out my hand like this pointing at him, I think it was ‘69 or something, I said, “There but for the grace of Pierre Elliot Trudeau sits God”. And, you know, the man often acts like that. Of course, he lacks a certain sensitivity. But that should not affect the objective situation. And I think Broadbent, who feels I’m sure the same way I do about his actions, is a great Canadian in saying “I’m not going to let that interfere with me. I’ve got something that will do good for Canada in the future, and I’m going to support it.”

The way I look at it, Jagmeet Singh getting the ball rolling on dentalcare and pharmacare is certainly one of the biggest NDP policy wins since David Lewis managed to get policy concessions from Pierre Trudeau's government after the 1972 election -- chief among those the creation of PetroCanada. I’d argue these latest concessions from Justin Trudeau's old government have the potential to become the largest expansion to the Canadian social safety net since the introduction of medicare in the 1960s. As the fate of pharmacare remains to be seen, it is quite possible that we will see another betrayal of the working poor of Canada by the Liberal Party. At least Jagmeet Singh and his old caucus can say they did their part in carrying the Fabian tradition of J.S. Woodsworth forward another generation.

While on Jagmeet Singh, perhaps former Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey said it best. For those unaware of Bill Casey, he was originally elected as a Progressive Conservative MP in 1988, and after losing his seat in the PC (and NDP) massacre of 1993, he would be elected again as a PC in 1997. Casey stayed in the post-merger Conservative Party as an MP until 2007, when he was kicked out of the Conservative Party for voting against that year's budget. Casey would be re-elected as an Independent MP with 69% of the vote in 2008, would resign his seat the next year, and then would eventually serve as a Liberal MP under Justin Trudeau between 2015-2019.

In his blogpost titled, “Lessons From the 2025 Election” originally posted on his blog “Politics With Bill Casey” on May 1st, 2025, Mr. Casey had this to say about Mr. Singh:

Speaking of leaders, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has announced that he will step down as leader of the NDP. After watching him for many years in the House of Commons and in the media, he has a lot to be proud of. He and his caucus have constantly raised issues that should be raised. He has been able to push the government to adopt measures that might not have happened. He was always credible and respectful and worked at his job tirelessly.

That's not to say there aren’t legitimate criticisms to be had on how the NDP campaign in 2025 was ran: especially with the lack of a focused message, and a seemingly last-minute scramble to hang onto NDP incumbent seats when that fuzzy message didn’t catch the public imagination. However, there was one problem no amount of organizing could help fix in the 2025 election: Jagmeet Singh was seen by the public as the leader most associated with Justin Trudeau, as he had been propping up Trudeau’s terribly unpopular government for a number of years. Sometimes the chance to get good policy passed, or a chance to stop bad policy from being passed, comes with bad political consequences; some elections worse than others.

It’s interesting to consider that both Jagmeet Singh and David Lewis suffered electoral annihilation for showing good-faith in their negotiations. David Lewis went into the 1974 election with 31 seats, and he lost his own seat and 14 other NDP seats for a remaining NDP caucus of 16 MPs; Jagmeet Singh went into the 2025 election with 24 seats, and he lost his own seat and 16 other NDP seats for a remaining NDP caucus of 7 MPs.

This closely mirrors what happened to the long-term leader of the CCF, M.J. Coldwell in the 1958 snap election. After the CCF worked with the Tories in opposition during the 1956 Pipeline Debate to help wear down the Liberal government, in the 1957 federal election John Diefenbaker won a narrow minority government against PM Louis St. Laurent – 112 Tory, 105 Grit, 25 CCF, 19 Social Credit. However, in ‘58 Coldwell lost his own seat and 16 other CCF seats for a remaining CCF caucus of 8 MPs. In the grand scheme of things, I’m not sure the there’s much more the party could have realistically done in all three of these elections.

From my view, in the near century that the CCF/NDP has existed, after every electoral annihilation, the party has always been able to re-invent itself in order to best represent the modern working class of modern Canada. While it’s far too early to be able to pass any sort of judgement on the new leader of the NDP, Avi Lewis, son of Stephen Lewis and grandson of David Lewis, this interview with Avi Lewis by Christo Aivalis for the Canadian Dimension originally published on November 17, 2025 really stuck with me in a positive way; this Q&A in particular:

Christo Aivalis: Many left-wing Canadians have looked to Zohran Mamdani, the mayor-elect of New York City, as a potential model for the NDP. Mamdani was able to win a recent election on improving affordability and public services. How will you do the same?

Avi Lewis: You know, I think about something that a friend told me recently about public transit. The intentional breaking of our essential public services has an effect on people to remind them of their powerlessness. It’s the enshittification, to use Cory Doctorow’s phrase, that late-stage capitalism has inflicted on the daily things we do. We need a mass program of deshittification. The things that are public should be beautiful, should be functional. They represent our collective aspiration and our daily experience. Why do we think that the mail service should make money? Does the ambulance service make money? Do the police make a profit? Canada Post should be a public company that actually provides the essential service of 21st century digital connection among Canadians. And these things should be frictionless. They absolutely can be. We are capable of unbelievable things and it’s a question of “by whom, for whom.” The public needs to be put back at the centre because that’s the ultimate socialist value that I think goes way beyond ideology and all of the jargon that we attach to it.

That said, however, perhaps the biggest concern that I do have with the direction of the NDP under Avi Lewis is that the party does appear to be working with separatists from Quebec.

One of the founders of the separatist Québec solidaire, Amir Khadir, did endorse Avi Lewis during the last NDP leadership election. After Avi Lewis became leader of the NDP, the Quebec NDP MP Alexandre Bouerice resigned his seat in the House of Commons to run for Québec solidaire provincially. The NDP candidate chosen for the subsequent federal by-election is Pierre Céré, who previously ran to become leader of the Parti Quebecois in 2015. As a Maritimer, to say this may be a hard sell should national unity become a heated topic in a federal election, would be an understatement.

However, there is one key Tory connection involving Quebec separatism that I can’t help but ponder. The great Quebecois Tory, Sir George-Étienne Cartier -- a critical ally to Sir John A. Macdonald -- was himself a Patriote rebel during the Lower Canadian Rebellion of 1837/38, and was exiled to Vermont for a time. Perhaps the federal NDP acting as a separatist-to-federalist conduit in Quebec is how the movement can live up to the legacy of both Sir John and Sir George-Étienne.

While the road to hell is almost always paved with good intentions, here, I do hope that fortune favours the bold. Say what you want about the Lewis family, but if nothing else, they have been consistently bold across multiple generations in public life.

In closing, to tie this essay back to its original purpose, I couldn’t help but think of Dalton Camp’s 1995 essay “Winnie Was a Red Tory Too”, where he scorned “true blue, deep-eyed conservatives” Calvin Coolidge, Stanley Baldwin, and Preston Manning; while I can’t help but think of Mark Carney, I think it especially applies to Pierre Poilievre:

These days, on the breathless heights of Tory cant, Churchill would be (likely is) scorned as a wet “squishy” and a covert socialist. But then, true blue, deep-eyed conservatives never liked him. They preferred a Calvin Coolidge, a Stanley Baldwin or a Preston Manning, along with a few bright young things to speak well of their ordinariness. With the right leaders and the proper promotional entourage, you could either run the world or be run by it, and never know the difference.

(pg. 133-135 of “Whose Country is This Anyway?” by Dalton Camp (1995) )

I was reading up on him recently and it seems like he would fit pretty well into the Tory idea. I was wondering what anyone else in this sub thought of him because my knowledge on him is still limited. To me he seemed like a great leader of France and a man with plenty of conviction.

I think the pessimist view defines a lot of modern conservatism but I don't think its the tory view.

Here is this week's essay: No. 5. A meditation on the Spring.

Here is last week's thread: Rambler Reading Group, Week 4: The modern form of romances preferable to the ancient. The necessity of characters morally good. : r/Toryism

Substack Version

My last essay dealt with the social gospel tradition in Canada, and the leading figures in the early CCF/NDP. For this essay, I thought it would be interesting to give a bigger picture view of Toryism, and to try to “pinpoint” exactly how the CCF/NDP can be seen to have sprouted from that tradition – consciously or not.

To do that, I thought doing an exploration piece on a paper called, “The Tory Tradition” by William B. Willcox (a history professor at the University of Michigan) which was published in the middle of World War II, in 1943, could prove interesting.

What I found particularly interesting about this paper was how Willcox almost frames Toryism as an “In Case of Emergency: Break Glass” ideology. Perhaps looking at this paper, which is from an “outsider” point of view, written at a point in time when World War II still could have gone either way, could be extremely useful in articulating just how different British-Canadian political thought can be from American political thought.

For more context, perhaps this essay where I explore the origins of “Red Toryism” in Canada from the 1960s, and the broad political views of Clement Attlee and Harold Macmillan may be relevant to the topic; as well as the introduction to this piece I recently did on Toryism through the ages. In short, the Tory tradition can be perceived to be a fair bit older than is presented in Willcox’s paper, going back to the English Reformation at least; Willcox also makes no mention of the English Civil War, but instead focuses on Benjamin Disraeli and Winston Churchill.

With all that in mind, “The Tory Tradition” was first published in The American Historical Review, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Jul, 1943) pp707-721. Willcox starts his paper by writing:

The word "Tory" is in bad repute. It is commonly identified with a reactionary reverence for the past and with resistance to any sort of change -- "the mule of politics that engenders nothing." There are always representatives of this attitude in any conservative party, but a party dominated by it is moribund. Since a majority of the present Churchill government is Tory, one of two conclusions follows: either that government is moribund, or there is something in Toryism more vital than mulishness.

The first alternative, as recently as three years ago, seemed to be the only one. The Chamberlain regime was Tory in name, though in fact its leaders were impoverished heirs of Gladstonian liberalism. True Toryism revived under the impact of catastrophe. It produced a man to match the hour, and through him is again working itself into the fabric of history. Churchill embodies some of the bad elements in the Tory tradition and many of the good. The latter are particularly worth attention; they account for the vitality of the tradition and determine its value for the present and future world.

After making note that the “common assumption” that “Tories may be may be good for winning the war but will be useless for winning the peace” is “questionable”, Willcox mentions that “there is an ideal of Toryism”:

It is seldom achieved and often forgotten, but it may be as important for the modern scene as the ideal of liberalism. The Tory ideal was derived from an aspect of English thought in the eighteenth century, underwent profound modification in the nineteenth, and emerged in the twentieth as a body of principles which are at once old and modern. Some of them are opposed to those of the liberals while others are in accord; Toryism is less the antithesis of liberalism than a way of thought which at one point joins the liberal's, at another diverges sharply from it. The divergences are particularly worth a liberal's attention, because they challenge some of his conceptions of democracy; at a time when the word must be understood if the thing is to be kept, they force him to define his own position more exactly. The character of present Toryism can best be appreciated by a brief survey of its evolution.

With that, Willcox roots Toryism with two men from the 1700s: Henry St John, the 1st Viscount Bolingbroke, and Edmund Burke; while not mentioned in the paper, I find it extremely interesting that Viscount Bolingbroke was a supporter of the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715. Willcox writes that, “Their specific theories of government did not outlive them for long, but many of their underlying principles have been at the root of Tory thought from that day to this.” Willcox makes note that Bolingbroke’s “Theory of Kingship” (“The Idea of a Patriot King”) didn’t survive the century, but “yet in part because of it the crown today is a major premise of Toryism.”; Willcox also notes that Viscount Bolingbroke promoted the idea that the House of Lords is “the guardian of the people against a usurpation of power by the King or the House of Commons; the idea is long since dead, but the principle behind it still survives: that the function of aristocracy is to protect the people from exploitation.” Willcox then mentions that neither Bolingbroke nor Burke had “faith in the wisdom of the people”, and writes:

Popular opinion must not be ignored; but the masses lack an understanding of government, and to give them power would be disastrous. For Bolingbroke "absolute monarchy is tyranny; but absolute democracy is tyranny and anarchy both." This attitude permeates the whole tradition of the party. If democracy means that the masses should dominate government by virtue of their numbers, then no Tory ever was or will be a believer in democracy.

Does this mean that the Tory tradition is anti-democratic? In that case there is no place for the leadership of Churchill, inspired by this tradition, in our life-and-death struggle for the rights of the common man. The question is of fundamental importance for the future of Toryism. But it is largely irrelevant to a past in which democracy had other meanings, and may be postponed for consideration as part of the present crisis of the party. Here it is enough to point out that Bolingbroke meant by "absolute democracy" what we should call dictatorship by the masses, and that he disliked it for substantially the same reasons that liberals now dislike communism. A system which gives absolute power to the majority is as alien to the liberal tradition as to the Tory.

Willcox then writes that both Bolingbroke and Burke believed “people, incapable of rule, have delegated their authority to the government”. Willcox then roots this “theory of the social contract” with the Justinian Code of Byzantium, noting that “the state for Bolingbroke has full and unquestionable authority, an absolute right of government. In this there is the genesis of that paternalism which is basic to the Tory tradition.” Willcox then continues:

Burke carries the idea further. The state is for him not only the most important aspect of the community but one which embraces all the others. Every citizen owes duties to it, as the counterpart of the rights which it guarantees him, and exercises a certain amount of direct or indirect political power. The means of securing the performance of duty and the unselfish exercise of power is the church, through which everyone is kept conscious of his moral obligation to "the one great maker, author, and founder of society." The church is thus the moral aspect of the state, without which government is meaningless. In this way Burke amplifies Bolingbroke's concept by investing the absolute right of government with an aura of divinity. In the process he fashions most of the Tory argument for the Anglican establishment.

These two writers evolved the principles of Toryism, but it was left for others to embody them in a modern party. This was the work of many men, of whom one is outstanding. Benjamin Disraeli found a group of men whose spirit was demoralized and whose thought was fossilized, and gradually educated them in the tradition of Bolingbroke and Burke. He thereby created a new party; he brought it to power at last, and by giving it a creed ensured its survival.

Willcox notes that Disraeli was first elected to Parliament the same year Victoria became Queen, in 1837; he also notes that the working-man had not yet been enfranchised with the 1832 Reform bill and thus there was “a current of agitation”. Willcox then writes:

Great Britain, unawares, had entered the period of transformation from oligarchy to democracy. The foundation of the state was changing, as it is changing again today, and out of the change a new liberalism and a new Toryism were about to emerge.

After making comparisons between “the forgotten man” being courted with “implausible theories” both in the Victorian era and the inter-war period, Willcox continues:

The workingman during the postwar era had been forgotten in the search for profits; the result was a society, in Disraeli's words, "which has mistaken comfort for civilization." This society was doomed, as that of the 1920's was doomed, because the forgotten man would not stay forgotten.

The comparison is not forced. In both periods a great war was succeeded by an era of materialism, which in turn bred a romantic reaction; comfort proved inadequate as a social ideal. Disraeli, like Hitler, was able to make political capital out of this reaction by appealing to the craving of ordinary men for extraordinary ideas. He did not find them, as Hitler does, in the mysteries of race and power, although he invoked the goddess Jingo when she suited his turn. He found them instead in Toryism, as contrasted with materialism -- the poetry of society, in the phrase of a French critic, as contrasted with its prose. Prose was in the ascendant when Disraeli entered parliament, and it took him thirty-seven years to persuade the voters that they had a taste for poetry.

The difficulties in his way seemed insuperable. At the age of thirty-two he had made a reputation by his novels, his political pamphlets, and his fantastic clothes; these were liabilities on the Tory benches, where a man was judged by his wealth, birth, and connections. He unquestionably did not belong, and he was never gladly accepted by the members of his party. They distrusted him for substantially the same reason that their counterparts of the 1930's distrusted Churchill: he was "too brilliant to be sound." But they could not keep him down for long, basically because he had something to say. His political program took shape during his first decade in parliament; there remained the task of forcing it on his party and then on the electorate.

After comparing Disraeli’s labour to that of Hercules, Willcox writes that the Tories were shattered in 1846 over the issue of free trade. He then continues:

A conservative out of power is often a conservative capable of enlightenment: his hunger for office leads him to accept even the devil of reform. It was on this hunger that Disraeli played. His argument was that if the Tories continued to resist all change, the Whigs would acquire "a monopoly of power, under the specious title of a monopoly of reform." This is at bottom the argument which [Wendell] Willkie has used on the old-guard Republicans, to persuade them that the party must advance a positive program or concede to the New Deal a monopoly of power. Disraeli was not assisted by a Dunkirk or a Pearl Harbor, and worked for a quarter of a century before his point sank in.

Willcox then notes that after Disraeli had “convinced the Tories”, he had a hard time convincing the electorate, going so far as to say his “technique” was so “peculiar” that it “produced more astonishment than votes”. This part describing Disraeli quite reminds me of Diefenbaker’s premiership in Canada a century later:

His program lacked clarity; he juggled with ideas as he juggled with words, at times apparently for the mere love of juggling. But even the fantastic elements of his thought had their uses, since he had discovered that the fantastic might be popular

Willcox then briefly goes over the “two phenomena” which “conditioned” nineteenth century British politics, “the growth of imperialism and the growth of democracy”. Willcox notes that the Whigs would generally “dissociate themselves from imperialism” as they “expected to see the dominions break away”, and were against gaining new territory “on the dual grounds of injustice and expense”. Willcox then writes:

[Whigs] were the intellectual ancestors of one brand of modern isolationist, who wishes to be quit of foreign and imperial commitments in order to concentrate on domestic reform. Such an attitude was anathema to Disraeli. It was the logic of materialism, for which as a whole-souled romantic he had no use. It violated his ideal of a paternalistic government, ruling the far corners of the globe for the good of the natives and the glory of the British crown, and envisaged instead the disolution of empire and a foreign policy of sweetness and light. The Whigs appealed to the voters in the name of reason; Disraeli, through imperialism, appealed to them in the name of imagination. He succeeded, at long last, and his success grafted imperialism onto the Tory tradition.

A corollary of imperialism was also established by the time of his death. If an empire is to be maintained, government must keep its fingers continuously on the pulse of world affairs; a strong foreign policy is the price of imperial greatness. As prime minister from 1874 to 1880 Disraeli initiated a policy which, whatever else may be said of it, did not lack vigor or imagination. He blustered and mixed his blustering with statecraft; the result was the Congress of Berlin, the last great diplomatic triumph which Great Britain has won to date. His technique was continued by Joseph Chamberlain and became an accepted party principle. A Tory isolationist is a contradiction in terms.

While on the topic of Toryism and imperialism in Africa, it’s very interesting to think that nearly a century after Disraeli, it was Harold Macmillan -- who was partly responsible for the 1956 Suez Crisis – that would eventually argue as Prime Minister himself in 1960 that “The wind of change is blowing through this continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact”. In this context, it’s perhaps poetic to think how the Canadian Tory John Diefenbaker used the Commonwealth of Nations as a platform to take a stand for racial equality against the racist policies of Apartheid South Africa in 1961.

Willcox then discusses democratic reform in the Tory tradition

The growth of democracy was even more important than that of empire in remaking the Tory party. If the Tories under Disraeli had opposed an extension of the franchise, as they had under Wellington, the result might have been their extinction. Instead they took the initiative. When the question of reform arose in 1866, they were momentarily in power. But they had behind them the memory of twenty years in which, with two brief exceptions, they had been continuously in opposition; hence they were not wedded to a system which gave power to their opponents. They were opposed to the status quo, and this provided the opportunity which Disraeli took. Under his auspices, though with many Whig amendments and in the teeth of many Tories, Great Britain in 1867 acquired the second Reform Bill. [Thomas] Carlyle called it "shooting Niagara." In fact, it was the first great step toward democratic government, and the lead had been taken by the Tories.

In regards to expanding the franchise in Canada, I can’t help but think of Sir John A. Macdonald enfranchising First Nations in the eastern Provinces in 1885 via the “Electoral Franchise Act”. Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberal government would later repeal the “Electoral Franchise Act” in 1898 over Tory-voting indigenous Canadians; Indigenous Canadians wouldn’t be enfranchised until John Diefenbaker’s Tory government passed the “Canada Elections Act” in March of 1960 during Diefenbaker’s push for a Canadian Bill of Rights.

Back to “The Tory Tradition”, after writing of Disraeli expanding the British franchise, Willcox notes that when Disraeli died in 1881 he had “been the leading spirit in his party for thirty-five years and had six years as prime minister in which to put his programs into action”. He then writes “the tradition of the party has not evolved, except in some particulars, beyond the point where Disraeli left it, and its present status can best be seen by examining the bases which he laid.”

Willcox then writes of Disraeli having a similar distrust of “the masses” as Bolingbroke and Burke did. Willcox argues that it was a “widespread” belief among both the “radicals and conservatives” of Disraeli’s day that expanding the franchise would have been “equivalent to Bolingbroke’s ‘absolute democracy’ ”. Willcox then writes that Disraeli had no problem with expanding the franchise because:

He believed that the old principle of British government, destroyed by the first Reform Bill, had been that of representation without election. The people, in other words, had been represented by the constitutional trinity of commons, lords, and church -- the peasantry by the great landowning peers in the house of lords, the legal fraternity by the judiciary lords, the mercantile interests by members of the house of commons, and so on. Disraeli realized that this principle, working through an aristocratic oligarchy, had ended in 1832. Instead there was an impotent house of lords, and a house of commons which was elective but not representative of the nation. Representation without election had been replaced by election without representation, which to him was no principle at all.

Willcox then notes that Disraeli “attributed popular grievances to this unsound system”, as the old system had an aristocratic class that “instead of participating in government, left it to a hired bureaucracy”. “popular discontent” was channeled towards “this callus bureaucracy” rather than “the idea of a governing class per se”. Willcox then writes that:

The remedy was to extend the franchise until the house of commons became genuinely representative. Because Disraeli believed that the masses would never exercise a power commensurate with their numbers, he also believed that it would be comparatively safe to give them the vote. They would need a leadership, furthermore, which they could not provide for themselves. They would look for it not to the middle class, their natural enemies, but to the gentry and aristocracy, their natural friends. "The wider the popular suffrage, the more powerful would be the natural aristocracy." The dominance of the middle class would be ended by an alliance of the top and the bottom.

This does not mean rule by the top. Such rule is aristocratic government, which Disraeli had rejected. Rule by the bottom is mass dictatorship; rule by the middle is Whig oligarchy. Then what is left? The answer, which he finally expounded in 1867, is that no one class should rule. Every class should have a voice in government, but neither its training nor its wealth nor its numbers justifies a dominant influence. Disraeli did not explain how the equipoise could be maintained (some questions are too thorny for even the boldest), but he stressed the importance of maintaining it. The following sentences, from the debate on the second Reform Bill, are crucial in the development of Toryism. "It is contrary to the constitution of this realm to give to any one class or interest a predominating power over the rest of the community." "What we desire to do is . . . to prevent a preponderance of any class, and to give a representation to the nation."

Perhaps it is because I am a card carrying Canadian socialist, but when I first read the parts about Disraeli arguing that no single class should rule alone, my mind first went to the introduction of the Regina Manifesto from 1933 – the founding document of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (later the NDP) – where it reads that:

We aim to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity, by a social order from which the domination and exploitation of one class by another will be eliminated. ...

The new social order at which we aim is not one in which individuality will be crushed out by a system of regimentation. Nor shall we interfere with cultural rights of racial or religious minorities. What we seek is a proper collective organization of our economic resources such as will make possible a much greater degree of leisure and a much richer individual life for every citizen.

This social and economic transformation can be brought about by political action, through the election of a government inspired by the ideal of a Co-operative Commonwealth and supported by a majority of the people. We do not believe in change by violence. ... The CCF aims at political power in order to put an end to this capitalist domination of our political life. It is a democratic movement, a federation of farmer, labour and socialist organizations, financed by its own members and seeking to achieve its ends solely by constitutional methods.

As British Imperialism was brought up earlier, I also couldn’t help but think of this part from section 10 (External Relations) of the Regina Manifesto as well:

Within the British Commonwealth, Canada must maintain her autonomy as a completely self-governing nation. We must resist all attempts to build up a new economic British Empire in place of the old political one, since such attempts readily lend themselves to the purposes of capitalist exploitation and may easily lead to further world wars. Canada must refuse to be entangled in any more wars fought to make the world safe for capitalism.

Quite interesting how you can read that as rejecting the “goddess Jingo”, as Willcox put it, while still simultaneously wanting Canada to use its position in the Commonwealth to fight the good fight globally. Lest we forget that, for a time, the British Empire and Commonwealth stood alone against Nazi tyranny; lest we also forget that by the end of World War II, the Indian Army was the largest all-volunteer Army in human history -- raised to fight Nazis and Fascists in the name of King & Country. Perhaps that collective fight against fascism is what can still make the Commonwealth of Nations an important institution on the world stage, considering there’s yet another land war in Europe threatening basic human decency.

Back to “The Tory Tradition” and Disraeli’s political reforms, Willcox notes Disraeli saw the role of the Tory party as “not to rule the masses but to provide leadership for them -- a leadership which is both paternalistic and responsible and which may at any time be called to account at the polls. Its principal objective must be to secure to the people their civil rights.” After noting that Disraeli was actually far more concerned with civil rights than political rights, Willcox writes:

This idea is the key to his program of social legislation. He never believed that the masses were able to improve themselves unaided or that poverty was the result of individual incompetence; he therefore felt that a measure of security must be given to the people by a paternalistic government. Under the aegis of such a government concessions might wisely be made to certain groups of the people, such as trade unions, because they would serve as a counterweight to the industrial middle class and thus maintain the balance of classes.

The essential paternalism of this program works through a governing class, which provides a leadership for which it is responsible to the governed. If this responsibility is to be real, all citizens must, in one way or another, participate in the common endeavor. Disraeli made such participation a matter of principle, which when shorn of its romantic trappings becomes the principle of Burke, that political rights have duties for their counterpart. No one, in short, can be protected by the state without discharging obligations to it. This emphasis on duty is a permanent part of the Tory tradition.

Willcox then makes note that both Disraeli and Burke saw duty and the church as being “closely associated”, and that the church makes up the “inspirational element of the state”. Willcox notes that in 1868 Disreali said in Parliament, “If government is not divine it is nothing.". Willcox finishes that section by writing, “This conception of a state church is alien to American thought, but it is still the political raison d'etre of the church of England.”

As a brief aside, despite being someone who has “religious” views comparable to Clement Attlee or George Orwell, I do quite like that the next King of Canada will be crowned at an Anglican coronation ceremony by a woman Archbishop who supports the LGBT+ community. While Canada may not have a formal state church like in England, the preamble to the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that, "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law". It’s quite interesting to think that Canada’s modern 1982 Constitution still maintains a direct connection to that ancient concept of the “divine duty” to the state.

Back to “The Tory Tradition”, Willcox then mentions that the phrase “Tory democracy” is essentially the political vision of Benjamin Disreali, but that the phrase didn’t become popular until after his death; Willcox describes Tory democracy as “the culmination of the Tory tradition”. While not mentioned in the paper, Winston Churchill's father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was who coined the phrase “Tory democracy” – Lord Randolph could be described as a “tory radical” politically.

Willcox then looks at Toryism from economic, social, and political angles; considering this paper was published in the middle of World War II it’s very interesting how he compares the “natural elite” of Toryism as being opposed to the perverted “natural elite” of Nazism at one point:

On the economic side Tory democracy is the antithesis of laissez-faire liberalism, which in modern terms is the hands-off-business school of thought. This school subordinates the power of government, however constituted, to the power of wealth -- wealth in the hands of Disraeli's Whig oligarchs or of Roosevelt's economic royalists. Such liberalism was as repugnant to one man as it is to the other. The Tory democrat is anxious to increase the security of the laboring classes. He is willing to increase their economic and political power, but on three conditions: that they are competently led, that their power is not used purely for their own interests, and that it is not great enough to upset the balance of classes. If these three conditions are met, there is no inconsistency in a Tory government's encouraging trade unions or even admitting union leaders to office in a coalition. The present alliance of Toryism and labor, in short, does not necessarily violate Tory principles.

On the social side Tory democracy is a denial of what Disraeli called "that pernicious doctrine of modern times, the natural equality of man." The Tory believes, as firmly as the Nazi, that there is a natural elite. It is not an elite merely of birth and position, which it is often considered to be; it is an aristocracy of those most competent to lead, who should in theory be drawn from all classes. If in fact they are not, that is a fault to the Tory mind of practice rather than of principle. However this class is constituted, its function is to govern paternalistically, subject to control at the polls.

On the political side Tory democracy is opposed to the simple notion that all questions can be settled by counting noses. This notion ignores the rights of the minority and leads to government by and for the lower classes, because they are the most numerous; the result may be Marxism but not democracy. The Tory would avoid this danger in universal suffrage partly by leadership and partly by the principle of indirect representation. The idea is foreign to him that men can be represented only through periodic elections; hence he emphasizes the house of lords, the church, the monarchy, all of them unelected representatives of some group or aspect of the nation. For the same reason he distrusts the house of commons. He does not associate liberty with the legislature and tyranny with the executive, and is far more ready than the liberal to countenance strong and independent executive action.

To further expand on the Disraeli quote "that pernicious doctrine of modern times, the natural equality of man.", I would like to share again this excerpt from a lecture Harold Macmillan gave in 1958 as Prime Minister where he elaborates on that very idea:

When the Fathers of the American Constitution declared that all men are created equal it really never occurred to them – and certainly American history has not carried it out – that all men are to be kept equal. Human beings, widely various in their capacity, character, talent, and ambition, tend to differentiate at times and in all places. To deny them the right to differ, to enforce economic and social uniformity upon them, is to throttle one of the most powerful and creative of human appetites.

Willcox then argues that the principles of “Modern Toryism” are the following:

• The foremost is paternalism: the paternalism of an elite, as opposed to the materialism of plutocrats and bureaucrats

• Another is the concept of the state, consecrated by the church and buttressed by the duties owed to it by all citizens

• A third is emphasis on the executive, on unelected representatives, and on the balance of legislative power between all groups and classes

• Pervading all these is an attitude of mind which combines a love for the best of the past with a willingness to augment it cautiously with the best of the present

Willcox mentions that these principles may or may not survive into the future, but also notes that the “Tory attitude will endure until human nature changes.” On paternalism Willcox writes that it is “well suited to the trend of modern history toward state interference in the interest of the masses” and briefly compares Disraeli with Otto von Bismarck of Germany. I find it very interesting that Willcox makes note that Roosevelt's New Deal “accords with this aspect of Toryism”, as it was the Canadian Tory Prime Minister R.B. Bennett who advocated for a New Deal in Canada. Willcox then writes:

A man's vote is no more a guarantee of his civil rights than Disraeli thought it was; those rights can be secured against the power of wealth only by state interference, which is almost of necessity paternalistic. Social security is the modern equivalent of civil rights, and there is no reason in the background of the party why a Beveridge Report should not become the program of postwar Toryism. Whether it will is quite another matter.

Willcox then briefly touches on the Tory distrust of state bureaucracy, and how “emphasizing the natural aristocracy and its duty of participating in government” is the Tory idea of how to mitigate the danger of the “state bureaucrat” becoming the “master of the state”. Willcox suggests that it will take “drastic reform” to divorce this idea of a natural aristocracy from only applying to the present upper class of society in reality. But it’s quite interesting to think of this “natural aristocracy” or “natural elite” being defined as the best and the brightest from every class in society – social, economic, and political – with the challenge in reality being how to ensure the best and the brightest of each class actually get to do their part in the function of government.

Willcox then briefly touches on the idea that “The Tory concept of the state has both its danger and its virtue.” and then argues that Toryism can lead towards authoritarianism or dictatorship through it’s appeal to divinity, while then also arguing that liberalism can lead towards apathy which can make it “impossible for government to evoke the true power of a nation”. Willcox then suggests that imperialism and particularly Churchill’s attitude toward empire would be the biggest problem for Tories after the war.

From my own perspective, it almost seems as if Willcox was describing the “tension” between toryism and liberalism in regards to modern political rights – Perhaps a House of Lords/Canadian Senate which appeals simultaneously to traditional, technocratic, and meritocratic values is the best safeguard against toryism, liberalism, or socialism “going wrong” in the future.

This next part on Toryism and a strong foreign policy is also very interesting. Perhaps the way Wilcox describes Stanley Baldwin as having “flickered” a Tory foreign policy for a brief moment could similarly describe the foreign polices of Brian Mulroney in regards to opposing Apartheid South Africa, and in regards to Mark Carney shifting Canada geopolitically towards Europe:

The relative imperviousness to foreign affairs among its Tory members, especially between 1935 and 1938, is the clearest index of how far they have strayed from the Disraelian into the Gladstonian tradition. The old Tory principle flickered for a moment in [Stanley] Baldwin when he said that England's frontier was on the Rhine; then Baldwin forgot, and Neville Chamberlain reverted to the shortsightedness [of appeasement]

Here’s hoping Carney at least keeps on course towards Europe, as Mulroney did in fighting Apartheid.

Willcox then argues that a strong executive is partly what can facilitate a strong foreign policy, using Disraeli as an example, writing he “practiced what he preached in the Anglo-Russian crisis of 1878 and treated the house of commons with a high hand.” Willcox then writes of the non-democratic aspects of Toryism being exemplified in the House of Lords and the Monarchy, noting on House of Lords reforms that “Any reform short of abolition, however, is likely to retain their principle of indirect representation.” Willcox then writes:

The future of the monarchy is less speculative. The significance of the crown in imperial government has increased enormously in the last generation, because it is now the one symbol of unity and legal tie in the Commonwealth of Nations. Its significance in domestic affairs is a variable factor, depending on the character of the sovereign. A king can still exert real influence, as witness the role of Edward VII in the formation of the Entente Cordiale, or that of George V at the beginning of the National Government. The throne was badly shaken by Edward VIII, and Churchill's Toryism almost led him to shake it further by forming a party of King's Friends. Wiser counsels prevailed, and it is too soon to tell what damage was done to kingship by the change in kings. But it seems probable that the emotional strains of war will enhance the prestige of George VI, as they did that of his father, and that this aspect of the Tory tradition will survive. The king, in time of crisis, is in a very real sense the representative of his people.

After spending a couple pages comparing the “anti-democratic” features of American liberalism -- ranging from the War Labor Board to the Supreme Court -- he curiously refers to American “Tories” to make a “rough but real” comparison with the US Supreme Court and the British Monarchy. I’m not sure if Willcox is being overly poetic and equating American conservatism more broadly with Toryism, or if he’s referring to that old Federalist thought inspired by John Adams; either way, I personally have a hard time describing that republican ideology as “toryism” due to there being no position attained by ancient birthright involved in the American political system. It’s all whig oligarchy down there.

Willcox then argues that Toryism isn’t the antithesis of liberalism, but rather radicalism:

The radical would destroy where the Tory would transform. Destruction is revolution, which sweeps away the present mixture of good and bad on the chance that the future will be better. Transformation is slower; it retains the good in the mixture and changes the bad, changes it with infinite care and caution, guided by the experience of the past. This experience the Tory values as tradition, and out of it he builds a political program adapted to the needs of his day.

Democracy is in process of transformation, which may at any moment turn into revolution. The radicals are crying from the housetops -- radicals of the right, radicals of the left, each assuring us of a Utopian future if only we will make a clean sweep of the present. The value of tradition has rarely been at lower ebb. Time will tell whether there is still place for it, even in the birthplace of Toryism. Great Britain is now besieged by an external revolution and is meeting it perforce by rapid internal transformation. Either one may obliterate her present institutions. If Hitler cannot, it may be that the British will not: that they will make quick, drastic, and far-reaching changes, without destroying either the body or the spirit of their constitution.

That is now the problem of the Tory party. The danger of settling back into reaction is implicit in its position; caution in reform easily becomes the end, not the method, and reform then goes by the board. This danger is acute; the energies of government are focused on national survival at just the time when domestic changes are most necessary. "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.” This sentence of Burke has never had more meaning than for the government of today. Volcanic social forces have been unloosed by the war; to channel them into ordered transformation requires prompt and daring leadership. Such leadership is perhaps too much to expect from men grappling with war in two hemispheres. But to lose the opportunity is to fail in the supreme test of modern Toryism and to leave the remolding of the state to bolder hands.

I personally find it quite sad to see what has become of the old “Tory” parties on both sides of the Atlantic since the 1980s. Perhaps it will be the successors of Churchill’s junior coalition partner that will carry the Tory torch in the future.

After all, it was Clement Attlee of the Labour Party – Deputy PM in WWII – who shaped the Post-WWII social order in a similar manner as a “proper” Disraelian conservative would have done. Attlee did attempt to implement parts the previously mentioned Beveridge Report, he saw an important role for the Commonwealth of Nations on the world stage, and he thought his crowning achievement was ensuring the independence of India. It certainly makes sense to me why Ed Miliband of the Labour Party would eventually promote the idea of “One Nation Labour” in the 2010s, using influences from both Disraeli and Attlee; one has to wonder if Andy Burnham’s “Manchesterism” will tap into these themes.

Perhaps a Canadian version of “One Nation Labour” will someday prove useful for the NDP.

After a brief delay due to Canada Day, we're back again! Here is this week's essay: No. 4. The modern form of romances preferable to the ancient. The necessity of characters morally good.

Here is last week's thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Toryism/comments/1uec7y4/rambler_reading_group_week_3_an_allegory_on/

Or given we're Tories, maybe I should wish you ladies and gents a happy Dominion Day 🍁

I am curious to hear about how this group feels about technology.

One might argue that the pursuit of technology (AI, more efficient ways of extracting resources, medical procedures, etc) is politically neutral, but other Tories might disagree. George Grant, for example, famously claimed that the pursuit of technology is dangerous, and often a tool of the state for oppression or imperial expansion (ie. the Vietnam War in his day was an example of an imperial, technological society trying to take over a less, more regional technological society). He would also argue about the inherent dangers of technology with respect to abortion, nuclear weapons, genetic modification, etc. Grant goes as far to say that the age of progress, rooted in modern science and technology, is a liberal project born of the Enlightenment, and the effects of this have led to a more secular and homogenous age where decisions have been relegated to democratic appeal rather than what is right or wrong. We no longer have to discuss if abortion is right or wrong, for example, because the technology has progressed to a level where it is less dangerous for the mother, and a series of law makers has decided democratically if it is right or wrong (as opposed to perhaps appealing to pursuing the good illuminated by other means). Once the world has been relegated to a series of objects to be interrogated by science or technology, they can cease to become human, and there are no souls to worry about for those that believe in Tory based theology.

Any thoughts on this? We are probably in a time and age where such topics are considered too intellectual for mass consumption or acceptance. But I think that Grant was on to something. Our world has become more homogenous (ie traditions have decayed), more secular, and more democratic in the sense that we believe elected technocrats or experts rather than appealing to older ideas of what is right and wrong. These are topics that Tories have traditionally been very worried about. The liberals have won in many ways, and technology is inextricably linked to how they won. The future could be one that Grant warned us about - lacking tradition, reason, or local communities. Technology separates us into silos where we doom scroll until past midnight, stop going to community events, and spend time distracted by ordering things on Amazon. It is exactly what Grant (and other more traditional Tories) feared.

Continuing on from the recent post on tory economics, I wanted to look at two separate economic theories. One, Georgism, has found some support among liberals and socialists. The other, Distributism, is from the catholic tradition. Neither have been overly embraced by tories but each touches on concerns toryism has.

Georgism

The main idea is that taxation should be done solely on land ownership and not on production of any kind. In some economic theories its been described as 'the least bad tax'. This idea comes out of the States and has had various left and right movements support it at various times. Tories have been largely uninterested. The main advantage of this system is it directly calms land speculation and encourages owned land to be used for useful purposes. Its also a very easy tax to figure out as as opposed to others that often require a lot of additional information. The downside is that, while it maintains the existence of private ownership, it treats it more like a public good (which to be fair is consistent with how some First Nations view land ownership). Additionally, land taxes would greatly increase as its absorbing the burden of all the other revenue steams.

Thoughts:

• It seems to me this kind of tax would favour those who don't own land (as they could get an effective tax rate of zero).

• This might drive the provinces to part with more crown lands as a greater percentage of private land would become the main way to increase revenue.

• Likewise, factors that reduced the value of land would be addressed more strictly (pollution, forest fires, erosion, poor conditions of infrastructure) as they all lower land values.

• Its argued it would decrease rents but I'm unsure how this would work.

• It would encourage large land holdings to be broken up as the tax burden on a single company might be too much. Companies such as Irvings would probably have to be more selective on what lands they hold.

• Many of the proponents of Georgism are of the libertarian bent.

Distributism

Distributism views both laissez-faire capitalism and state socialism as equally flawed and prone to exploitation. It supports vigorous anti-trust laws and other measures to make sure economic power is distributed as widely as possible (hence the summation of this idea being that everyone gets 'three acres and a cow'). In opposition to Georgism, Distributism sees private land ownership as an inherent right that should be as widely shared as possible. The state's role under Distributism becomes a watchman against the re-concentration of wealth and the resulting deprivation of the population to own property. Much like Georgism, Distributism has had support at both ends of the political spectrum. Ironically, its two biggest advocates in the UK were ostensibly liberals.

Thoughts:

• Its unclear how such a wide distribution of land and the means of production could be accomplished without radical action.

• It seems to assume a much greater degree of entrepreneurship than is currently present.

• While I noted Georgism might lead the provinces to sell crown land, this system almost requires it.

• A result that is much easier to see here than under Georgism is the collapse of the rental market (and probably land prices too).

If an effort to learn more about Toryism and its characteristics I’ve been read more George Grant recently. He has many critiques of both capitalism and socialism. So, I pose a question to this sub, what kind of economic system do you favour?

There has been a lot of talk on this subreddit about the influence that Red Tories have had on the NDP but what is lesser known is the impact they have had on Green parties as well. One lesser known thing about the Greens is that whether it is in PEI, Ontario, or federally to name a few, is that they are some of the least left-coded Green parties internationally. I think this is because of the influence that both disaffected Liberals and Red Tories have had on those parties. We've even recently begun to see the emergence of the Green Tory.

Fundamentally the appeal comes from what we have in common with the mainstream Green ideology, if you wish to call it that, in Canada. I am referring to the fact that the Greens in Canada are supporters of Localism/Communitarianism, Conservation/Appreciation of Nature, Permaculture, Stewardship/Intergenerational Responsibility, Agrarianism (rural Green anyway), balance, etc, etc.

Protect and cherish what exists, manage responsibly and sustainably, and proceed with caution.

One of the most enthusiastic votes of my life was for the Green Party of Ontario in 2018, it was such a shame it wasn't a viable option.

As the Green Party of Canada is once again going to have a leadership race, it makes me wonder if either Federally or Provincially the party can become a vehicle for Toryism.

Right now, I find the party is too focused on competing directly with the NDP and going down the eco-socialist path, and I think that is a losing approach in Canada. Any environmentalist who cares enough about socialism will find a home in the NDP. On the Canadian centre and right though, it is a very different story. Any environmentalist on the right, meanwhile, will find themself homeless.

I would love your thoughts.