Tom Flanagan

The latest and greatest news, speeches, videos, transcripts, archives, propaganda, information and upside down views about Tom Flanagan. Please remember, information is a contact sport, like hockey, so feel free to add contributions and relevant information as a comment below! Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content…

Explore: Tom Flanagan

Sandbox: Tom Flanagan

  • *

(currently updating…)

Videos: Tom Flanagan

(currently updating…)

Propaganda: Tom Flanagan

Scandals: Tom Flanagan

  • #Flanagan again
  • Censure Tom Flanagan

    Open letter to University of Calgary President Dr. Elizabeth Cannon regarding Dr. Tom Flanagan’s remarks

    with 46 comments

    If you are a member of the U of C community (or even if you are not) and you share our sentiment, we ask that you send a copy of this letter along with your thoughts to Dr. Cannon at president at ucalgary dot ca. You may also wish to CC the following addresses: chair at ucalgary dot ca, senate at ucalgary dot ca, jim dot dinning at senate dot ucalgary dot ca, alumni at ucalgary dot ca, eosler at ucalgary dot ca.

    Update (Dec. 16) After 10 days without a response from the university, I sent a follow-up note to Dr. Cannon today.

    Dear Dr. Cannon,

    Ten days ago, 60 U of C alumni and 25 others including current U of C students and staff as well as supporters from across Canada and abroad sent an open letter asking the University of Calgary to respond to Dr. Tom Flanagan’s remarks advocating for the murder of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on the November 30 broadcast of the CBC’s Power & Politics with Evan Solomon (the letter and the original e-mail are attached below).

    While noting that Dr. Flanagan had apologized, we asked that the University of Calgary distance itself publicly from Dr. Flanagan’s remarks (which it has done, albeit very weakly – http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/utoday/december7-2010), that it condemn Dr. Flanagan in the harshest possible terms (no progress) and that it censure Dr. Flanagan for abusing the good name of the university (no progress).

    We find the university’s response to Dr. Flanagan’s remarks deeply inadequate, especially considering international press coverage which has done tremendous damage to the U of C’s reputation. Also, the U of C’s response seems incredibly weak when compared to responses from well-respected public NGOs such as International PEN, from newspaper sources including the Editorial Board of the Guardian, and from the political realm where the communications director for the Canadian Prime Minister Dmitiri Soudas found the time to condemn the remarks.

    While we continue to be disappointed with the university’s position, we are deeply insulted by the absence of any response to our letter from President Cannon, her office or any other relevant body at the university. If the university does not think enough of 60-plus of its own alumni to answer a letter, then how can it expect those same alumni to stand up for the U of C within their communities or to contribute their time and resources to university endeavors?

    Sincerely,

    Kris Kotarski (BA ’04, MSS ’09), on behalf of 97 signatories listed at http://censureflanagan.wordpress.com/

    Update (Dec. 9) The Canadian Press reports that the Toronto woman who felt threatened after receiving an e-mail from Dr. Flanagan has received an apology. Meanwhile, in the Calgary Herald, University of Calgary Law Professor Peter Bowal writes  about the double standard on free speech at the university (where students are punished and sued by the university, while professors are not).

    Update (Dec. 8): Complete silence from everyone at the university thus far. Meanwhile, the Globe and Mail reports that Dr. Flanagan has threatened another person. Is threatening two people in one week a fireable offence at the University of Calgary? You may wish to e-mail the accounts below to get an answer.

    Update (Dec. 6): Will keep adding signatures to the open letter if you post them or send them to kkotarski at gmail dot com.

    Update (Dec. 6): The signed final version of this letter (same as below) was sent to Dr. Cannon on December 6, 2010. A copy was also sent to the University of Calgary Chancellor, the University of Calgary Senate, the University of Calgary General Faculties Council, the University of Calgary Board of Governors, and the University of Calgary Alumni Association. This page will be updated if and when we receive a reply. Please stay tuned, and thank you all again for your signatures and your support.

    Update (Dec. 4) The Calgary Herald published our letter on Saturday, December 4. We will send it to Dr. Cannon with all of your signatures on Monday at noon. If you know any fellow alumni who may wish to sign our letter, please pass it along.


    Dr. Elizabeth Cannon
    Office of the President
    Executive Suite
    Administration Building, Room 100
    University of Calgary
    2500 University Drive NW
    Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4
    president@ucalgary.ca

    CC:      Chancellor Jim Dinning
    University of Calgary Senate
    Chair Board of Governors Jack Perraton
    University of Calgary General Faculties Council
    President U of C Alumni Association Kenneth R. McKinnon

    December 2, 2010 (Dated December 6 in the final note to Dr. Cannon)

    Dear Dr. Cannon,

    On November 30, 2010, University of Calgary Political Science Professor Dr. Tom Flanagan advocated for the political murder of Julian Assange, the founder of the international non-profit media organization Wikileaks.

    Speaking on a national CBC broadcast of Power & Politics with Evan Solomon, Dr. Flanagan said: “I think that Assange should be assassinated, actually. I think that Obama should put on a contract and maybe use a drone or something.”

    When host Evan Solomon interrupted saying, “Tom, that’s pretty harsh stuff,” Dr. Flanagan replied, “Well, I’m feeling very manly today.”

    He ended the segment with, “I wouldn’t feel unhappy if Assange disappeared.”

    Dr. Flanagan has since apologized for his comments, telling CBC News: “I regret that I made a glib comment about a serious issue.”

    He later added that: “I am glad that everyone is condemning it, and I condemn it also.”

    His prompt apology is most certainly welcome, but unfortunately for the U of C’s reputation, the damage has been done. A number of the most prominent English-language news sources in the world including the Telegraph, the Nation, the Jerusalem Post, National Public Radio (NPR) and the Guardian carried Dr. Flanagan’s remarks, along with major Canadian news outlets and countless blogs.

    Dr. Flanagan’s initial remarks remain relevant to the U of C community because although debate and even harsh disagreement about the Wikileaks release are not only inevitable but perfectly natural for an open and democratic society like Canada’s, we must draw a line at advocating for political murder, something that Dr. Flanagan failed to do.

    Better than most, a professor of political science should understand that academic freedom is not possible without political freedom, and that political freedom cannot survive in a climate where journalists and opponents of a ruling regime hear public intellectuals advocate for their assassination on the nightly news.

    If this were a Russian, Chinese or Iranian intellectual calling for the murder of a regime opponent, Canadians would be appalled. Considering Canada’s proud tradition of political freedom, it is all the more offensive to hear an active member of the University of Calgary faculty and the former chief of staff and campaign manager for the sitting Canadian Prime Minister do the same.

    The University of Calgary should distance itself publicly from Dr. Flanagan’s initial remarks, condemn Dr. Flanagan in the harshest possible terms, and censure him for abusing the good name of the university and for the damage this has done to the reputation of not only the school, but of the 150,000 alumni and the degrees they hold.

    This should be done peacefully. After all, even though thousands of University of Calgary students, staff and faculty have disagreed with Dr. Flanagan’s opinions over the years, no one has publicly called for him to be murdered, even in jest.

    Sincerely,

    Kris Kotarski
    BA History & International Relations ’04
    MSS Military and Strategic Studies ’09

    Andrew Amey
    BComm Finance ’04 (UofC)
    MCP City Planning ’10 (MIT)
    MSc Transportation ’10 (MIT)

    Katy Anderson (student)
    BA Political Science ’12
    BA Religious Studies & Applied Ethics ’12

    Maria Cristina Bacalso
    BA Political Science ’06

    Lawrence Bailey
    BA International Relations ’04

    Margaret (Van Tighem) Bailey
    BA ’80

    Bob Barnetson
    BA ’94
    MA ’97
    PhD ’99

    Chris Beauchamp
    BA Political Science ’08

    Blake Belding
    BComm ’10

    Richard Bergen
    BA Economics ’04

    Albert Bracci
    BComm ’03

    Aneel Brar
    BA Political Science ’05
    BSc Biology ’05

    Dalmazio (Dale) Brisinda
    BSc Computer Science, ’94
    BSc Pure Mathematics ’98
    MSc Computer Science ’98

    David Caplan
    MBA ’99
    LLB ’99

    Mary Chan
    BA English ’01

    Jaro Cooper
    MBA ’99

    Theo de Raadt
    BSc Computer Science ’92

    Almoonir Dewji
    BSc Engineering ’86

    Kelly Dowdell, MA
    BA Latin American Studies ’02

    Ayan Egeh
    BA International Relations
    BA Political Science

    Doreen E. Eustace
    BEd ’89
    MEd ’99

    Angela Ferguson
    BA International Relations ’09

    Christina Fry (student)
    MA Religious Studies ’12

    Tony Grimes
    BSc Environmental Science ’01

    Aaron Hofman (Student)
    BA Philosophy ’11

    Graeme Howland
    BComm ’04

    Illana Huckell
    BA Religious Studies ’09

    Salma Hussain
    LLB ’07
    BA English Literature ’02

    Sarah Megan Hope
    BA Psychology ’02

    Ashley Humphreys
    BFA Drama ’05

    Darcy Ippolito
    BSc Geography ’06

    Valerie Jobson
    BSc Biology ’80
    BA History ’87
    MA History ’90

    Sheena Johnson
    BSc Actuarial Science ’03
    MED Environmental Design ’08

    Susan Aileen Kent
    BA Honours ’67

    Mary Kosta
    MA ’86

    Steven Kimler
    BSc Computer Science ’10

    Sara Klimes
    BA Law & Society ’06

    Nicole Kobie
    BA Political Science ’03

    Mary Kosta
    MA ’86

    Jeff Kubik
    BA Communications ’05

    Joël Laforest
    BA Religious Studies ’08

    Josh Lavoie
    BA Economics 07

    Kallen Law
    BA English ’10

    Kristian Leach
    BA English ’06

    John Leung Chung-Yin
    BA Political Science & Historical Studies ’06

    Andrea Llewellyn (student)
    BA Development Studies ’11

    Kat Lord (student)
    BA Political Science ’11

    Natalie Lucyk
    BCS Communications Studies ’10
    BEd Elementary Education ’12

    Lindsay Luhnau
    BA Political Science ’04
    MEd ’11

    Dr. Tom Lynch
    PhD ’07

    Jeannette Mandrusiak (staff member)
    University of Calgary

    Nitin Manerikar
    BSc ’90

    Nayden Markatchev
    MSc Computer Science ’08

    Kendra Marks
    BA Honours Religious Studies ’08
    MA Religious Studies ’11

    Tim Marks
    MA French ’92

    Andrew McIntyre
    BA Political Science ’05

    Dr. Nadine Moneta
    U of C Family Medicine Postgraduate Program ’03

    Dan Pagan
 (student)
    BA Greek & Roman Studies ’11
    BA Law & Society ’11

    Dr. Robert G. Petry
    MSc Mathematics ’98

    Barbara Pietrzykowski
    BSc General Math ’08
    BSW ’11

    Corinna Ramsay
    MA English & Political Science ’04

    Anup Raniga
    BSc Mathematics 07

    Richard Rawnsley
    BComm ’07

    Sarah Rich-Zendel
    MA Interdisciplinary Graduate Program ’11
    BA International Indigenous Studies ’07

    Ændrew Rininsland
    BA Communications Studies ’10

    Andrew D F Ross
    BA Philosophy ’04

    Vladimir Sedach
    BSc Pure Mathematics ’07

    Angel Seguin
    BED Environmental Design ’03

    Darlene Seto
    BA International Relations ’09

    Amir Sharar
    BSc Computer Science ’08

    Sherri Shergill
    BA Communications ’08
    BA English ’08

    Amitpal Singh (student)
    BA Political Science ’12

    Natalie Sit
    BA Communications ’05

    Ryan Slifka
    BA English ’08

    Dr. Craig Snyder PhD
    BA Political Science ’87

    David Sol
    BA Communications ’04

    Michael Soron
    BA Political Science ’07

    Tyler Soron (student)
    BA Science, Technology & Society ’12

    Matt Stambaugh
    BA Political Science ’03

    Erin Welk
    BA Honours Geography ’04

    Others (non U of Calgary) who offered their support:

    Dr. Pierre H. Vachon (Ph.D. Cell Biology)
    Associate Professor
    Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
    University of Sherbrooke

    Gary Kinsman
    Professor of Sociology
    Laurentian University
    Sudbury

    Michael Keefer
    Professor
    School of English and Theatre Studies
    University of Guelph

    Saima Siddiqui
    Political Science
    Memorial University

    Wayne Borean
    Political Commentator

    Evan Price
    BComm Finance ’12
    Dalhousie University

    Yvonne Fukada

    Michael Spacek
    PhD Candidate
    Carleton University

    Blythe Butler
    BComm ’00
    University of Alberta

    Peter Belsten
    Musician UK

    Gillian Wallace
    PhD Religious Studies ’95
    University of Ottawa

    Laurent (Jeff) Dubois
    BA Political Science ’76
    University of Alberta

    Patricia H. Kaye
    BEd ’72
    MEd ’81
    University of Alberta

    J. Lievisse Adriaanse
    The Netherlands

    Bob Beck
    Computing Science
    University of Alberta

    Tom Johnston
    HBA York university
    BEd Lakehead University
    Orillia, Ontario

    Dr. Robert C Dickson
    Calgary, AB

    Cathy O’Donoughue
    St. Johns Fl

    Timothy Schwinghamer
    Plant Science PhD student, McGill University

    Michael Spacek
    PhD Candidate, Carleton University

    Alan Aveley

    Laurel L. Russwurm

    Kevin Sheerstone

(currently updating…)

Unsorted and Miscellaneous: Tom Flanagan

  • Pages from the Conservative Handbook: A Liberal strategist reveals a Conservative’s secrets.

    Growing up in Calgary, and attending the University of Calgary as I did, I can state that Professor Tom Flanagan was regarded on campus as a cool, cerebral teacher of political science, and not one to be trifled with. He was not, for example, the sort of fellow who would tolerate intellectual laziness or too many papers handed in late. Although I did not know it in those days, Flanagan was also a conservative’s Conservative. He was a true believer. As one of the six actual Liberals in Alberta in those days, I regret not enrolling in his class.

    In this engrossing 336-page book, the good professor remains a Conservative, to be sure. But he also reveals himself to be considerably less fearsome, and less intimidating, than he did so many years ago. Most notably, Flanagan is refreshingly candid about the mistakes that his team—the team of Conservative leader Stephen Harper—made in its rise to federal power. Harper’s Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power provides us with an honest and (to the denizens of political backrooms, at least) exceedingly helpful handbook on how to win elections.

    It is more than a captivating book—it is an important work, too. Unlike most political scientists—who have never stuffed an envelope, never knocked on a door in a canvass and never done any of the other grunt work that makes or breaks political campaigns—Flanagan knows whereof he speaks. He, unlike many who breathe the rarefied air of academe, has practised what he preaches. He has fundraised, he has answered phones, he has worked in the grimy political trenches. He’s done it all. As such, his book stands head and shoulders above the books of most of his academic colleagues—the ones who preach but seldom practise, who talk a lot about that which they have never done. This one is the real deal.

    Flanagan’s book provides a significant amount of detail about every aspect of running leadership campaigns, and general election campaigns too. From tour to policy to media to fundraising to speechwriting, it is all here, and useful to every politico, irrespective of political affiliation. And, to Flanagan’s credit, he recalls that lessons are to be learned from campaigns that win, as well as the ones that don’t. As such, Flanagan meticulously dissects the Conservatives’ 2004 election loss, analyzing what went wrong and why. From my point of view, he accepts far too much of the blame for that narrow defeat. In so doing, however, he goes up in the estimation of the reader. He certainly did in my eyes.

    Now, before you start to wonder overmuch why this exiled federal Liberal is so impressed by Conservative Tom Flanagan and his book about Conservatives, some disclosure is in order. I have not told many people this story until now. During the early days of the Reform Party—a fledgling political party in which Tom Flanagan was intimately involved—there were many problems. Most notoriously, these problems included a plan by white supremacists and neo-Nazis—most of them involved in the Heritage Front, and most of them in the greater Toronto area—to infiltrate and take over Reform Party riding associations. It was the subject of many newspaper reports and even an investigation by Canada’s Security Intelligence Review Committee.

    Around that time, I published a book with HarperCollins called Web of Hate: Inside Canada’s Far Right Network. It was the result of a decade-long investigation into Canada’s racist right. And, around that time, I was also special assistant to one Jean Chrétien, leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition. Notwithstanding where I worked—and notwithstanding the fact that we Liberals were much despised by the nascent Reform movement—one day Tom Flanagan and another man contacted me. They wanted to speak to me about a pressing and sensitive matter, the story that the neo-Nazis were seeking to infiltrate and control the Reform Party from within. Flanagan and his friend wanted to know if I would look at the names of new Reform members in the Toronto area and tell them if those people were racists.

    “Flanagan and his colleagues were serious about expelling neo-Nazis from the nascent Reform movement. “

    It was an astonishing request, given the viciousness of partisan politics and the infrequency of genuine bipartisanship. But the request impressed me a great deal. Flanagan and his colleagues were serious about expelling neo-Nazis—so serious, in fact, that they were willing to contact me, then working in the lair of their sworn political enemy. They were willing to take a political risk to rid themselves of racists.

    With Chrétien’s approval, I assisted Flanagan and his friend. And, over the course of a few conversations, I was able to confirm the neo-Nazi or white supremacist involvements of several new Reform members. All were expelled by then-leader Preston Manning.

    In the intervening years, I have often wanted to tell that tale. Whenever I encounter a hot-headed young Grit or Tory—the Grit convinced that the Reform Conservatives are a front for extremists; the Tory convinced that Liberals will never hesitate to depict them as bigots to win power—I have wanted to tell that story. Now that Tom Flanagan has written his warts-and-all book—revealing, as it does, my own previously secret unwillingness to participate in a Liberal plot to smear Flanagan and his conservative cohorts—I can tell my own little story about why I think it is unfair to dismiss Flanagan (as some have done) as an anti-aboriginal polemicist. Or someone who is not worth listening to.

    Tom Flanagan is worth listening to. Although no longer part of Stephen Harper’s inner circle, the good professor has provided readers with candid and revealing insights into the Conservative rise to power. And, along the way, he has shown himself to be a very fine teacher, indeed.

    Harper’s Team is, I think, the best book written to date about the new Conservatives—the ones who wrested power away from the old stalwarts like Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark and the aforementioned Preston Manning, and have in the process crafted a political movement that will be more enduring. If you want to understand the new Conservatives—and if you want an excellent primer on how political campaigns work—this book is invaluable.

    It also makes me rue my decision never to join the other students in Tom Flanagan’s class!

    – Warren Kinsella, Literary Review of Canada, January / February 2008

    Feb 4, 2008 7:08:01 AM
    |
    Tom Flanagan

October 11, 2007

Flanagan speaks on upcoming Throne Speech in Lethbridge Herald

Flanagan_300colFrom 10 October 2007 —

Expect a few surprises in next week’s Throne Speech. But don’t expect a snap federal election.

That’s the word from political scientist Tom Flanagan, a long-time adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Don’t expect any surprises in this week’s provincial elections, either, he said, Tuesday. Flanagan predicted Premier Danny Williams and his Conservatives would sweep Newfoundland — he was proven correct later in the day — but said Ontario’s Conservatives have blown their chances in that election.

“The Liberals will win a majority in Ontario,” Flanagan predicted during a brief appearance in Lethbridge. Author of a recently released political memoir, Flanagan has returned to his political science post at the University of Calgary after years as a senior adviser to Harper and Reform Party leaders as they morphed into Alliance and eventually Conservative colours.

The prime minister will catch some people by surprise when his Throne Speech is read next week, Flanagan said in an interview. “I know his style. There will be a couple of small surprises,” at least. “He likes that.”

No longer in Harper’s inner circle, Flanagan admitted he doesn’t know what the government’s new agenda will include. But he said there are still election campaign promises to honour, including more tax cuts.

“The government is well off,” and it’s time the Conservatives cut corporate taxes as promised. “They should cut that second point off the GST as well,” lowering the rate to five per cent ahead of their five-year target. “They can afford to do that earlier.”

Flanagan said Harper could also get to work on promises to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs, taking cash instead. “That will be popular in Quebec,” where the province already operates its own pension plan.

As for the federal Liberals, their biggest challenge seems to be setting some priorities. Flanagan said it’s not enough to simply oppose everything the government proposes. “They’ve got to put together a platform.”

Instead of continually criticizing the Tories for disregarding the Kyoto agreement, for example, Flanagan said Liberal leader Stephane Dion should offer a plan — if he’s elected — to bring Canada up to speed on the issue.

“What is the Liberals’ plan now?” he asked.

First in the Liberals’ priorities, Flanagan suggested, should be getting their house back in order. Dion — who won with less than 20 per cent support — needs to draw more people in the party’s organization and Flanagan said he needs to spend a lot more time fund-raising. “The Conservatives are in a good position,” with plenty of talent and money at their disposal. “They’re ready to go any time.”

Flanagan, in Lethbridge to speak at a public session organized by the political science department at the University of Lethbridge, also stopped at the campus bookstore to sign copies of his latest book.

“Harper’s Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power” was recently previewed as a cover story in Maclean’s magazine. And it’s drawn comment from plenty of readers — including Dion, who believed it offers proof of Harper’s “hidden agenda.”

That’s surprising, Flanagan said, because he always advocated moderation and “incrementalism” in moving toward more conservative policies. Many other political figures have also called him to share their views since the book was released this fall.

But not his old boss, Stephen Harper. “I haven’t heard anything from him,” said the author. “I think he’s too busy for literary criticism.”

– Dave Mabell

Oct 11, 2007 12:47:02 PM
|
Tom Flanagan

September 27, 2007

Tom Flanagan — a special to the Globe and Mail

From Saturday’s Globe and Mail

September 22, 2007 —

Flanagan_300col“CALGARY — Admit it – you’d love to see a federal election. Governments may be boring, but campaigning is so much fun. Sadly, this week’s Quebec by-elections make a quick call for a national vote much less likely. After doing so badly, neither the Liberals’ Stéphane Dion nor Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Québécois will be in a hurry to pull the plug.

That’s because the results were a dream come true for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Not only did the Conservatives gain a seat while their main opponents each gave up one, the Liberals’ loss was right in their leader’s backyard. Mr. Dion imposed his candidate on what had been the safest of ridings and then hyped the Outremont race by spending so much time there that he must have damaged his already shaky reputation.

As a result, political junkies waiting for Parliament to reconvene on Oct. 16 can forget about seeing the opposition parties defeat the government right after the Speech from the Throne and spark an election this fall – Mr. Harper’s fifth campaign in six years. Much as he might like an early race, election dates are now fixed by legislation and he can’t just ask the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament. The opposition must pass a no-confidence vote, and that just got a lot less likely.

And why would he want to go to the polls? Because Stephen Harper is trying to do what no Conservative leader since Sir John A. Macdonald has been able to do – build a viable, long-term political coalition with a broad enough appeal to win elections and, if it falls short, enough strength of character and self-discipline to avoid immolating itself on a bonfire of recrimination. In other words, he wants the Conservatives to replace the Liberals as the natural governing party of Canada.

By winning the last election, Mr. Harper’s campaign team demonstrated its ability to learn from experience and to correct its mistakes. And there were plenty of them. When the team came together in 2001, its members were more like “friends of Stephen” than professional campaigners – although passionate about getting their man elected, they had a lot to learn.

For example, at the beginning, the Canadian Alliance campaign’s organization was simply unworkable (too many people who didn’t know each other in too many cities) and the plan for selling and processing of memberships was inadequate. In 2003, several months were wasted in the Perth-Middlesex riding’s by-election (although the loss led directly to the merger with the Progressive Conservatives) and, in 2004, there was a failure to respond to negative ads, poor communication of the platform and the absence of an indigenous campaign in Quebec. As well, there was the late lapse that caused a Conservative slump and a devastating Liberal counterattack at the end of the race.

But the team learned – in politics you have to, or you won’t be back – and the learning process has continued since the party came to power. For example, Mr. Harper has seen first-hand how difficult it can be to make good on some campaign promises.

But there are certain things the party still must do if it is to forge the political dynasty the Prime Minister has in mind.

I am no longer directly involved with the party’s campaigns; after managing three of them and helping to organize a fourth, I’ve gone back to my day job as a political-science professor. However, from this tranquil perch, let me summarize what I learned before leaving – my Ten Commandments of Conservative Campaigning.

1. Unity The party contains libertarians, social conservatives, populists, Red Tories, Quebec nationalists and Canadian nationalists, plus many people who don’t care much about any of these “isms.” They all need each other. They can never win unless they try to understand each other and reach compromises that they can all live with.

2. Moderation Canada is not yet a conservative or Conservative country. The party can’t win if it veers too far to the right of the average voter. In times of perceived crisis, a conservative party can win by positioning itself further to the right, as shown by the victories of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Ralph Klein, Mike Harris and Gordon Campbell. But Canadians don’t perceive themselves in crisis right now.

3. Inclusion The traditional Conservative base of anglophone Protestants is too narrow to win modern Canadian elections. While preserving that base, we have to appeal to francophones, Roman Catholics (44 per cent of the population, according to the 2001 census) and other racial and religious minorities. The key to the long-term success of the Liberals has been their cultivation of minority groups. Conservatives have to take away that advantage.

Conservatives will not win a majority government simply by adding seats in Quebec, although that will be part of the formula. They also must add seats elsewhere and that means doing better with ethnic voters. The suburbs of Toronto, Vancouver and, to a lesser extent, other cities are now filling up with new Canadians who, based on their social values and capitalist work ethic, should be natural Conservative voters, but who are still emotionally tied to the Liberal Party.

Conservatives must break the Liberal hegemony over Italian, Chinese, South Asian and other ethnic voters. That doesn’t mean getting all their votes, but it does mean getting a bigger share, in order to win the suburban ridings that a conservative party would ordinarily expect to win.

4. Incrementalism Conservatives must be willing to make progress in small, practical steps. Sweeping visions have a place in intellectual discussion, but they are toxic in practical politics.

Incrementalism is the twin of moderation. Small conservative reforms are less likely to scare voters than grand conservative schemes, particularly in Canada, where conservatism is not yet the dominant public philosophy. In any case, incrementalism is intrinsically the right approach for a conservative party.

Modern conservatism has its origins in Edmund Burke’s critique of the sweeping radicalism of the French Revolution. “We must all obey the great law of change,” he wrote. “It is the most powerful law of nature, and the means perhaps of its conservation. All we can do, and that human wisdom can do, is to provide that the change shall proceed by insensible degrees.”

5. Policy We have to develop well-thought-out policies and communicate them effectively. Since conservatism is not yet dominant, our policies may sometimes run against conventional wisdom. The onus is on us to help Canadians understand what they are voting for.

A political campaign is an extended exercise in rhetoric, mobilizing ethos (character), pathos (emotion) and logos (reason) to persuade millions of people to vote for the candidates of your party. People don’t vote just for good ideas; they vote for potential rulers whose character they can trust and who inspire passions of loyalty and support.

Conservative statecraft has to be more than the logical deduction of policies from philosophical premises if it is going to succeed. It has to be an artistic combination of sound policy with the deft communication of conservative values, such as integrity, reliability and fortitude.

6. Self-discipline The media are unforgiving of conservative errors, so we have to exercise strict discipline at all levels.

There must be a complete plan for the campaign, so the leader is not forced to improvise. Staff must avoid the limelight and let the communications department deal with the media. Candidates must talk about the platform, not their personal beliefs, and (except for designated spokesmen) concentrate on local rather than national media. Members and supporters must be careful and dignified in all their communications, even e-mail and Web postings.

The media can be savage with any party that lacks discipline, but they are particularly suspicious of conservatives. There is no point complaining about it; the situation is the same everywhere in the democratic world. But it means that conservative parties must put special emphasis on self-discipline to win elections.

7. Toughness You cannot win by being Boy Scouts. Conservatives have to conduct thorough opposition research and make use of the results, run hard-hitting, fact-based negative ads, and do whatever is legally possible to jam our opponents’ communications and disrupt their operations. The Conservatives were ambivalent about playing hardball in 2004. In 2006, however, Tory advertising went for the jugular and it paid off. Their war-room messages also scored heavily against the Liberals (especially with their campaign jet’s “beer and popcorn” rejoinder and the income-trust investigation).

Another point for consideration is how to respond when other parties play hardball. Mr. Harper set the right tone during the last campaign in a squabble with the Liberals’ Paul Martin about who was in bed with the separatists. When the media asked him if he wanted an apology, he said simply, “I don’t go around demanding apologies. I can take a punch.”

8. Grassroots politics Victories are earned one voter at a time. Door-knocking, voter identification and Get Out The Vote programs make up the holy trinity that wins close races. Conservatives must extend their lead over other parties in ground-level campaigning and grassroots fund-raising.

All political parties need to raise money, identify supporters and mobilize volunteers, so they all make use of the same methods, to varying degrees. But grassroots politics is particularly critical. A conservative party stresses individual choice and responsibility in a competitive marketplace. That gives it a special responsibility to deal with voters as individuals, to find out what their concerns are, and to give them a stake in the political process by making it easy for them to donate time and money.

Moreover, the Conservative Party draws heavily on the legacy of Preston Manning. His vision of the Reform Party as a neo-populist revival did not lead to forming a government, but it triggered an ongoing organizational revolution of political parties. As Mr. Manning’s heirs, Conservatives have to be in the forefront of creating a party that is easy for individuals to join, encourages donation and volunteerism and is committed to winning elections one voter at a time.

9. Technology We are living in the biggest, fastest-moving communications revolution in human history. Each election campaign features new technologies. We must continue to be at the forefront in adapting new technologies to politics.

Right now, Conservatives are the grassroots party of Canadian politics. They have to keep using technology to mobilize the grassroots in ways that no one has ever dreamed of. As students of German philosopher Friedrich Hayek, they believe in the market as a process of discovery. It is only logical for them to be in the forefront of applying to politics the technological marvels produced by human ingenuity in a market economy.

10. Persistence Campaigning is a tough business and mistakes are frequent. We have to correct errors, learn from experience and keep pushing ahead.

The Harper team certainly has no grounds for complacency. The Liberals are cunning and experienced and have enormous bench strength. They are the best-established brand in Canadian politics and the Conservatives still have a lot to learn from them.

The New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois are not national parties in the same sense, but they are equally tough competitors on their own turf. The next election will be not just a street fight but a brawl, as the other parties go all-out to recapture ground taken away from them.

But even if complacency is not in order, the team should have a little confidence, based on its achievements. In just a few years, they were able to stop the supposedly unstoppable Mr. Martin. The next time out, they have a chance to make Mr. Harper the one who is unstoppable.

Tom Flanagan is professor of political science at the University of Calgary and a former Conservative campaign manager. This essay for The Globe and Mail is drawn from his new book Harper’s Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power, published today by McGill-Queen’s University Press. “

*** Harper’s Team is currently being sold in book stores.

Sep 27, 2007 7:07:28 AM
|
Tom Flanagan

September 25, 2007

Harper’s Team in the Quill & Quire

Flanagan_300colFrom Vol. 78, No. 8, October 2007 —

“Harper’s Team is a lively and intriguing firsthand account of Stephen Harper’s rise to power, as well as a valuable historical document that does not pretend to be unbiased. With an infectious excitement about the process, Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary political science professor who played a key role in Harper’s two leadership campaigns and his national campaigns, recounts the trials of fighting an election. His account of the democratic process in action quickly becomes the foundation for a subtly anti-democratic treatise on political strategy.

Flanagan, a committed classical liberal inspired by Friedrich Hayek, the guru of Thatcherism and Reaganomics, is clearly thrilled to have broken from campus life and bloodied himself in the political fray, and he is ecstatic that his team has emerged victorious. This book is above all a victory song, one that recounts tales of courage and perseverance; of near-misses, mistakes, and painful blows endured and overcome; and of shrewd strategy and finely executed tactics.

It is perhaps the glow of the victor’s fervour that has caused him to forget himself and reveal the truth he worked so hard to mask. He writes as though his readers are political allies who share his enthusiasm, ready to employ his market strategies, his “Ten Commandments,” in the final push of what he calls a “domesticated civil war.” What else could explain his ability to deride the Liberal claim that Harper has a “hidden agenda” while simultaneously outlining the man’s agenda and the techniques he has used to hide it?

Flanagan reveals that, for him, Harper’s electoral victory is a major step toward the ultimate goal: “The work is far from done. Canada is not yet a conservative or Conservative country.” He argues, however, that conservatives must not frighten off the voters by stating or implementing their agenda too suddenly. In politics, one must appear to be moderate, initiate conservative policies incrementally, and, once a position of power is attained, “you control the government, you choose judges, appoint the senior civil service, fund or defund advocacy groups, and do many other things that gradually influence the climate of opinion.”

Flanagan’s look behind the scenes tells us about the agenda Harper is concealing and the methods he uses to conceal it. Clearly, his hope is that by the time Canadians realize where Harper is leading them, he will have already achieved his goal.”

– Robert Meynell, a Senior Public Policy Research Fellow at the Dominion Institute

(currently updating…)

Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Leave a comment

Canadians Against the Harper Regime [CAHR] Collective Research Collaboration