Pulpit And Politics: The Book

With the ascension of the federal Conservative Party, there have been two important attempts made to measure the influence that religious voters--especially those associated with The Religious Right--wield over the Harper government.  One of these is Marci McDonald's The Armageddon Factor; the other is Dennis Gruending's recently released Pulpit and Politics.

Of the two, I think I prefer Gruending's effort better.  For one thing,  The Armageddon Factor seems a book researched where Pulpit and Politics seems a booked lived.  Gruending, an ex-MP and one-time Director of Information for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, moves easily over his subject, and  seems intimately familiar with the large cast of characters that make up the nation's community of religious activists. 

It is this familiarity, perhaps, that gives the book its second advantage; Pulpit and Politics seems less prone to the kind of overstatement that McDonald has been accused of.  Yes, socially convervative groups have sway with the current government, far more than during previous Liberal regimes.  Nevertheless, their ability to do real harm to the nation is limited; Pulpit and Politics readers will note that almost all the bones thrown to Religuous Right voters over the past several years have involved relatively minor foreign policy issues.  Efforts to promote family planning in the 3rd world, for example,  have been eliminated or scaled back or order to appease Pro-Lifers.  No attempt, on the other hand, has been made to defund or eliminate abortions services here in Canada.

Gruending also tells the story of religious progressivism in 21st century Canada; indeed the book is  sub-titled "competing religious ideologies in Canadian public life".  This part suffers from the fact that the subject matter is, frankly, depressing.  The federal Conservatives have treated their religious critics in the same fashion as their secular ones: as people to be derided, organizations to be defunded.  For example, Gruending spends several chapters over the fate of KAIROS (Canadian Ecumenical Justice).  This organization was deprived of federal monies for either--depending on the Minister speaking at the time--opposing the unrestricted development of Alberta's tar sands or insufficient zealotry in the cause of Israel.  Gruending narrates well the story's various twists and turns, culminating in the now legendary "not" that was inserted, by goodness knows who, into CIDA's memo to the minister approving KAIROS funding.  But its a head-shaker, and leaves the reader marvelling at just how low the current government is willing to stoop when they feel the public is paying attention to other things--off watching hockey or at the cabin or doing whatever the public does these days to avoid thinking too much.

(Although, as an aside, I'm happy to note that KAIROS is still out there, fighting the good fight--albeit on a shoe-string budget.)

As for the book's structure, Gruending starts off with several "big picture" essays setting out the demographics of religious Canada: who are the players, who votes for who, and so forth.  This done, he plunges right into the various skirmishes that make up Canada's version of The Culture Wars.  Its inside baseball stuff, and perhaps this will limit the book's broader appeal.  Nevertheless, if that's the level of coverage you are looking for in your political reading, and if how those of faith interact with the Canadian political system interests/concerns you (and I would argue it ought to), Politics and Pulpit  should be on your reading list.

Maude Barlow Puts Her Finger On It

After listening to a bunch of SoCons demand that Harper reopen the abortion debate, kill the CHRC, and abolish the wheat board, Maude Barlow

...chair of the Council of Canadians, said “this is Stephen Harper’s true constituency,” but insists that Harper has no choice but to keep a lid on the religious right and social conservatives in the Conservative caucus.

“I think we know where he is going with this right-wing (economic) agenda … and I think he will not want to jeopardize that by taking a sharp-right turn on something like abortion,” Barlow said.

Thus was it ever.  The SoCon grassroots provide the movement's energy and muscle; the Conservative government that results pays them back in the form of tax cuts to business and...by strengthening hate speech laws!  Talk about irony.

On Controlling The Discourse

Over at my Christian right article in The Mark, Christine suggests that the failure to pass anti-abortion legislation does not necessarily constitute a defeat for Canadian SoCons:

Voice-giving is a powerful thing, and the Christian right have it. I have to disagree with you that having private member bills put together and lost somehow reduces the power of social conversavitism and religion in Canadian society. Whether a bill passes or not, that kind of attention and positioning in authoritative dialogue is meaningful to cultural identity and impacts individuals relate to one another, change or confirm their values and make sense of the world around them. The passage of a bill as some concrete victory or loss is only part an event around which ways of thinking are suggested, questioned or naturalized in our society.
-Christine

Cue The Peasants With Pitchforks!

Catholic Insight's Alphonse de Valk:

It is highly undesirable that Stephen Harper continue to hold the Prime Ministership for very much longer for a number of reasons.

— First, he has made the mistake of coming to believe that his persona is the personification of Conservatism. Thus he tolerates no views other than his own, is suspicious of others in the party, bullies his MPs, and cannot delegate tasks without giving up personal control.

— Under his regime the PM’s Office (PMO) with over 100 people has consolidated the vices introduced under previous prime ministers. For example, during preparations for elections, candidates are parachuted in, ignoring the wishes of riding associations which increasingly tend to be bypassed anyway.

— The democratic character of the party organization is set aside whenever it is deemed desirable. Even the local handling of candidates is taken away, as was the case with Diane Haskett, a former mayor of London, whose efforts were thwarted by direct interference from Ottawa (which did not like her Christian convictions).

— Also, Harper seems to have turned his back on what he himself understood in earlier days to be threats to the nation, such as the electoral gag laws silencing third parties, as well as the ever more unsavoury actions of Human Rights Commissions which, instead of bringing equality to Canadians, are pitting groups against one another while extinguishing freedom of speech.

It is almost impossible to understate the influence of Mr. de Valk and his magazine, and you can make a good argument that Harper won the '08 election without the SoCon gang on-side and can therefore ignore them going forward. That is, Harper won by ignoring his base, not embracing it. But it is interesting that Mr. de Valk's commentary echoes, in some of its complaints re the anti-democratic process involved in choosing candidates, allegations made by disgruntled non-SoCons within the party. For example, Charles Conn (Mississauga Reform Party candidate in 1993) represents the small government/socially moderate wing of the CPoC. During this election campaign, Mr. Conn wrote:

The history books are full of 'strong leaders' whose dictatorial, my-way-or-the-highway rigidity led to disastrous consequences for their people.
[...]
...lwhatever you do, whichever party is involved, shun like the plague every appointed parachute candidate who was shoved down the throats of members in so many constituencies. Just last fall, an impressive majority of Ontarians rejected MMP. Don't let the backroom party big shots in Ottawa sneak it in by stealth.

So what's the possible upshot of this simmering discontent?

MPs should revolt over this “trained-seal” scenario by quietly but aggressively organizing a bloc of members who will, if necessary, break away to form a new Reform party and do what our Prime Minister will not do but what must be done to save Canada.

...a scenario which is probably not likely at the moment. But who knows? Given the economic hardship ahead of the country, and the persistence of Quebecers demanding money from the Conservative government while not offering it much in the way of electoral return, such cracks in the fragile alliance that is the CPoC could be exacerbated.

Update: What I said.