| |
From time to time I break ranks with mainstream conservatives.
Whether it be religion or the environment, corporate welfare
or gay marriage, I accept that there will always be a great
deal of divergence of opinion within the conservative camp,
and I will not necessarily always be on the same side of an
issue as some of my contemporaries. For the most part such
divergences don't bother me. Live and let live, and all that.
In contemporary Canada, however, there
is one issue which I simply cannot stand to see any sane conservative
support, and that is the British Monarchy.
The fact that Canada still recognizes the
Queen of England as our head of state embarrasses and disgusts
me to no end. Every time I hear the term "crown counsel"
or "crown land" I cringe. I find it offensive that
my father was forced to take an oath of loyalty to the British
monarch before he could work as a parole officer and that
reciting this same oath is also the first act we ask of our
nation's new immigrants. I hate the Governor General's stupid
medals and the fact that she still has political power. I
hate the Queen's face on our coins and the culture of our
military, which still teaches our soldiers to worship a foreign
monarch they will likely never meet. But most of all I hate
how so many of my fellow conservatives in Canada eagerly line
up to defend all this absurdity.
That being said, I recognize the reality
that monarchism and conservatism are not doomed to be forever
united in Canadian politics. There are already many conservative
republicans such as myself, and I don't doubt that there will
be more and more as the years progress. Many conservatives
today are quite openly starting to question the continued
existence of an un-elected royal family in the context of
21st Century Canada, and thus challenge traditional "conservative"
views on the subject.
The monarchy in Canada is not some obscure,
esoteric issue as many would allege. I believe it is in fact
a key issue that serves as a relevant piece of a much larger
debate over the future of Canada and the modern Canadian identity.
The monarchy issue will not remain on the back burner forever,
and the sooner Canadians address this reality the easier it
will be to avoid an awkward and ill-informed debate when the
national discussion finally begins.
In contemporary Canada members of Conservative
Party face a challenge. They must decide whether they are
still content to be tied to the nostalgic, paternalistic,
Anglophilic Tory tradition personified by the Diefenbaker
regime (and to a lesser extent its self-proclaimed "Red
Tory" heirs), or a modern, individualistic strand of
conservatism personified by the Reform/Alliance spirit of
Manning and Harper.
The modern Conservatives are a party that
celebrates individual merit and believes every citizen is,
and should be, born equal with an equal shot at achieving
greatness and success in life. Race, religion, class, and
gender should all be irrelevant factors in determining a person's
merit. Only an individual's own intelligence, skills, desires,
and efforts can determine his fate in life, and not arbitrary
policies of discrimination manufactured by society, the state
or anyone else. Contrast that conservative logic with the
logic of the monarchy: being a Head of State is too important
to be left to a lowly common-person. Only a descendent of
a completely arbitrarily hereditary "royal bloodline"
can ever be entrusted with this important task. The Head of
State must neither desire nor chose the job, he will be given
it by virtue of his birth order and gender within this racially,
religiously, and financially exclusive family. Once enthroned,
he will remain in office until his death, regardless of his
actions or conduct.
Charming as Queen Elizabeth might be, she
will one day die and be replaced by a man who has quite openly
stated his belief that people should not try to rise above
their intended social status, and instead stay put in the
position they're born into. The monarchy seems to have little
in common with the values of modern Canadian conservatives.
In fact, by all measurable standards the rules of the institution
are in direct opposition to everything conservatives are supposed
to stand for. Yet even today, many Conservatives (both small-c
and big-c alike) see support for the monarchy as a "natural"
position.
Part of this is due to the fact (or at least
the assumption) that many of Canada's leading anti-monarchist
crusaders can be found in the Liberal Party. If the Liberals
seem to be leading towards a republic, the knee-jerk conservative
reaction is to sympathize with the monarchy, and assume creating
a republic is the simply the latest crazy left-wing socialistic
Liberal scheme to further entrench the Trudeapian New World
Order. Like all knee-jerk positions this argument is based
more on emotion than reason. While the Liberals are likely
to, and no doubt will, campaign for the abolition of the monarchy
with touchy-feely rhetoric about eliminating "legacies
of colonialism" and celebrating a "new future"
for the country, politically-correct slogans will not alone
define the debate. The eventual referendum will be on the
monarchy, not on the merits of whatever Liberal PR campaign
they wage against it.
Establishing a Canadian head of state for Canada is a choice
which is logical, democratic, and consistent with the values
most modern conservatives profess to stand for. Conservatives
should not allow anti-Liberal resentment to cloud their judgement
on this issue, or they could easily find themselves on the
embarrassingly wrong side of history.
Conservatives will likewise have to come
to terms with the fact that Canadian monarchism is often at
odds with other aspects of their agenda, notably the defeat
of leftist cultural hegemony in Canada and institutionalized
anti-Americanism. They'll have to realize that monarchist
views alone do not a conservative make, and in many cases
support for the monarchy is actually a tool employed by the
hysterical left-wing "nationalist" set.
Most of today's conservatives have long since
abandoned the traditional John Diefenbaker/Joe Clark/Elsie
Wayne Tory mantra which lauds the importance of fighting back
American "influences" and "American culture"
within Canada. Aware that modern day Canadian "culture"
is overwhelmingly defined by a small group of left-wing elites
in Toronto, and is neither distinctly Canadian nor nationally
attractive, the battle to stop American books, music, and
TV shows from dominating the Canadian marketplace no longer
seems worth fighting. Tearing down absurd tariffs and allowing
fair competition between Canadian and American industries
is considered more honorable by today's conservatives than
devoting large quantities of taxpayer dollars to prop up unpopular,
second-rate artists and poets through various "culture"
bureaucracies. In short, the faith in free-markets has won
in the battle against Canadian protectionism. We now have
free trade with the United States, and closer economic co-operation
than ever before. Canadian conservatives are now the party
in open advocacy of closer business relations, security partnerships,
and foreign policy ties with the Americans.
The monarchy by contrast represents a holdover from "old"
Toryism, and an era in which conservatives rallied against
the "latent republicanism" of their political opponents
in a heavily labored attempt to keep their North American
nation firmly in the colonial cultural mindset, with preserved
"British" values. This mentality did not survive
the 50's, and it seems fair to say that most of Canada's contemporary
conservatives feel a far greater affinity towards our neighbors
to the south than our former masters across the sea. Observe
the culture, behavior, and lifestyle of a typical Canadian
and it is obvious that we have become North Americans through
and through. Our British roots have all but eroded after decades
of political sovereignty, diverse immigration, and economic
globalization. We now have our own identity.
To be sure, our colonial and semi-colonial
past was not without merit. The battle of Vimy Ridge for example,
now recognized as one of the proudest moments of Canadian
military heroism, was fought by Canadian forces under the
colonial command of the United Kingdom. Similarly, the only
reason Canada eagerly sprung into World War II before the
United States was because of our intense emotional attachment
to the British Empire to which we (although by then sovereign
in the realm of military matters) were still very much a part
of. The argument that the modern Liberals have been trying
to erase our history and replace it with a Trudeauvian hodge-podge
of bland multi-culturalism, pacifism, and left-wing politics
is not without a basis in reality. In recent years the Liberal
strategy has been to create a national myth of Canada as a
permanently left-wing northern state, in which patriotic Canadian
values can be permanently defined as whatever ideas appear
in the Liberal party platform. To them, Canadian history began
in 1968 and any events prior to that are irrelevant, as they
don't fit the contemporary script. When faced with this very
real phenomenon, many Canadian conservatives in turn resort
to their own form of revisionism, excessively glamorizing
the Canadian history that the Liberals are seeking to repress.
This in turn leads to a knee-jerk defense of the monarchy,
with it being seen as one of the few lingering remnants of
a Canadian history that has otherwise been permanently airbrushed
from the national consciousness.
But other than Canada's proud service in
the two World Wars, what part of Canada's past are we supposed
to be celebrating? What lost legacy of our nation's forgotten
history should we mourn? Much of Canada's early history was
dominated by attitudes of staunch and illogical anti-Americanism
among political elites, an often mindless and undemocratic
allegiance to the British Empire at the expense of Canada's
own interests, and an economic legacy of failure due to blatantly
anti-market protectionism and massive state intervention.
Surely little for today's conservatives to take much pride
in.
It likewise can't be argued that Canada possesses
any sort of proud tradition of government. There was no Canadian
Jefferson or Washington, and the institutions of government
which our founders created can hardly be said to evoke much
national pride or respect. On the contrary, our constitution
has been regarded as a severely flawed document practically
since conception, and we've spent the better part of 150 years
struggling over how to best fix its most glaring deficiencies.
Canadian federalism likewise remains as disputed and distrusted
as ever, with all contemporary talk of it centering around
reform and change, rather than a return to some idyllic standard
of the past.
The parts of Canadian history most admired
by today's conservatives include events such as the rugged
entrepreneurship of early Canadian business, the resourceful
settlement and exploration of the Western provinces, the skillful
invention of modern technologies, and the brave sacrifices
made in times of hardship. The Canadians whose spirits are
celebrated are the working people who built this country and
its wealth, and not the corrupt politicians and aristocrats
who have saddled it with a legacy of unresolved problems.
The monarchy is an icon of this latter class, and not the
former. It is a political institution which represents the
worst elements of our authoritarian, top-down system of government
while simultaneously offering little symbolic significance
to the values of individualism that are most deserving of
praise.
If Canadians in general and Canadian conservatives
in particular have rejected the old, Anglophilic Anti-American
political culture of Macdonald and Diefenbaker as a tired
and distasteful relic, then what part of our "great past"
are we exactly celebrating by continuing to cling to the monarchy?
Interestingly enough, for all the conservative talk about
the Liberals "erasing" Canada's history, it is actually
the Canadian left who are the most eager to embrace the values
of the past that the rest of Canadian society has moved away
from.
Consider for example the devoted and unapologetic
monarchism of noted America-bashers like Sheila Copps or David
Orchard. To them, the monarchy must be defended at all costs
for it represents a final front in the battle against the
"Americanization" of Canada. These sort of leftists
embrace a culture in which clinging to absurd relics of the
past allows them to avoid dealing with the realities of today.
Disgusted by the contemporary integration of North American
economics and culture, they comfort themselves by vocally
celebrating "patriotic" events like the 1812 War
and shedding tears over "tragedies" like the Avro
Arrow episode. The irony in all this of course is the fact
that these kind of events were once proud moments of Tory
history, yet now they are gleefully embraced by the left.
This evolutionary process largely explains the odd phenomenon
of Canada's so-called "Red Tories." Here we have
men and women who are for all practical intents and purposes
ideologically indistinguishable from the Liberals, yet because
of their monarchism and Anti-Americanism, they still feel
obligated to refer to themselves as "conservatives."
Red Tories are considered a joke by most serious conservatives,
as they realize the "conservative" credentials of
the Red Tories are based on 50-year-old standards thoroughly
irrelevant to contemporary Canadian politics.
The monarchy in today's Canada is thus just
as much- if not more- of a left-wing institution than a monument
to conservatism.
Many otherwise brilliant Canadian conservative
writers and pundits are reduced to babbling incoherence when
the topic of the monarchy comes up. Take for example the National
Post's Andrew Coyne, a hawkish pro-Bush, anti-Liberal
neoconservative whose popular columns and blog entries have
made him one of Canada's leading voices from the right. In
a 2002
column on the monarchy Coyne had this to say:
The Crown is not some colonial pantomime.
It is the rock on which the country stands, the foundation
of our legal and political order. It is in the first line
of the Constitution, the 1867 one, in which is expressed Confederation's
raison d'etre: that the provinces should be "federally
united into One Dominion under the Crown."
His tune has remained constant. Back
in 1998 he elaborated further:
We kept the Crown not out of nostalgia
or anglophilia, but because it is useful. The monarchy is
not some soap opera for soggy teenagers. No quaint anachronism
or colonial relic, it is a marvelous constitutional instrument,
the best that has yet been devised for reconciling the power
of the state with the sovereignty of the people. [...]
The Queen is more than the personification
of the state, she is the humanization of it. As much as the
constraints upon her once absolute power say ours is a government
of laws and not of men, her very humanity, and her all-too-human
family, remind us that government is also about men: about
real people and their concerns, not bloodless abstractions
like "the state." Focus of allegiance, symbol of
unity, vessel of sovereignty, the monarchy is all these things.
But mostly it is a statement about us.
It's too bad that a man who has offered so much honest criticism
of the Senate, the PMO, and other corrupt and outdated institutions
of the Canadian government can simultaneously turn gushy and
nostalgic when it comes to an institution as profoundly antiquated
and dopey as the British monarchy. In this day and age, for
example, no one seriously believes the Senate functions as
a house of "sober second thought" or that the Prime
Minister governs as the "first among equals" in
a strong cabinet. Why then, is this sort of flowery rhetoric
accepted as truth when spoken about the monarchy? The fact
that conservatives can criticize every clause in the Canadian
constitution one day, then proceed to declare how the monarchy
is the proudest keystone of our ingenious system of government
the next is bizarrely inconsistent, to put it mildly.
No one in 21st century Canada believes that the monarchy is
the centerpoint of Canadian citizenship or nationhood. Polling
data suggests that less than 10% of Canadians are even aware
Canada is still a constitutional monarchy to begin with, so
to assume this piece of our constitution forms some universial
rallyingpoint of our national identity is really little more
than polite monarchist fiction. We are not living in feudal
times, and modern citizens seem perfectly capable of grasping
a "bloodless abstraction" like democracy and constitutional
government. Western civilization has evolved far beyond the
point where nationalism is defined solely as allegiance to
the leader, and indeed, today most citizens take pride in
the knowledge that their state is formed on the basis
of abstract rights and constitutional arrangements that remain
constant over time. If we need a reminder that our government
is "about men" as Coyne writes, then surely we already
have enough squabbling and opportunistic politicians to serve
that purpose.
"Symbols of unity" and "vessels
of sovereignty" are fine, sure. That's why we have a
flag, a coat of arms, a national anthem, Mounties, hockey,
maple syrup, and a whole host of other postcard-ready emblems.
Corny though they may be, these are symbols of Canada, universally
recognized- and most importantly of all- distinctly Canadian.
Coyne deserves credit for at least being well aware of this
last point. He accepts the Queen is not distinctly Canadian,
and in turn attempts to make the case for "repatriating"
the monarchy upon her death. In other words, young Prince
Harry should be imported into Canada to form a new homegrown
Canadian dynasty.
Ignoring for a moment the somewhat disgustingly
dehumanizing nature of this proposal (uh, he does realize
we are talking about a human being here, and not just some
imperial seed-bearer to be charted around the globe for our
constitutional amusement) such an argument quickly makes all
previous defense of the monarchy fall apart. Either the monarchy
is a symbol of Canadian nationalism or it isn't. It's either
a proud link to Canada's past, or an outdated relic. It cannot
hover somewhere in limbo. If we have to constantly "update"
and modernize the monarchy and make political adjustments
to ensure its continued relevance to future generations then
the monarchy is not a symbol of unity or stability at all.
Underneath much of the royalist rhetoric is an uncomfortable
truth: the defense of the monarchy is really more of a defense
of the person of Queen Elizabeth II and her role as monarch
than it is about any sort of long-term political principle.
To the extent that the Queen can be regarded
as "popular" in Canada, such popularity comes from
the fact she is simply an easily recognizable celebrity, who
has been elevated in status through the modern British tabloid
culture. As an individual, the Queen is still largely a mysterious
figure, who grants no interviews and is tightly controlled
by her handlers in virtually all circumstances save the occasional
unscripted photo-op. The Queen is really just a neutral figure.
That she does her job with dignity and dedication cannot be
denied, but neither can it be denied that most other knowledge
of her is based on little more than idle speculation, royalist
propaganda, or uninformed gossip. It's worth asking, however,
if anyone honestly expects this elaborate system of handlers
and arm's-length public relations to survive the Queen's reign.
We already know far more about Prince Charles and his sons
than many would likely care to, and as such, they will come
to the throne without the benefit of the bubble of mystery
that has protected their predecessor.
Queen Elizabeth was born before the era of the mass media
and tabloid culture, and it is very likely that whatever restraint,
glamour, and dignity the monarchy currently possesses will
die with her.
Princes Harry and William, for example are
children of the Internet and MTV generation. Ask the average
teenager if he would be willing to devote his entire adult
life to cutting ribbons and shaking hands with politicians
in exchange for sacrificing every element of his personal
freedom and safety. Ask him if he is prepared to surrender
his ability to choose his own wife, career, home, and religion
in the name of some vague constitutional principle. The answer
will be predictable. In the coming post-Elizabeth decades,
the British monarchy will face enormous challenges in continuing
to sustain its antiquated Victorian subculture of unthinking,
class-based notions of "duty" in the midst of a
modern, globalized world dominated by free spirits and individualism.
Abdication could easily become the norm, creating all-new
constitutional problems.
Monarchist rhetoric often possesses a sort
of fatalistic utopianism about the British monarchy, assuming
that because it has existed in some form for over 600 years,
it is therefore destined to survive until time immortal. Among
those in Britain who have analyzed its future seriously, many
have speculated the British monarchy may not even survive
this century, let alone dozens more. Such a decision
would have unknown consequences for Canada. Unless we are
willing to take off our blinders and address the issue in
our own nation Britain could once again be deciding our political
future for us.
The debate over what, if anything, should
replace the monarchy in Canada is a whole other complicated
political discussion which I will not get into here. It is
a serious topic of constitutional debate and all Canadian
republicans must be prepared to address it. As long as the
status of the current system remains uncertain however, such
discussions will inevitably take a backseat.
To date, Canada has not yet had a serious
national debate on the monarchy, but one will come inevitably,
as it has already come to Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica,
Barbados, and most of the other surviving Commonwealth realms.
Before that time comes, Canada's conservatives must re-evaluate
their current stance on the monarchy with the following issues
in mind:
>
The Anglophilic Tory traditions of the past have been all
but replaced. The new conservative political culture of Canada
holds fundamental principles of individualism that are very
difficult to reconcile with the logic of monarchy.
>
Canadian monarchism is increasingly the domain of left-wingers
who use the issue as an outlet to express their underlying
feelings of anti-Americanism or cultural protectionism.
>
Most contemporary monarchist arguments hold little credibility
with the public and are inconsistent with many other contemporary
conservative arguments for political and constitutional reform.
>
Queen Elizabeth will not reign forever and the subsequent
reigns of her successors will likely raise serious questions
regarding the fundamental legitimacy, stability, and longevity
of the monarchy, which are presently taken for granted. Such
concerns will affect not only Canada, but also Britain itself,
making the need for a Canadian republic all the more pressing.
When Canada votes on abolishing the monarchy
it will represent a profound and important shift in our concept
of nationalism, sovereignty, and democracy. It is not an issue
to be dismissed as trivial, and deserves a serious assessment
by all Canadians, especially those on the right.
|
|
