I recently read an interesting collection of essays by Ron Dart, all of them about Red Toryism (and all of them seemingly to contain an identical line about how important it was that David Orchard run for the leadership of the PC party).

Dart insists that Red Toryism is the only true form of conservatism, with blue toryism being another form of liberalism.

He sets out ten criteria for being what he considers a "proper" conservative:

1. A concern with tradition
2. A passion for the commonweal and the commons
3. No separation of economics and ethics
4. Respect for the land and environment
5. No artificial separation of state and society
6. Concern for the commonweal and the commons
7. Value of an education rooted in the past
8. View of human nature as imperfect, fallible and finite
9. Ethical firmness and religious depth
10. Commitment to the idea of good, better and best

He argues that proper conservatism should have an "organic" relationship with the community, and should have suspicion of the ideal of the "rugged individual".

Any thoughts on how Dart's definition of conservatism compares to the current Conservative party?

   

How do you define Red Tory? Frankly, you can't anymore. In the classical sense, a Red Tory was someone who was a strong social conservative who felt there must be a strong safety net. Traditionally, these Red Tories were elected in Atlantic Canada and parts of Quebec. The new, modern version of Red Toryism seems to be more of a libertarian movement. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative, it's the antithesis of the original red Tory.

Conservatism in Canada is a collection of three groups. You must collect the moderate Conservatives from Ontario and Atlantic Canada, the populist Tories from the West, and the Nationalist Tories from Quebec. There is no true definition of what Toryism stands for, really. The links between these three are tenuous at best, and it is why when a Conservative Prime Minister wins in a monster majority, it often ends a complete mess.

Some examples of this are Diefenbakers enormous win in 58, and being reduced to a miniscule minority in 62. There is also Brian Mulroney's famous 84/88 elections, only to be reduced to a rump caucus of 2 in 93.

Frankly, there is no true definition of Toryism, and to think otherwise is arrogant, and is what led to the collapse of the two governments I mentioned before.

   

Well, amongst other things, Dart traces the origins of Red Toryism to Britain, and more specifically to the Anglican Church. He often describes Red Tories as "Tories at prayer".

In reality, Dart's writings often seemed more like a reaction to the Unite the Right movement, which was still ongoing at the time. Thus, his constant gushing over David Orchard.

   

Oh yes, David Orchard, the saviour of the Tories who later became a Liberal. This would for me essentially eliminate any of the man's credibility on his knowledge of conservatism in Canada.

   

Yes. David Orchard. The man who thought it better for the conservative vote in Canada be divided than for any party other than the Liberals to ever govern.

Here, however, is a matter for further debate: should, perhaps, Stephen Harper be doing a better job of trying to accomodate the views and interests of Red Tories in order to improve unity among conservatives?