Those who follow Clarion with any regularity
will note some common themes among many of our regular contributors. These
include a concern for the link between spirituality and justice,
a Christo-centric ethic promoting nonviolent social action, a critique of
any empire's tendencies towards foreign and domestic oppression, and a healthy
suspicion of Christian schemes to bring in the Kingdom of God by grasping for
political power. These subjects permeate Clarion essays by Eric Janzen, Wayne
Northey, Bob Ekblad, Brian Zahnd, Archbishop Lazar Puhalo and of course, Ron
Dart. Even the faithful subscriber may infer from the
anti-empire, peacemaking rhetoric that our cadre of writers are all
left-leaning anarchists, disciples of Noam Chomsky, or Anabaptists in the tradition
of Yoder, involved politically only as far as prophetic protest and advocacy
work. For some time, this was my [mis]understanding of Ron S. Dart, our
political science and religious studies expert from the University of the
Fraser Valley. Herein, I will share my observations re: Prof. Dart's unique and poignant perspective.
Especially after some of Brian Zahnd's recent
[master]pieces, cautioning his fellow American evangelicals against the
political scheming whereby they get in bed with the Beast, I thought it prudent
to highlight Prof. Dart's "Red Tory" alternative to complete
political non-involvement. Some of our readers need to hear Zahnd's warnings
against marrying their faith to political ideologies (left or right) of the
culture wars. But so too might we hear Dart applying the brakes to a complete
Tolstoyan retreat from formal political engagement in the world.
What follows is a very, very brief introduction
to Ron Dart's Canadian Red Tory alternative. The first two paragraphs are
quotes about the Red Tory tradition. After these I include ten principles of
Toryism, composed by Ron and excerpted from his book, The Red Tory
Tradition: Ancient Roots, New Routes:
Red Toryism is a label that was given to George
Grant's ideas by the socialist Gad Horowitz in 1965, and has been applied to a
particular sort of Canadian Tory - back then as personified by Grant himself,
and Eugene Forsey, Stephen Laycock, Mazo de la Roche, and several others, and
nowadays by such as Mel Hurtig, David Orchard, Ron Dart, Marjaleena Repo, Robin
Matthews, and several others... Professor Ron Dart is one of the more
lucid exponents of Canadian Red Toryism. (Monday Club
& Cornerstone Group | Facebook).
“I have tried to think through the usage of the
terms ‘Tory’ and ‘Conservative’ in an absolute sense, because I am often vexed
by the casual use of them. I think we should agree to something like these
definitions: 1) Toryism is the political expression of a religious view of
life. 2) Conservatism is an attempt to maintain Toryism after you have lost
your faith. 3) Progressive Conservatism is an attempt to maintain conservatism
after you have lost your memory, too. Put another way, conservatism is just
Toryism after a haemorrhage; or Toryism in a passive, modest, self-conscious,
unsatisfying, and self-defeating form.” (Warren, David, “On George
Grant’s Nationalism” in Emberley, Peter, (ed), By Loving Our Own:
George Grant and the Legacy of Lament for a Nation, Carleton University Press,
Ottawa, 1990, p 69).
10 Principles
of Toryism by Ron Dart
What are the principles and content of historic
Anglo-Canadian Toryism and how can such a vision take us beyond our present
malaise? The philosophical and political roots of historic Toryism go deep and
thick into the soil of western culture, and space prevents a thorough
discussion of these principles, but, in brief, let me mention ten points.
First, Tories are concerned about the wisdom of
tradition, the insights of the past, and the truths learned about the human
condition by those who have gone before us. Bernard de Chartres sums up this
attitude quite nicely when he says, ‘If we see further than those who have gone
before us, it is because we are children on the shoulders of giants.’ The
eagerness of conservatives, the generous openness of conservatives to heed and
hear from the past stands in startling contrast to so many in the modern world
who have clear-cut the past and lack any sense of direction in the present and
for the future.
Second, Tories have a passion for both the
commonweal and the commons. The good of the people, of the nation, of each and
all is the foundation of Tory thought. The individual truly becomes a person as
he/she finds their place within the whole. Tories often compare the nation to a
body, and it is as each and all (gifts and nature discovered) find their place
within the organic life of the whole that life bears much fruit. John Donne, in
Meditation 17, summed up the connection that Tories feel: ‘No man is an island,
entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main…
Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.’ Thus, the
Tory notion of our being connected with one another comes as a challenge and an
affront to the liberal notion of the primacy of the individual and their
freedom to shape their future as they so choose. This concern for the
commonweal is why Tories within Canada have created a strong federal government;
it is the role of the state to think about and protect the wellbeing of each
and all from coast to coast.
Third, Tories do not separate ethics from
economics. When the ledger of profit and loss becomes the only criteria we use
for evaluating the wealth and development of a people, we become moral
cripples. The present tendency to divorce ethics and economics runs contrary to
historic Toryism that grounds political life in the classical virtues of
courage, justice, wisdom and moderation. The cleavage between the rich and poor
is a natural product of elevating trade and commerce and ignoring any sort of
ethical plumb-line by which wealth is earned and how it is distributed. Dante,
for example, placed the greedy in the lowest level of hell. It is rather ironic
that many neo-conservatives make trade, commerce and economics a virtue; the
classical tradition would resist such a move with a passion.
Fourth, the English High Romantics (Coleridge,
Wordsworth, Southey) were deeply conservative, and their Red Tory conservatism
led them to not only oppose the way economics was dominating the political
scene, but equally, the way industrial England was destroying the environment
for the purpose of gaining short term profit. In short, much of the Tory
tradition has deep and abiding respect for the land and recognizes, only too
keenly, that the environment is the branch we sit on; if we cut the branch off,
we will fall and experience great hurt and pain. Therefore, conservatives are
most ecologically minded.
Fifth, Tories do not separate and artificially
oppose state and society. The state has a vital and vibrant role to play in
creating the common good, as does society. Tories hold together, in a most
judicious manner, the role and importance of the state and the essential role
of society. The notions of mediating structures, sphere sovereignty, voluntary
organizations and subsidiarity highlight the role of society, but such notions
must also walk hand in hand with the national role of the state. The excessive
badmouthing of the state and the consequent turn to a lighter state (with all
the deregulation) is more of a liberal move that serves the interests of a
market economy. Tories always find a middle ground between capitalism and
communism. Red Toryism, at its best, has much affinity with aspects of
socialism.
Sixth, if a Tory is concerned with the
commonweal, such a concern leads to a concern for the commons. There is
obviously a place for private property and possessions, but there must also be
much public space and place that we share in common. C. B. Macpherson, in his
classic work, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, highlighted so
clearly how liberalism is very much about the rights of the individual to
compete in the market place and possess and keep what was caught in the hunt.
The building of greater barns has done much to erode the commons. It is the
role of the state to ensure and protect the commons for the good of one and
all, those living and those yet to live. The modern liberal addiction to
possessions/property and the protection of such does much to fragment and
isolate people from one another into affluent ghettoes. These notions run
against the streams of both classical liberalism and neo-conservatism with
their singular interest on the marketplace as the venue from which property and
possessions can be accumulated. The deeper individualism that is at work in
this perspective runs contrary to Tory notions of the commonweal and the
commons.
Seventh, education is about being grounded in the
best that has been thought, said and done in the past. The classics and epics
are read, digested and internalized as a means of alerting and attuning
students to things worth living for and worth avoiding. Education is not, in
its deepest sense, about teaching some skill or technology so that the naive
and gullible will uncritically fit into a dehumanizing and, in many ways,
dehumanized culture. The task of education is to awaken the conscience to the
important things, to stir the will into action and to encourage those who have
truly awakened to be active citizens. Just as ethics guides and is the North
Star for economics, so wisdom and insight guides and leads knowledge and
technical skills for a Tory.
Eighth, according to the Tory’s view of human
nature we are imperfect, finite and fallible beings. This means, then, that we
need to hear from those who differ with us, respect and honour their insights,
but be firm with what we stand for. There is always the danger, in life as in
politics, of ideology rather than dialogue dominating the day. When this
occurs, politics becomes reduced to tribalism and those who don’t salute at the
flagpole of a certain clan are viewed as heretics and excommunicated. Tories
recognize that human nature can go bad, we live east of Eden and even the best
of intentions can be fraught and riddled with power. This is why Tories have a
certain wariness of the concentration of too much power in any one place.
Ninth, Tories are convinced that the foundation
stones of a good state are built with bricks of ethical firmness and religious
depth. The religious institutions that bear the ancient myths, memories and
symbols of the community past and present are imperfect, but to negate, ignore
or destroy such institutions is to cut ourselves off from the deeper wisdom of
the past. The Anglicans have often been called the Tories at prayer, and there
might be much more in this cryptic statement than has been probed thus far.
Just as the spirit of historic religion needs the ship of the institution to
carry it, so the Tory vision of politics needs the ship of the political party
to bring the philosophic vision into being. In short, Tories do not spurn the
old institutions that carry their ideas into material form. Those who separate
ideals and ideas from the institutions that embody such ideas are most short
sighted and doomed to unfulfilled longings.
Protest and advocacy are dependent on formal
politics to bring their dreams into reality; hence it is essential that
political activists engage at the level of formal politics.
Tenth, Tories are committed to the notions that
there is a good, better and best, and, equally so, there are such things as
bad, worse and worst. Reality cannot be dumbed down to the lowest common
denominator or in the interests of Nietzsche’s ‘last man’. There are ideals
worth knowing and aspiring to; there is an order worth knowing and attuning
oneself to, and a vision worth remembering and living. Those who ignore such an
order, reduce reality to the smallest circle turns of their ever-shrinking ego.
A Tory calls out in the streets to one and all to lift their eyes, hearts and
heads to the heavens and truly see what needs to be seen and worth living for.
Dart,
Professor Ronald Samuel, The Red Tory Tradition: Ancient Roots, New Routes, Synakis Press, Dewdney BC,
1999. Ch 2 “The Trojan Horse of Liberalism in the Tory Camp” (§2 Red Tories of
Canada Unite: The Tory Vision) pp 33-38.
Thanks Brad for this post. Years ago I asked Ron to be a spiritual mentor. It has been an amazingly rich journey since! I know of others, you too, who acknowledge that!
I have also long since been (re)oriented by the Red Tory tradition in my understanding of politics: this over against Anabaptism through which I first was introduced to the notion that Christians should even care about same: a major conversion for me! (That new embrace was in turn over against my church upbringing in the Plymouth Brethren tradition that was profoundly a/anti-political.) This first conversion happened for me at Regent College in 1975 through an interterm course by Clark Pinnock entitled "The Politics of Jesus", that drew on Anabaptist theologian John Howard Yoder's famous 1972 publication by the same title.
My second "conversion" at Regent College was: the Jesus way of doing politics is the nonviolent way of the cross. It is this second point that most clashes with the Red Tory view of the state, with in fact all views of the state that authorize it to do (in particular lethal) violence.
No theorist, Red Tory or otherwise, has ever demonstrated how Christians can "love your enemies" and authorize/participate in (in Augustine's terms - who was the father of Christian doublespeak on violence) running a spear through the enemy's gut, hacking off his head, shooting an arrow through the heart, and Christians' making up entire armies for the state with said purposes as Augustine envisioned; or hanging the criminal, burning him at the stake, beheading same; or otherwise in more modern "humane" ways dropping smart bombs, deploying guided cruise missile, creating massive instant overkill with conventional or nuclear weapons; or electrocuting, injecting lethal drugs, using a firing squad, etc., etc., etc.
Is not the state profoundly anti-Christian so long as it arrogates to itself and Christians (Red Tories included) authorize (sole) prerogative of committing lethal violence?
My favourite quote on this is New Testament theologian Richard Hay's final words in chapter 14 ("Violence in Defense of Justice") from The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics,Harper,1996:
***
One reason that the world finds the New Testament’s message of peacemaking and love of enemies incredible is that the church is so massively faithless. On the question of violence, the church is deeply compromised and committed to nationalism, violence, and idolatry. (By comparison, our problems with sexual sin are trivial.) This indictment applies alike to liberation theologies that justify violence against oppressors and to establishment Christianity that continues to play chaplain to the military-industrial complex, citing just war theory and advocating the defense of a particular nation as though that were somehow a Christian value.
Only when the church renounces the way of violence will people see what the Gospel means, because then they will see the way of Jesus reenacted in the church. Whenever God’s people give up the predictable ways of violence and self-defense, they are forced to formulate imaginative new responses in particular historical settings, responses as startling as going the second mile to carry the burden of a soldier who had compelled the defenseless follower of Jesus to carry it one mile first. The exact character of these imaginative responses can be worked out only in the life of particular Christian communities; however, their common denominator will be conformity to the example of Jesus, whose own imaginative performance of enemy-love led him to the cross. If we live in obedience to Jesus’ command to renounce violence, the church will become the sphere where the future of God’s righteousness intersects—and challenges—the present tense of human existence. The meaning of the New Testament’s teaching on violence will become evident only in communities of Jesus’ followers who embody the costly way of peace.
***
The best massive study on this is Willard Swartley's Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
I could only wish the Red Tory tradition had wrestled/wrestles with this profound denial of the Gospel in its positive embrace of the state. I just don't see it! But I stand to learn lots more, and could be corrected in this view, I'm sure - and to which I'm open.
And... this is not new to you or to Ron!
With love and care. Wayne
Posted by: Wayne Northey | August 09, 2010 at 10:15 PM
There are 7 articles on Clarion (there are more) in which I deal with the anarchist way as a dead end and cul-de-sac. For those interested in going further with the discussion, see:
1) Ginsberg and Grant: Howl and Lament for a Nation
2) Stanley Hauerwas: With the Grain of the Universe
3) James Reimer and Anabaptist Anarchism
4) Christian Anarchy: An Aberration of Sorts
5) Chomsky and Mathews
6) Hauerwas and Chomsky
7) Chomsky and Barlow
My book, 'The Canadian High Tory Tradition: Raids on the Unspeakable', also goes deeper and further into the Red Tory way than does 'The Red Tory Tradition'. You might also have a look at my article in The Canadian Encyclopedia on 'Red Toryism.' It is a primer on the topic also---it's online in TCE (TheCanadianEncyclopedia.com)
Ron
Posted by: Ron Dart | August 09, 2010 at 05:30 PM
Thank you for this post, it is illuminating..
Politicians as servants. The Gospel from the top down, or the bottom up, depending on how you look at it.
Posted by: jan | August 05, 2010 at 06:55 PM
Excellent. The "Red Tory Alternative" may be the best approach I've encountered yet on how a Christian might relate to the state: engaged, but not compromised. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much hope this offers to American Christians. Presently the United States is so stuck in the binary trench warfare of conservative vs. liberal that it seems to realistically exclude the possibility of much else. For my part, if I can influence some evangelicals to take a breath, take a step back and try to imagine something other than the angry ressintiment of the Religious Right...I'll be satisfied.
I wonder what Ron Dart would think of James Davison Hunter's new (and ironically titled) book, "To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World." I suspect Dart and Hunter might share some common ground.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003BYRRL2/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0199730806&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=02CWBD84JSDH0YAP6JDT
Here is a link to Andy Crouch's thorough review of "To Change the World."
http://www.culture-making.com/articles/how_not_to_change_the_world
I like hanging out with you folks!
Blessings,
Brian Zahnd
Posted by: Brian Zahnd | August 04, 2010 at 01:58 PM