Stephen
Leacock was perhaps the greatest English Canadian
intellectual of his generation.
Damien-Claude
Belanger

George
Grant was Canada’s
most significant public philosopher.
Graeme Nicholson

Stephen Leacock (1869-1944) and George Grant (1918-1988)
were men of deep religious faith and passionate about politics. Both men were firmly rooted and grounded in the Anglican
tradition, were committed to the
classical Canadian conservative political vision and were prominent professors
at public universities and in public life. These men did not retreat into
private institutions to protect a fragile faith that could not stand up to the
challenges of serious and substantive intellectual thought.

Leacock and Grant were classical Canadian Anglican
conservatives. They could be called High or Red Tories. Both were
suspicious of the USA at the level of philosophic principle and imperial ambitions. Both men were
critical of the dogma of free trade and were at the forefront of opposing
closer ties with the USA at economic, cultural, military, religious, philosophic and political levels.
Both men held high the importance of a strong centralized state and the role of higher taxes to distribute wealth in a meaningful and
just manner. These men were not liberals of an economic and religious sort that
waved the flag of liberty,
individualism, equality and choice as do most protestants. Leacock and Grant
understood the older roots of fragmentation and schism.

Leacock and Grant, in short, sought to conserve an older
tradition than the protestant, calvinist and puritan way that emerged in the 16th century and came to
dominate the American landscape with the coming of the puritan pilgrims to
Plymouth Rock in 1620. Such a tradition highlighted such principles as liberty, conscience, equality and individuality. The State
was seen as suspect and the protestant work ethic held high. The Bible was, in
principle, the formal authority, but the real authority were the rights of
individuals, in good conscience, being equal, to interpret the Bible as they
saw fit: liberty demanded as much.
The birth of liberalism can be located in the 16th century, and we, in our ethos, are merely picking the
late autumn fruit from such a tree. The hot button issues might be different,
but the principles remain the same. Leacock and Grant saw this most clearly,
hence their distrust of the varied and fragmentary forms of protestantism.

There are two questions we might ponder by way of
conclusion: First, how is the High Tory Anglican tradition of Leacock-Grant
different from the view of conservatism in the Fraser Valley and Prime Minister Harper’s view of conservatism? It might be more honest to
call Fraser Valley conservatism and Harper’s
conservatism a form of American republicanism. This is what the older Toryism of Leacock-Grant saw through, opposed and resisted. It is ironic that the
very language that once opposed  Canadian integration into the American way is now used to justify it. Orwell would do more than smile.

Second, where would Leacock/Grant’s High Tory Anglicanism
agree yet part company with the Anabaptist realism that we find so well
articulated in John Redekop’s Politics Under God?

We err seriously when we ignore the intellectual and
religious giants that have gone before us. They still have much to teach us
about faith and politics if we have
but the ears to hear.

Ron Dart