QUACKGRASS ROOTS

In the wake of the 1997 Canadian federal election, both Reformers and supporters of the traditional parties are asking themselves, "What the heck happened?"

Liberals thought they were going to make big inroads against Reform in the West; they called the election precisely because they had polls which seemed to guarantee gains in the West. Conservatives thought that, with Mulroney gone, they would recapture Tory voters that deserted to Reform in 1993. Most Reformers expected big gains in Ontario, as Reform's growth in the East continued after its huge gains in 1993.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! 

I'm not pointing and snickering at those who were wrong; I was one of them. But I think I know why we all pooched it. We misread the meaning of the Reform vote in the 1993 election.

Traditional parties interpreted the 1993 results according to traditional political calculations. Mulroney's Conservative government had been in power much too long, and had made itself odious to both left and right. The left abominated Conservatives for their niggardliness in funding the welfare state. The right loathed Conservatives for bloating the deficit while continually promising to reduce it. And everyone shook their heads and sighed at the cronyism and patronage of the Conservatives. Voters were desperate for any alternative to the Conservatives. By this calculation, Reform's spectacular gains in 1993 came from a "protest vote," a one-time blip, a mere aberration that could never be repeated.

Reformers interpreted the 1993 results according to the calculations which apply to a social movement. The chasm which divides Reform from the traditional parties is wide and profound. When one has thought through these many and complex issues, and accepted Reform, one is a Reformer for life. Once a Reformer, always a Reformer! By this calculation, Reform's spectacular gains in 1993 were irreversible, part of a long-term trend. Reform could only gain.

Which of these calculations is correct? Neither of them is correct because each of them ignores the other. There was a large protest vote inflating Reform's 1993 results, and Reform is a growing social movement whose real gains are irreversible—unless or until it is confronted by another principled social movement.

Reform is populist, federalist and almost capitalist. This places an immense gulf between Reform and traditional parties and traditional thinking. Consider:

• Reform is populist, while the traditional parties are elitist. Reform holds that basic policies should flow up from the grassroots to party officials, rather than the reverse. Populism is no political gimmick; it has profound philosophical roots. 

Populism is based, ultimately, on the principle that the individual mind—every individual mind—is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Thus, Joe Citizen is as capable of being right on an issue as any party official; and a party official is as capable of being wrong as Joe Citizen. Only Joe Citizen is an expert on the life and interests of Joe Citizen. If you want Joe to agree with you, then prove your case to his satisfaction!
Populism, along with democracy and freedom itself, is a political corollary of the philosophical advocacy of reason. Elitism, by contrast, is based on the notion that all really important knowledge is accessible only to a small cadre of the initiated, or indeed that there is no knowledge and everything is based on whim. Elitists don't think in terms of Joe Citizen; but of the "ignorant masses," of the "peasants," of the "great unwashed," and of "rednecks." Thus, they plainly tell you that they think you are mindless. Are you?
• Reform is emphatically federalist, while the traditional parties are centralist. Reform holds that the federal government should be limited to a small core of functions which only a federal government can do. All other government functions should be handled at the provincial or local level. Federalism is a safeguard both of individual freedom and of national unity. 

Federalism safeguards our freedom because the different levels of government get in each others' way when they attempt to expand their powers: each government serves as a check on the pretensions of the others. 
Federalism safeguards national unity because it minimizes the number and importance of issues on which we all have to agree: when we don't have to agree, we have no occasion to disagree. In a proper federation, regional differences just don't matter. 
Equality of provinces is a trivial deduction from federalism: inequality of legal status simply means that someone is going to get shafted! The dispute between Quebec separatists and "distinct society" appeasers is just a dispute between two packs of centralists: one pack wants Quebec City as the center, the other wants Ottawa.
• Reform is almost capitalist, while traditional parties are welfare statist. Reformers are unanimous in wanting lower taxes, smaller government and freer markets. Just how low, how small and how free is a matter of ongoing debate among Reformers. But the contrast with traditional welfare state parties is profound.

How does a social movement grow? By populism in action! By its recruits passing on the ideas on which it is based. By coffee room discussions, and living room discussions, and personal example. As it grows, a social movement enhances its capacity to overcome smears; it is difficult to believe lying accusations of bigotry about Reformers when your sweet, white-haired old grandmother is a Reformer! Above all a social movement grows by individual quackgrass activism: the deliberate policy of spreading its ideas in large numbers.

What is the indicated course of action for individual Reformers? What are the prospects for Reform in the next election? Well, I'm a fully convinced populist. I believe in the competence of your mind, no less than my own.

So you figure it out!

Quackgrass Press will use all the help it gets. E-gold is the easiest help to give! 

 Amount of help (US$)