Warren Kinsella

bio

words

latest musings

top ten

nasty past

contact

sfh

facebook

Books

Speeches

Politics

Extremism

Articles

Not Harper's Alliance

On Wednesday, one of Paul Martin's most influential strategists appeared on Don Newman's Politics program on CBC Newsworld. Mike Robinson is a regular on the program, but what he had to say was not in any way regular. Nor was it in any way fair.

The subject being mooted by Mr. Newman's panel was the identity of the donors to Stephen Harper's successful campaign for the Conservative party leadership. With little fanfare, Mr. Robinson dropped his bombshell.

Said he: "More interesting is the leadership before, when he beat Stockwell Day. There were questionable donations that ended up in the media where white supremacist groups had given money, and - this is true, go read the newspapers - the National Alliance made a donation to Mr. Harper's campaign."

Almost as an afterthought, Mr. Robinson went on to admit that Mr. Harper had refused and denounced the $100 donation from the neo-Nazi group, then added: "But he's never revealed who else gave money in that leadership campaign."

Apart from the Toronto Star, no other Canadian news organizations picked up on Mr. Robinson's extraordinary statement. But they should have. To associate a Canadian political leader with neo-Nazism - any Canadian political leader - is beyond the pale. And it represents a new low in an election campaign that is already shaping up to be too much about personalities, and not enough about policies.

When I read about Mr. Robinson's comments, I was astounded. As a journalist and a lawyer, I have studied - and documented - the activities of far right groups for nearly 20 years. To associate any national elected official with the National Alliance represents the worst kind of politics.

Founded in 1974 by a former American Nazi Party publicist named William L. Pierce, the West Virginia-based organization has distinguished itself as more extreme, and more violent, than any other neo-Nazi or white supremacist group in existence.

As the National Alliance leader, Pierce's most notable contribution was his novel, The Turner Diaries. The FBI called it "the Bible of the racist right." Pierce's National Alliance, meanwhile, called it "a handbook for white victory."

The novel tells the story, diary-style, of two years in the life of Earl Turner, a member of a racist terrorist group called the Order. In numbing detail, the book chronicles Turner's efforts to murder as many non-whites, gays, lesbians, police officers, race-mixers and - of course - Jews as possible.

In one chilling section, Pierce describes in detail how to build bombs containing ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. As he would later admit prior to his execution, National Alliance follower Timothy McVeigh cited The Turner Diaries as the inspiration for his bombing of the Alfred P. Murragh building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 149 adults and 19 children.

The Anti-Defamation League characterizes the National Alliance as "the most dangerous organized hate group."

Now, elections are about choices. Sometimes - often - those choices are expressed in tough, critical terms. That's fair. But is it in any way fair, or right, to link a Canadian politician to the National Alliance?

The answer is so obvious it barely merits saying. Mr. Robinson's statement was odious. Unfortunately, with the fortunes of the party led by Paul Martin slipping dramatically, we should all probably steel ourselves for more of the same. After all, the desire for "change" is always a powerful force, politically. But rarely has it been as powerful as it is in election year 2004.

For months, Mr. Martin's party has been struggling with polling numbers that show 60% of voters want a change in government. That is precisely the number that swept Dalton McGuinty to power in Ontario with a massive majority. The new Conservatives represent change, for sure. But are they a too-radical change?

It is that perception that sank the political fortunes of Preston Manning and Stockwell Day - the perception that they were too extreme for the Canadian voting mainstream. Thus, the predominant issue of this campaign won't be an issue, per se - it will be a person: Stephen Harper. It is going to be a referendum on a man.

Having proudly toiled in Liberal war rooms going back to 1993, I played a small role in the Liberal campaign efforts to define Kim Campbell, Preston Manning and Stockwell Day - and to define them as unfit for the keys to 24 Sussex Drive. And, as someone who has closely observed Stephen Harper since 1997, I can say that it will be very difficult - if not impossible - to do to the Conservative party leader what we did to Kim Campbell, Preston Manning and Stockwell Day. Compared to his predecessors, Mr. Harper is smart, strategic, and moderate.

In politics, the main task is always define or be defined. If you haven't defined your opponent long before the start of an election campaign, you have waited far too long.

If you attempt to define him as in some way associated with the vilest neo-Nazi group on the planet, meanwhile, you have gone too far. And you should apologize.

All contents copyright 2006 warrenkinsella.com.
No reproduction whatsoever, in any form, without permission.