Stephen Harper preferred to describe himself as a classical
liberal rather than as a libertarian, a term which he found
too ideological. He has no interest in anarcho-capitalism,
but he seemed to be at ease with the idea that the state
should be restricted to a few essential functions (security,
defense, justice, foreign affairs, etc.) and that government
interventionism should be reduced to a minimum. The NCC had
no literature in French and no presence in Quebec, and he
proposed to hire me to set up a Quebec wing, using the QL
network of readers and sympathizers as a foundation. The
project never went through because of strategic differences
and his return to politics.
During the leadership campaign of the Canadian Alliance in
the fall of 2001 and winter of 2002, I was the official
“contact” of the Stephen Harper campaign in Quebec. When I
realized the lack of interest of the leader and his
entourage in investing in Quebec and developing an
organization here, I decided to stop wasting my time and did
not stay involved after his election (see my article on this
subject in the National Post during the federal
electoral campaign of June 2004: “Stephen Harper rediscovered Quebec too late”).
All the same, the Stephen Harper of 2002 still had
libertarian instincts. His first priority was to reduce the
fiscal burden – to a rate lower than the Americans! (See “How to
get Canada back on track.”) Today, he promises to reduce
the GST by two percent, which will only have a marginal
effect on Canadians’ disposable income.
The
Stephen Harper that I knew would never defend the bankrupt
health care system that we have in Canada. Today he defends
the government monopoly and promises to oppose any move
towards a two-tier system, which makes him essentially a
socialist politician like the other federal party leaders.
When the complete Conservative platform was announced – full
of promises to spend and support all sorts of groups and
special interests – their finance critic Monte Solberg
assured everybody that “Spending continues to go up. There
will be no cuts… We will protect the social safety net.” The
Conservative plan is, essentially, a continuation of the
status quo. The federal state will not be put on a diet.
Here
is what we got today, a party leader and prime minister who
was the most libertarian politician one could imagine
getting in this position, taking into account the fact that
our movement still has a rather marginal influence. This
Conservative government will likely govern just like the old
Progressive-Conservatives (that Harper and his Reform
friends quit at the end of the 1980s because it was too
centrist and beholden to special interests) would have. It
might even do worse than the government of Jean Chrétien
between 1993 and 2002, when Paul Martin put some order into
public finance, eliminated the deficit, contained spending
and lowered income taxes. Other than his promise to withdraw
from the Kyoto accord and abolish the gun registry, Stephen
Harper’s program has practically nothing to distinguish it
from a libertarian perspective than the one the Liberals
proposed.
As I
have written many times in QL, partisan politics is a
waste of time for people who really want to reduce the size
of the state. Democracy is a collectivist system whose
fundamental logic rests on buying the support of political
clients with the big pot of other people’s money that
constitutes the government’s treasury. Either we refuse to
play the game and stay on the margins; or we absolutely want
power, and have to abandon our libertarian principles and
adopt an opportunistic attitude. The solution is to work to
delegitimize the state from the outside, not to try to
reduce it from the inside, which is bound to fail.
Harper badly wanted to become prime minister and did an
excellent campaign to get there. The downside is that he has
now become just another irrelevant statist politician, who
at best will keep the federal government more or less as it
is, and at worst will increase it as did the right-wing
statist George W. Bush. The Liberal vermin certainly
deserved to be defeated. But if Stephen Harper, a former
reader of this magazine, can’t do better, what more can we
hope to achieve through political means?
|