Destroy Canada in Order to "Save" It?

In the Star today, Richard Gwynn makes the point that Stephen Harper would do a particularly bad job of fighting the separatists. I don't think that that's a surprise. I mean Harper makes the Vulcans look like an effusive and heartwarming race. Combine that charisma with his policies, and you don't exactly have a champion for Canadian unity. I have to wonder though, how much does Harper want Canada to stay together? By this I mean that he doesn't like "have-not" provinces like Quebec. But more than that, let's look at where his heart is in terms of ideology. Last year there was an article in The Walrus about something called the "Calgary School." Led by an American political scientist, Tom Flanagan, this Calgary School is the ground from which Harper has sprung. The article in The Walrus states:

Not surprisingly, most of the group's policy prescriptions -- from an elected senate to parliamentary approval of judges -- would have one effect: they would wipe out the quirky bilateral differences that are stumbling blocks to seamless integration with the Unites States.

But Shadia Drury, a member of the U of C department until last year, accuses her former colleagues of harbouring a more sinister mission. An expert on Leo Strauss, the philosophical father of the neo-conservative movement, Drury paints the Calgary School as a home-grown variation of American Straussians like Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who share their teacher's deep suspicion of liberal democracy. Strauss argued that a ruling elite often had to resort to deception -- a noble lie -- to protect its citizens from themselves. To that end, he recommended harnessing the simplistic platitudes of populism to galvanize mass support for measures that would in fact restrict rights. Drury warned the Globe's John Ibbitson that the members of the Calgary School "want to replace the rule of law with the populism of the majority," and labelled Stephen Harper "their product."

There you have it. Flanagan, Harper, et al want to follow the lead of the American Neocons. Quebec, I think it is obvious to see, would form a substantial impediment to that goal. My theory here is this: Stephen Harper will say all sorts of things about how he wants national unity or this and that, but I don't think he does. He wants to make us all into to good little Red State Americans. I have no problem with Americans, I like a lot of Americans, but I am not one and I do not want to be one. If Harper does, and if he stops by Toronto ever, I can happily take him to the US Consulate and show him how to be one without ruining things for the rest of us.