LESLIE MORRIS

Actean’s magazine is shrewd
c €nough to see a market in
qjnada for articles dealing with
anadian politics. At least it is
2 change from the twaddle in
Ne Magazine’s section on Can-
4, which treats us as if we
ag a rather quaint collection
~~ Second-rate U.S. citizens
af Bae Hutchison in Maclean's
Sh etober 15, opened a discus-
fia, of real importance to Cana-
ae He is concerned about
as uture of the two-party sys-

Hutchison has made a good

: Ng out of writing books “inter-

Teting” Canada to citizens of the

tin » SO much so that Life maga-
€ recently prominently  dis-

ayed his views. :

ae biography of Mackenzie

Mg is a best seller!

.© 1S editor of the Victoria
auth S, a magazine writer and an
. An who devotes himself to
anaes and compiling poli-

~ Materials, He is a serious
i on Canadian political af-

S to whom the old-line parties
Y &@ good deal of attention. .

is Utchison’s Maclean’s article
ee “Is the Two Party Sis-

ne Comed?” A fair question.
seetss to his own question
ried avowed Liberal. He is wor-
able y the seemingly unshake-
iberal majority in the
See Commons. He wants
Detling ie there. He feels that
Not he €ntary government can-
fective carried on without an ef-
Position eesition.” The Tory
fective. nls too weak to be ef-

asa §00d Liberal who votes
a ae St. Laurent, he wants
Darty Ctive leader of the Tory
Tee, Re believes that George
ian e Victim of circum-
a ahs accidents” more
tical cane aaa oe
“in ae party system—Liberals
other nd Tories “out” or the
Tocks Aad round — is on the
Sig Ccause the Tories are not

; €nough, says Hutchison.
Politics, pe Stability to Canadian
iS to _ ne Says, the thing to do
t Con Ss and work for a strong-
pene Party. If not the
ty oe 4 Ne then some other par-
ie € right” will develop.
. Sha demand a “party of
ecome If the Tories don’t
1 else as a party, something
will — because Canadians
tem, Urn to the two-party sys-

Hq »
the ‘Sooesnt think the CCF or
i Credit parties have a
Sition : 0 be the effective oppo-
© the Liberal party.

€ doesn’t -
me
Stessive pa ee the Labor-

t
Utchj Y first of all that
Not he IS _an acute observer.
cabinet. member of the Liber-

€ can afford to sa
Onest things, 4

US sq

en

d with vn Polees Set disillusion-

. ely ein lberal party, as they
ere j

Leslie Morris replies

- The two-party

to Bruce Hutchison

go back to the party of Bennett,
Bracken, Manion and Drew.

Hutchison sees a danger in the
instability of the Tory party,
which is no better expressed
than in the fact that it has had
six leaders in the past thirty
years, has changed its name so as
to set ‘out a sprat to catch a
mackerel, while the Liberal party
has had but two leaders in the
past generation—wily King and
“Uncle” Louis St. Laurent.

Hutchison advises the Tory
party to pull up its socks and
prepare not only to be the “Op-
position” but to prepare to be
the government. :

This is necessary, says Hutchi-
son, to stop any radical changes
in Canadian politics.

Hutchison sees danger on the
left. He knows that the present
economic and political situation
is just as unstable as the Liberal
party’s hold seems to be firm. He
also knows that the two-party

- system, which seems to be work-

ing so well, is in a crisis. Hence
—the appeal to the Tories to
come up to the mark. What they
will come up with is secondary,
of course. Hutchison evidently
believes that the old army game
of seeming to be different while
really being the same, can still
ring many political changes and
swindle the voters.

*

The trouble with Hutchison’s
arguments is that they are out of
date.

There is no possibility of stab-
ilizing the two-party system be-
cause the reasons for the exist-

ence of the system are vanishing. |

The two-party capitalist party
system grew up as an expression
of different points of view on how
to build up capitalism within the
confines of a definite home mar-
ket—the nation, and it thereby
served an historical purpose.

The history of Canadian poli-
tics in its classical capitalist stage
was a democratic struggle be-
tween capitalist political groups
for © sectional advantage—within

Bruce Hutchison, i
success of the late Mackenzie
St. Laurent) to his “mysticism,
cident” of history. Leslie Mor a
Hutchinson “Canadian history is 1

struggle of our people for a

Canada’s :
one of ‘ans (shown above wit

4 sees the Great
rris, in this pene

better life. . -

the general policy of advancing
the capitalist interests of the na-
tion as a Whole. The “democrat-
ie? character of this struggle at
all times was confined to the
capitalist class. It never was
democratic as far as the working
class was concerned, because
political power remains with the
capitalist parties at all times.

There is no other rational ex-
planation than this for Canadian
political history as it affects cap-
italist political parties, if one is
to avoid the superficial “person-
ality” explanations of history such
as Hutchison’s biography : of
Mackenzie King. which ascribes
his success to his “mysticism.”
Such explanations explain noth-
ing but the superficialty of the

hor.
Ber SOP superficiality as an
historian is revealed in his Mac-
lean’s article perhaps even clear-
er than in his book on Macken-
zie King. Workers and farmers
tho remember the Hungry Thir-;
ties will be comforted to know
that Hutchison believes the world
economic crisis of the thirties to
have been an “accident.” i

He also says the sree

is Riel, and the 1 conscrip-
ees were “accidents.” It is
difficult to argue with a slithery
“secidental” historian, but we
must try, even though he is real-
ly of the same kidney as Henry
Ford, who achieved renown by
remarking that “history 1s bunk.
a

*

re is no genuine difference
wistwceh Louis St. Laurent and
George Drew on the key issues in
Canadian _ politics: which way
Canada should go.

They are both agreed that Can-
ada should follow the Mg
path—that our nation must e
made to stand or fall with ite
imperialism. Hence their ae
support of the cold war, NA si
the surrender of _markets, ee
arms race and hostility to the 1
socialist states which make mo i
new world market without trade
with which Canada cannot be an

iters, ascribes the
h Prime Minister
Depression as an "ac-
trating article, tells

‘accidents, but the

best known wr

a series of

a
.

system IS doomed

BRUCE HUTCHISON

independent nation.

Hutchison agree that the Tories
have never raised a fundamental
issue clearly different from the
Liberals. He correctly says that
“times will inevitably produce
such an issue”; but if there is
no fundamental difference with
the Liberals, how can he expect
the always agreeable Tories to
take it up and make a come-
back? . The issues time will raise
by 1957, assuming the next fed-
eral election is held them, will
solidarize Tories and Liberals,
not accentuate surface differ-
ences.

But does he seriously think
that the next few years will
see a continuation of the arms
boom, of “prosperity” at the
expense of other people, of the
jet-bomber economy which adds
nothing to our national means
of production? I don’t think
so. We are in for tough times,
and the St. Laurent govern-
ment knows it. That is why
it called the election on Aug-
ust 10—the day the Chicago
wheat market broke.

The only genuine opposition
(apart from the formal parlia-
mentary “Opposition” whose
“duty it is to oppose,’ whether
or not it fundamentally agrees

- with the government) ethan can

mean anything is a new parlia-
mentary challenge to the Liberal
and Tory parties alike.

It is bound to come. It is a
law of Canadian political develop-
ment that such a challenge is
bound to arise, and it will come
around the new, key issue in
Canada—colonial subservience to
the U.S. or national independ-
ence.

It will likely be a parliamen-
tary challenge, a challenge in a
parliamentary election, with the
LPP very much in the centre of
things and fighting for seats
along with other challenger
groups. And its enemy will be
a coalition of the Right, includ-
ing Liberals and Tories — both
bent on national betrayal to the
US. é

This does not mean that the
Liberal and Tory parties will give
up and pass away from the
scene. They will fight to main-
tain their hold} it*is not excluded
that the Tories, in some circum-
stances, might ‘form a govern-
ment. But it will be a govern-
ment far more unstable than
anything we have yet seen in
Canada, more so than Lord Ben-
nett’s desperate 1935 cabinet.

Hutchison either declines to
deal with realities, or prefers to
shut. his eyes to them.

He does not mention the ques-
tion of war and peace—whether
Canada will be plunged into an
American war by way of NATO,
or will be saved from war by
joining with other peace-loving
forces to insist upon peace
through negotiations.

He ignores the new factor in
Canadian society—the outright
interference (with Liberal and
Tory connivance) of the U.S.
in the internal affairs of Can-
ada, not as an investor, but
as a veritable gendarme.

He writes nothing at all about
the economic consequences if
this national betrayal—the back-
ward motion of our economy be-
cause it is geared to. war produe-
tion instead of to the production
of peacetime goods. id

While Hutchison condemns the
Tories for refusing to “face open-
ly the oldest issue in our na-
tional life,” . British Common-
wealth trade, he is blind to the
changes which have taken place
in the world since 1945.

The most profitable market for
Canada goods today is not only
the Commonwealth, but the 12
socialist states, embracing 800,-
000,000 people, who make up a
socialist rising world market.
The Liberals and Tories have ex-
cluded us from that market and
straitjacketed us into the shrink-
ing capitalist world market
which is ruled over by the U.S.
But unless Canada gets back to
trading in a single world market,
we are ruined.

Hutchison nowhere mentions
coalitions—of the Right and the
Left. Does he seriously think
that Canada will avoid such coali-
tions?

What of the danger of a-Right
coalition, with: the Tories consti-
tuting the fascist wing? There—
in the development of Canadian
fascism — Hutchison could have
found an “alternative” policy for
George Drew. The Colonel is
not reluctant here.

Hutchison make the mistake of
thinking that “fascism” is a Ger-
man or Italian product, which is
akin to thinking that “commun-
ism” is Russian. Is there not the
Possibility of Toryism becoming
the outright fascist wing of the
old-line party groups?

Likewise, Hutchison cannot see
the possibility of a coalition on
the Left. But there are many

- Signs that such a coalition is ger-

minating, that it will contest par-
liamentary seats and, we are sure,

ultimately win a majority. Quite .

objectively, Canadian history and
the péesent world crisis of im-
perialism has already produced
the issue for such a coalition.

It is not socialism—although. it
will go in that direction. The
issue is Canadian independence,
the fight to Put Canada First, the
fight against a depression caused
by U.S. control of our country,
the fight for peace and against
being dragged into a U.S. war of
conquest, the fight for our in-
dustry, our farming, our social
well-being.

Such an issue has never con-
fronted the labor movement
before. But it is here, today.
It is on this issue that the lines
of political struggle will be
drawn—between the combined
forces of Liberals and Tory re-
action, and the forces of Can-
adian labor, the farmers, middle
class people and — yes, some.
elements of the employers
who see the threat of U.S.
domination.

Is not that a more realistie
(and hopeful) perspective for
Canada than the gloomy prospect
of George Drew, or someone just
as menacing, sitting in the seats
of the mighty? Think it over,
Hutchison. Canadian history is
not a series of “accidents,” but
the struggle of our people for a
better life, a struggle which is
both inevitable and understand-
able, and not at all “accidental.”

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — NOVEMBER 6, 1953 — PAGE 9