Toryism. Red Tories claim some affinitynwith the paternalist and statist elementnthat so often dominated thenBritish Conservative Party, until thatnelement was cast into the wilderness bynMrs. Thatcher. The real father of thenmovement was George Grant, a philosophernand essayist who was a highlyninfluential teacher at Ontario andnMaritime universities for over threendecades.nGrant evolved a synthesis of classicalnphilosophy, Christianity, and Marxismninto a coherent but pessimistic vision ofnCanadian nationalism. From then1950’s to the 1980’s, he produced anseries of small, closely argued, stimulating,nand exasperating books about bignsubjects: Technology, Empire, Justice.nMost of them had a small audience,nbut one. Lament for a Nation, whichnappeared in 1965, had a wide andnprofound effect.nGrant argued that liberalism, capitalism,nand Americanism were all prettynmuch the same thing, a Behemothnthat was probably irresistible, but tonwhich we should give no encouragement.nAll over the world, he pointednout, the combination of liberal ideologynand capitalist technology was eradicatingntraditional culture, religion, custom,nthe sense of history and the tragic.nCanada, which had remained somethingnof a Tory bastion as late as thenSecond Wodd War—loyalist, agricultural,nprovincial in an admirable sensen— was now in the process of beingndissolved in this universal solvent.nAs might be expected, Grant wasnnot much concerned with providingn”practical solutions,” the eternal preoccupationnof the liberal capitalist.nIronically enough, however, this is justnwhat red Tories set out to provide,nsolutions that amounted to support fornsocialist policies at home, protectionistneconomic relations with the UnitednStates, and facile moralism in foreignnpolicy. In fact. Grant’s bleak visionnwound up as a comforting rationale fornthe conventional prejudices of fashionablenliberalism. The efFect has beennvery strange, like hearing the policies ofnJohn Kenneth Galbraith being advocatednwith arguments from MalcolmnMuggeridge.nGrant had flashes of brilliant insight,nbut he was trying to square a circle.nEconomic nationalism and statist interventionnbecame highly fashionablen48/CHRONICLESndoctrines in Canada from the laten1960’s to the early I980’s, but whennthe Trudeau Liberals actually implementednthem as policies, the resultsnwere mostly disastrous and eventuallynbecame highly unpopular. Furthermore,nthey did nothing at all to halt thengrowing Americanization of Canadiannlife; many Canadians began to believenthat they might actually do more forntheir identity by open competition withnAmericans.nThe most astonishing thing aboutnthose who liked to call themselves rednTories throughout this period was thatnthey seemed incapable of recognizingnthe full implications of Pierre Trudeau’sndetermination to provide thencountry with a written constitution.nThis document does not guaranteenprivate property rights, so it can nevernbe a great force for individual liberty.nIts charter of rights explicitly recognizesntrendy causes like feminism andnhomosexual equality, and includes anprovision that laws intended to favornthese causes cannot be struck downnbecause they violate other principles ofnindividual rights. On the other hand, asnalready noted, it provides no real protectionnto provincial minorities, sincenprovincial governments can always usenthe notwithstanding clause. Most ironicallynof all, it calls on Canadians tonabandon their former attachment toncommon law and common sense andnto appeal to rights and freedomsnspelled out in detail, apparently withnthe implication that any others havengone down the tube. This is a far morenserious departure from Toryism than isnopening our borders to Americanntrade.nIt is also the reason that the politicalnsituation in Quebec is potentially morenexplosive now than it was in the periodnof noisy nationalism 20 years ago.nTrudeau tried to provide a means bynwhich bilingualism and biculturalismnwere made national rather than provincial,nat least on the official level.nMulroney bought Quebec support bynoffering them explicit recognition as an”distinct society.” Bourassa has nownshown what it means to have a distinctnsociety; it means you ignore decisionsnof the Federal Supreme Court.nMulroney, neither red nor blue, but annamiable pragmatist and Quebec nativenson, will probably dither and equivocate.nAs we stumble toward disaster.nnnthose who call themselves Canadiannnationalists and red Tories will still benmaundering on about the menace ofnfree trade. They have swallowed thencamel and are straining at the gnat.nNeil Cameron is director of the SaintnLawrence Institute in Montreal.nLetter From thenHeartlandnby Jane GreernOnly in a Place Like ThisnIn America, we can judge the significancenof an event by the pre-maturitynand questionable taste of the memorabilianit spawns. In mid-January 1989,nthree months before the Women’s InternationalnBowling Congress (WIBC)nwas scheduled to descend upon Bismarck,nNorth Dakota (pop. 45,000),nthe J.C. Penney store was selling Tshirtsnthat claimed “I Survived Bowlingnin the Boonies,” and others with annincredible bowling cowgirl clad in Stetson,nboots, and miniskirt. That’s whennwe knew this would be some blowout.nIn December, four months beforenthe event, a travel agent told a relativenof mine that if he planned to do anynflying out of Bismarck between Aprilnand mid-June, he’d better make hisnreservations quickly — the few planesncoming into and out of Bismarcknwould be full of women bowlers.nAnd there was even talk of a bill innthe legislature to repeal the state’snSunday closing law. Granted, the legislatorsnwho did the most talking hadnbeen saying the same thing every twonyears for ten years. But this year theynbanked on having more greed on theirnside than the conservatives had, well,nTeutonic shortsightedness on theirs.nAny out-of-town woman with shoppingnmoney burning a hole in hernpocket should have places to spend it,nthey muttered, and women in mostnstates were used to shopping on Sundays,ndarn it. Frankly, they said. NorthnDakota’s law was worse than an embarrassment;nit was not modern.nThe figures tell why Bismarck andnnearby Mandan acted — and arenacting — so uncharacteristically frivolous.nNeady 8,000 WIBC teams willn