Red Tories

How a uniquely Canadian political phenomenon could help respond to growing income inequality.

Canada looks and feels a lot like the United States. However, we have a unique school of political philosophy that sets us apart from our southern neighbours. This ‘Red Toryism’ explains why we have universal healthcare, stronger social support systems, and lower income inequality—all while maintaining a rather all-American veneer.

The term ‘Red Tory’ sounds like an oxymoron. Red, after all, is the colour of socialism, revolution, and in Canada, the Liberal Party. Tories are stuffy, traditionalist conservatives, who tend to make a big fuss about social order, and fiscal responsibility. How then, do we find Red Tories tucked away in federal and provincial legislative bodies across Canada, and what are their ideals?

Canada was founded by Loyalists who wanted to maintain ties to the British monarchy, in contrast to 18th century Americans, who took up arms against the Crown. As a result of our Loyalist heritage, the conservative branch of Canada’s political landscape inherited a set of pre-industrial social ideals from England, concerning the relationship between the individual and the community. This political heritage gives modern Canadian conservatism a leftist tint not found among American Republicans.

Noblesse oblige—the idea that ‘nobility obliges’—is an ancient political concept we inherited from the English political system, and it forms the centerpiece of Red Toryism.

Put simply, noblesse oblige means this: There will always be rich and poor. However, those who find themselves in privileged positions have a special responsibility towards the rest of their community. Wealth does not give you a free pass to do whatever you want with the money you have—wealth carries with it a moral obligation to use one’s position of privilege to help the less fortunate in one’s community.

This view of wealth is grounded in Red Tories’ beliefs about the relationship between the individual and the community. Every individual is embedded in and supported by a community—besides your immediate family, we all exist in a vast web of interpersonal relationships and social and economic responsibilities. Since individuals can’t truly exist on their own, Red Tories argue that the world is most accurately viewed as a collection of communities, rather than as a set of individuals. Each community forms an organic whole composed of individuals who depend on the whole, and who have particular obligations to the community, depending on the part they play within it.

We are by nature inescapably social beings, and depend on one another for support and survival. This means the accumulation of wealth cannot be a means of escaping our obligations to our communities—our obligations to our communities are a part of who we are, and not something to be overcome.

For the wealthy and privileged to willingly and consistently use their wealth to contribute to the common good, they need to see themselves as a part of the community, not detached from it. For this reason, Red Tories tend to place great importance on institutions that foster social cohesion and a sense of identity. Without an instinctual sense of nationhood and unity, the wealthy cease to see themselves as embedded within the community they inhabit, and lose the impulse to use their privileged positions to serve the common good.

The book of Matthew says the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer (25:29). This ‘Matthew principle’ seems to be a fact of nature over which we have little control. What we do have control over is what obligations we associate with wealth.

America makes the mistake of equating wealth with freedom. Money lets us buy the ability to not concern ourselves with the plight of others. Tempting though this use of money might be, it is an unsustainable practice in the long run. An insular upper-class which removes itself from the broader community is a recipe for deepening resentment, social division, and unstable communities—particularly when fortunes are built on the exploitation of the weak and vulnerable.

The remedy for this divide is to ingrain a sense of noblesse oblige in the upper-classes. Being wealthy is not a bad thing—but what you choose to do with wealth can be. Ingraining noblesse oblige means understanding that wealth is an obligation, not an escape from obligation; that the world is a space for human flourishing, not a playground for wealth generation; and that there is more good in investing in public services than in profiting from them.

Canada and America share a dream: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As income inequality grows, cost of living rises, and politically motivated violence bursts into the public eye, the Red Tory tradition seems to offer us a way back to our shared dream. It suggests we consider the possibility that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are to be found in our communities, not in spite of them.