Used price: $133.90
Used price: $7.00
Collectible price: $9.53
List price: $11.95 (that's 20% off!)
Used price: $8.21
Buy one from zShops for: $7.98
Used price: $5.00
Used price: $4.24
Buy one from zShops for: $20.00
Used price: $41.58
Buy one from zShops for: $54.31
Yet ultimately the book is deeply flawed. The book is oddly proportioned as well, devoting 127 pages from 1919 to 1930, 67 pages from 1930 to 1940, and 33 pages for the last eight years of King's ministry. The problem is not that King's policies were good for the West. The question that arises is whether they were any better for the rest of the country. If not, then the flaws of these policies cannot explain why the West was especially alienated from the Liberals. After all the Liberals have been competitive in Ontario despite having only governed the province five years since 1943. The Atlantic provinces are worse off in Confederation than the prairie ones, but that has not weaned them off liberalism. Why would conscription and the problem of postwar reconstruction be any less pressing in the rest of English Canada in 1945 than in the West? Yet according to Wardhaugh any disaffection was markedly less permanent. Wardhaugh points out that organization was weak, yet the Progressives in the twenties showed an almost continuous decline, while the conservatives were almost always in desperate straights before 1958. Other parties in other regions have been bothered by factionalism, yet have made up enough to win elections. Liberal politicians may have been anaemic, but were the other parties any less mediocre? King did not really know about the West, but as the career of Ronald Reagan shows, you do not always need real knowledge. The problem is that Wardhaugh consistently takes up a "high politics" approach which ignores questions at the base. Who voted for the liberals? What were their class, ethnic, religious and occupational background? How did they approach politics, what were the ideological assumptions, what were the material basis of their partisanship?
Another problem is that the Liberals actually put in a creditable performance in 1926, 1935, 1940 and 1949, which does not really match Wardhaugh's constant pessimism. By constantly reminding the reader of the Liberal party's ultimate fate he produces an illusion of inevitability, and he reduces much of the Liberal party's problems to King's obtuseness and the obtuseness of a few leaders. (His notes consist largely of King's diaries and papers, supplemented by the papers of Crerar, Gardiner and Dafoe). His treatment of issues is consistently unimiginative and conventional. The three prairie provinces are reduced simply to agriculture. No mention is made of increasing urbanization or economic diversification, and the problems of the prairie farmer are reduced to one issue, tariffs, with an occasional mention of freight rates. Why were nativist appeals successful against the liberals in 1929 and 1930, and what does this say about western political culture? Often Wardhaugh glibly speaks of public opinion in the West, as if it was an undifferentiated mass. (When you look at the notes it is largely just Dafoe complaining.) That King was an unimiginative leader is not in dispute, but Dafoe and Dunning, Bracken and Brownlee were not much better or more thoughtful. Like it or not, there was a market for incantations of balanced budgets and economic orthodoxy in the West, in patent definance of overwhelming economic catastrophe. In the West you had to suffuse this with a some regional self-pity, some cant against "established parties," and a little "reformist" goobledygook. Perhaps that helps to explain why Diefenbaker, a politician with more rhetoric than competence, would be so successful in the future.
Used price: $7.11
Used price: $12.16
Collectible price: $10.59