Canada’s conservative movement follows a big tent philosophy. There are many ideological thinkers with disparate views under the political umbrella. We aren’t all the same and wouldn’t appreciate being viewed in such fashion. 

It’s probably fair to say that Ezra Levant is one of our movement’s most controversial figures. The lawyer, author and pundit spawns equal amounts of love and hatred. His Sun News Network show, The Source, has a take-no-prisoners mentality that regularly shocks the Canadian establishment (including left-wing Jews). His columns for the Sun Media chain are no different.

I’ve never properly examined Levant’s role in Canadian conservatism. I guess there’s no better time than the present!

For fun, here’s some backstory. Levant and I first met in 1996. He had just written his first book, Youthquake, for the Fraser Institute. I was in the early stages of setting up From the Right, a nationally distributed conservative commentary newspaper I used to run.

Levant was kind enough to contribute to From the Right. I invited him to join my advisory board. I reviewed some of his books for different publications, including National Review and the  Weekly Standard. We’ve both been Sun Media columnists. We’ve both appeared widely in print, as well as on TV and radio.

Levant and I share some similar traits, from political ideology to background. (He’s maintained his Jewish heritage. As I’ve mentioned in the past, I’ve been agnostic for more than 30 years.) A reporter once called me the “Ezra Levant of the east.” I quickly retorted, “Or maybe he’s the Michael Taube of the west.” That shut him up fast.

Regardless, Levant and I aren’t the same.

Our writing styles are different. Our speaking styles are different. Our personal styles – in terms of our communication with others and to others – are different.

Levant has built a reputation similar to Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter: an intelligent political firebrand with an attacking style who swings for the fences every chance he gets. In contrast, my reputation is (hopefully) seen as being similar to Britt Hume: conservative intellectual who uses a strong voice and a firm hand to make my points clear.

Like other conservatives, I wouldn’t be comfortable being Levant. He goes in directions where the presentation, rather than the discussion, is the primary focus. That’s not my raison d’être.

To be sure, Levant’s bombastic, in-your-face personality frustrates many people. His critique of the Roma community, use of a Spanish slur against a Chiquita Brands International executive, and wild tales of Muslim students in Essex County being exempt from Remembrance Day ceremonies drives them up the proverbial wall.  

Jonathan Kay, National Post columnist and incoming editor-in-chief of The Walrus, wrote this in March about his longtime frenemy: “Levant has done a lot of good for the cause of free speech in this country. But sometimes his reckless verbal tactics make it difficult for his supporters to stand by him at all times.” 

Last month, former Canadian Jewish Congress CEO and current CJN columnist, Bernie Farber, noted in Toronto’s Now Magazine: “All too often Levant cloaks himself in his Jewish heritage as a true defender of Jewish values, in contrast to those he refers to as the ‘official Jews,’ or Jewish leadership… Levant’s antics and intimidation tactics have nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism.”

That being said, I believe Levant’s detractors often miss the point about his important public role. He tackles topics that are normally avoided. He questions what others usually accept. He criticizes groups and individuals the mainstream media often won’t touch. He won’t rest until he gets the results he wants.

Like it or not, these are all admirable qualities.

We live in a free society and have the right to oppose Levant’s provocative approach and style. Yet it would be a more boring country without him, don’t you think? I do. 

Michael Taube is a Washington Times columnist, and a former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.