How to Think Clearly About the Future of Conrad Black

First rule: do not confuse the moral, political and legal spheres.

In the middle of August, an American federal appeal court will decide whether or not the fraud charges should be withdrawn, in the light of a recent change in the interpretation of the “honest services clause” by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a purely legal matter, although it is relevant to remember that at the time Conrad Black was convicted in 2007 white collar crime was on top of the agenda, which is not the case today. There was a political reason to make an example of Conrad Black. This is no longer so.

The legal case against him is so complicated that few of us are competent to have an opinion about it. When he predicted that he would be exonerated, he could not have known of the Supreme Court’s decision this summer, made without reference to his case, which paved the way to his release from prison.

The moral case is relatively simple. Any student of high finance and boardroom strategies is competent to decide whether or not he is guilty of moral improprieties not committed by others in the field. He is evidently a cunning tactician in an area in which human considerations count for little. After all, he is an expert on Napoleon’s battles.

Second rule: remember that character is destiny.

He clearly has a dominating, theatrical personality. When he enters a boardroom – or a prison – people pay attention. Arrogance, hubris, a sense of being above the law, are built-in aspects of his personality. So is, perhaps, a tendency to cut corners, which he did when he stole exam papers at Upper Canada College, a crime for which he was expelled. All this is the stuff of which Greek (or Canadian) tragedies are made.

Third rule: think of Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Thomson.

When Conrad Black gave up his Canadian nationality to accept a British peerage, he followed in the footsteps of these two eminent Canadians, at a time when such a move had become a ludicrous anachronism. However, this humourless exhibition of shameless vanity had an ideological underpinning: his contempt for what he considered culturally dominant, wishy-washy, Canadian liberalism, which was also the reason for his creation of The National Post.

Fourth rule: do not pretend that you are a Canadian prime minister who may have to decide whether to allow him back in the country.

If Stephen Harper has to make that decision, he will be guided by the polls and a visceral desire to do the opposite of Jean Chrétien.