# Conservatism needs work



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2005)

A political commentator once suggested the political choices in Canada are Left, further left and full left. I find it hard to disagree, with the Conservatives only being "right" relative to the Liberals, NDP, Greens, Social Credit, Communists, etc. I woud find it hard to separate Steven Harper from, say John Kerry if this election was being run in the United States.

What Conservatives will need to do after this January, win or loose, is sit down and clearly define themselves. Conservatism should be a "Big Tent", able to accomodate lots of flavors of conservatism and a place to host robust debates about the nature of conservatism and the means of putting principle into practice. The American Republican party has many wings, ranging from Radical Republicans, Neo-Cons, Paleo-Cons, "War Democrats", Libertarians, Soccer Moms and a host of others (being right now under the control of a "Radical Republican" Administration willing to make changes as monumental as those of the Lincoln Administration). Although this article looks at the American situation, many lessons can be carried over here as well.

Here are some themes Conservatives should be looking at:

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200512140816.asp



> *Republican Reformation*
> Governing and conservative principles.
> 
> American conservatism is overdue for a reformation. And we may just have the equivalent of our 95 theses to nail to the church door, or in this case the think-tank door.
> ...


----------



## Cliff (14 Dec 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> What Conservatives will need to do after this January, win or loose, is sit down and clearly define themselves.



There's only so much defining one can do when its not backed with honour and integrity. That seems to be the major problem with all parties.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2005)

Parties and politicians represent underlying philosophies. Here are a few in the larger world, painted in fairly broad strokes to be sure, but illustrative none the less. Most Canadian political parties articulate a version of the _top down transnational socialism insulated from democracy_ model, *but there is another*.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007838.php



> Cicero, and others here on Winds, have described the competing ideologies our world faces. Let me offer my take:
> 
> * The continental European EU model of _top-down transnational socialism insulated from democracy_ is one. It is doomed by demographics, by the corrosive effects of its inherent unaccountability and inflexibility, and by the emptiness that lies at its heart. What is in question is what will come after, and whether its roots in the Enlightenment, Western Civilization and the dignity of man will prove strong and deep enough to overcome its failures.
> 
> ...



_Civic Nationalism_ (a more universal name than the Anglosphere) is certainly an ideal to aspire to, Edward Campbell has articulated many of the key concepts in his posts about _equality at law_ far better than I have been able to. Certainly it is a set of principles that ALL people who aspire to sit in the Conservative tent can agree on, and we can argue to our hearts content about the mechanics of HOW these principles are brought to life, applied  and sustained in our culture and our nation.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Dec 2005)

>both sides feel like the stakes in every election are enormous â â€ which, increasingly, is true.

That is the primary problem.  Statist factions love a powerful government with deep and broad reach, until they don't control it.  Forming and sustaining free associations such as domestic charitable institutions and non-governmental organizations for international aid is hard work.  Government makes everything so much easier.  You don't have to persuade people to support the enterprise financially, you just conscript them.  You don't have to worry about inefficiency if there are alternatives; you just outlaw the alternatives or pass laws to hobble them.  You don't have to argue that your solution is best; you simply impose it.

I've noticed that so-called progressives are agents of change right up until the moment their desired change is achieved, and then they become - on that issue - dogmatic conservatives proclaiming that all debate is ended.

Few political factions are immune to the lure of powerful government bent to their own purposes.  The only real solution is to compromise by keeping government as weak as possible.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Dec 2005)

First point, many of us are government workers, so this is not a personal attack (hey, the Queen puts bread on my table too.) I find these comments interesting, though, with the "Workers" and "Government workers" diverging even though the political "left" would lump them all together as "workers". Just another demonstration of the fallacy of "Group Rights".



> PARTY OF GOVERNMENT [Jonah Goldberg]
> Derb raises what I've long thought is one of the Democratic Party's most under-reported liabilities. The Dems believe they are the party of the working man. Obviously, lots of working men (and women) are Democrats. But the lunch-bucket factory workers increasingly aren't. Meanwhile, they are becoming simply the part of government, and not in a metaphorical sense. Government unions have become hugely influential within the ranks of the Democratic Party. How to promise plausible innovative reforms when one of their core constituencies is so deeply invested in government bloat and inefficiency is going to be a major challenge for decades to come.
> Posted at 10:11 AM
> 
> ...



Canada is pretty far down this road, and certainly the huge numbers of people employed directly by the governments at all levels, as well as the various official and quasi official organizations which either dine at the trough or fight for the scraps must have something to do with the political rhetoric and fear mongering we see and hear, and the overall culture of entitlement we inhabit.

If Mr Harper really wants to make his case the Conservatives are different from both the past incarnations of the Conservatives and the current establishment, then let him address this issue. How far and how fast will he bring the public service into line with the general economy in terms of manning, pay and benefits?


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2006)

Now that Mr Harper has become the Prime Minister, it is incumbent on people who wish to speak sensibly about politics to educate themselves on the meaning of "Conservatism", and some of the many sub branches which work under that label.

As a small l liberatarian, I suggest starting with this book, which although American, states many of the underlying principles and builds the case for deconstructing the liberal (or Liberal) Nanny State:

http://www.jsharf.com/bookReviews/index.php?bookId=26
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595550372/sr=1-1/qid=1138133128/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4593635-7805649?%5Fencoding=UTF8



> *Size Matters*
> by Joel Miller
> 
> Of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," it's the last that's come under the most sustained ideological attack over the last half-century. And while modern conservatism has always included an element of deregulation and tax cuts, it's also fair to say that only recently has it developed popular intellectual defenses of free markets and property rights.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2006)

While these are specific US problems, you can probably see some close parallels with the current Canadian system. How Prime Minister Harper intends to deal with pork and the cult of entitlement, or vote fraud (a fairly large ring was uncovered in Edmonton, with non existent adress', voters and entire families "living" in office suites etc.) will be interesting.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200601300844.asp



> *Think Small*
> It’s not the big ideas the GOP needs right now.
> 
> What's the big idea? Don't ask me. At least in this piece, there is none.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Feb 2006)

Interesting deconstruction of why Canadian conservative voting patterns included shut-outs in majorurban ridings

http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/



> * Missing variable found?*
> 
> Why did Conservatives do better in rural and suburban ridings in the past federal election while the Liberal and NDP parties fared better in urban ridings, especially as population density increases in large cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal (see graphs at Political Staples)? Small Dead Animals has the simplest and most plausibly significant variable:
> 
> ...



Remember that Prime Minister Thatcher's ardent desire in the 1980s was to turn the UK into a "property owning democracy". Maybe Prime Minister Harper needs to concentrate on making home ownership more readily affordable to make the voting base broader and deeper.....


----------



## RangerRay (12 Feb 2006)

Interesting reading, a_majoor.

Have you read _Rescuing Canada's Right_ by Adam Daifallah?  I'm interested in your take on it, if you have.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Feb 2006)

I'm afraid I am getting very behind in my reading, but will look for it (someday....sigh). Perhaps you have a summary or observations you can share with all of us?


----------



## Glorified Ape (12 Feb 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Interesting deconstruction of why Canadian conservative voting patterns included shut-outs in majorurban ridings
> 
> http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/
> 
> ...



Please - that explanation on urban voting patterns just replaces one asinine explanation with another. It makes the bumpkin portion of the right feel better about themselves and their periphery-induced insecurities (not to mention their lackluster political reception in urban centres), and it insults urbanites, but aside from that it's utterly useless. My riding in Toronto (Metro Toronto, not "Pickering"-Toronto) is an upper-middle class, predominantly white, residential neighbourhood in which the overwhelming majority of residents are home owners with houses hovering around the 500 000 - 800 000 dollar range. Many are entrepreneurs or employed in upper-management level or professional occupations. They elected a Liberal MP and have done so since 1979. Tell them, my parents included, that they don't know the costs of home ownership or taxation - you'll give them a good laugh. The fact of the matter is that not everyone votes based on their wallet - post-materialism seems alive and well in many ridings.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2006)

One thing I always find difficult to understand is how people can vote for a political philosophy which explicitly promises to constrain their autonomy and lower their standard of living?

Conservatism is a potentially powerful political philosophy, encompassing Individual rights, property ownership, primacy of the legislature, and the rule of law, as opposed to Socialism (expressed in Canada through the Liberals, NDP, Green and Marxist -Leninist parties) which espouses group rights, denies property ownership (implicitly through taxation and regulation, or explicitly by advocating State ownership), primacy of the Judiciary (unelected and unaccountable) and arbitrary enforcement of regulation.

WRT the demographics, the deconstruction posted in the London Fog seems to have some merit at least as applied to London ON, I will certainly keep it in mind as one of the many factors involved. I will certainly be doing whatever I can to change this variable in order to tilt the table, having two Liberal and one NDP member isn't going to do Londoners any good in the short or long run. (In fact based on their performance over the last decade or so, the Liberal MPs have a track record of not doing much for London....)


----------



## Glorified Ape (14 Feb 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> One thing I always find difficult to understand is how people can vote for a political philosophy which explicitly promises to constrain their autonomy and lower their standard of living?



Lower their standard of living? If I'm not mistaken, countries such as Sweden, Canada, Norway, etc. have quite a decent standard of living. 



> Conservatism is a potentially powerful political philosophy, encompassing Individual rights, property ownership, primacy of the legislature, and the rule of law, as opposed to Socialism (expressed in Canada through the Liberals, NDP, Green and Marxist -Leninist parties) which espouses group rights, denies property ownership (implicitly through taxation and regulation, or explicitly by advocating State ownership), primacy of the Judiciary (unelected and unaccountable) and arbitrary enforcement of regulation.



The Canadian Liberal party far from socialist. The NDP perhaps, but Liberal economic policy, especially under Martin, was quite fiscally conservative and in keeping with neo-liberal/monetarist economic theory. Calling the Liberals socialist is like calling the Conservatives libertarians - they might be on the same side but they've got quite a ways to go to reach that level. 

The Liberals didn't deny property ownership and you know it. Why does the Canadian right have such a tendency to blow limitations way out of proportion? Restricting the owernership of firearms isn't a blanket denial of property rights, nor is taxation. Taxation exists under the Cons too, so by your logic they must be property-denying, thieving socialists, eh? What "arbitrary enforcement of regulation" are you referring to? How do you reconcile these lofty attitudes towards conservatism with what is undeniably the most conservative government on the continent's violation of individual rights and the rule of law, all the while spending like a drunken sailor, running staggering deficits, and engaging in protectionist measures - all of which violate the monetaristic economic basis of modern political conservatism? Economically, Martin has more in common with conservatism than Bush does. 

That's to say nothing of the conservative tendency to try to dictate morality - most recently by opposing gay marriage and their tendency to oppose abortion. Where's the reverence for "individual liberties" they claim to have? Where's this same reverence for autonomy when they're espousing invading anyone and everyone that doesn't kow-tow to their preferences? Isn't it Iran's right, as a sovereign, autonomous nation, to possess nuclear weapons? Isn't any attempt to stop this a curbing of their "liberty" and right to self-determination? A lot gets lost in the translation of lofty political theories to practice. 



> WRT the demographics, the deconstruction posted in the London Fog seems to have some merit at least as applied to London ON, I will certainly keep it in mind as one of the many factors involved. I will certainly be doing whatever I can to change this variable in order to tilt the table, having two Liberal and one NDP member isn't going to do Londoners any good in the short or long run. (In fact based on their performance over the last decade or so, the Liberal MPs have a track record of not doing much for London....)



Well, that's your prerogative, though I doubt their self-effacing theory of urban voting habits applies any more to London than it does to Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, or any other Canadian city.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2006)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Lower their standard of living? If I'm not mistaken, countries such as Sweden, Canada, Norway, etc. have quite a decent standard of living.



I will draw your attention to the article posted in another thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38075/post-335870.html#msg335870. 

Key points are that *the per capita GDP of the EU is 25% lower that the United States*, and that 40% of households in Sweden would be considered "low income" in America, with other European countries faring even worse. Canadian houshold incomes have been stagnant since the 1990s, so it isn't too hard to see what boat we are sailing in.



> The Canadian Liberal party far from socialist. The NDP perhaps, but Liberal economic policy, especially under Martin, was quite fiscally conservative and in keeping with neo-liberal/monetarist economic theory. Calling the Liberals socialist is like calling the Conservatives libertarians - they might be on the same side but they've got quite a ways to go to reach that level.



The Liberal party neglected to include ownership of property as a right in the Constitution; a very important omission when you realize that property ownership is the practical realization of our political rights on a day to day basis. Paul Martin's "sophisticated" approach to dealing with the deficit was simply to raise taxes and perform Enron like accounting on the Government books, prima face evidence of assaults on property and arbitrary enforcement of the rules. When it was pointed out that transferring vast sums from UI to general revenues wasn't allowed, he continued to do so, eventually getting around to amending the regulation (and not through the parliamentary process either). The correct policy response to a stagnant economy and to increase tax revenues is cutting taxes and regulations, as has been demonstrated all over the world. One thing which has been missing throughout most of the world is a corresponding cut in government spending, but this isn't a fatal flaw; for example Mike Harris offset Liberal health care cutbacks by a total of $11 Billion CAD in the 1990s by using Ontario's increased tax revenues due to the tax cuts.

The Liberals are also huge proponents of the nanny state, although fortunately they failed to implement many of their "Red Book" promises. Socialism is a bit like pregnancy, you can't be a "little bit" socialist. Each step logically leads to the next, and backtracking is going to be very difficult. I'm not going to respond to the anti-American screed except to note that their system of government is different and they will have to seek solutions on their own. President Bush has perhaps sacrificed domestic policy to gain support for foreign policy, we all could hope for a different outcome on domestic spending, social security reform and so on, but that is something for the next President to address.


----------



## squealiox (14 Feb 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Socialism is a bit like pregnancy, you can't be a "little bit" socialist. Each step logically leads to the next, and backtracking is going to be very difficult.



exactly! the politicians start coercing wealth to pay for such collective schemes as, say, the police or the military or the post office, and before you know it we're all being sent to the gulag.
of course in a democratic country, the extent of "socialism" (however you choose to define it, that's up to you) is limited by the majority's willingness to pay taxes (and there is a limit, even in canada). cold comfort if you happen to be part of the minority who have seen the truth as revealed by von mises et al, but at least you still have the option of appealing against the tyranny of the majority on first principles in front of a court. assuming, that is, you are not opposed to "judicial activism"...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2006)

Police and military forces protect the polulation, the primary purpose of governments. Since you can FedEX or email your letters and parcels, what purpose does a Post Office serve anymore?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Feb 2006)

In my opinion modern _conservatism_ is 19th century _liberalism_; the name change is the result of poorly educated, lazy North American journalists who misappropriated (because they misunderstood) the word “liberty.”  (Never assume that there is a limit to the stupidity of journalists – there’s a reason they went to journalism school: no math requirements, not even the basic stats course required for an 1st class undergraduate degree in history.)

*Real* conservatives (_classical_ liberals, in other words) are focused on protecting and strengthening the _sovereignty_, equality and _dignity_ of the individual – relative to the various _collectives_ which attempt to intrude upon and restrict our _natural_ right to privacy (sovereignty).  Those _collectives_ include big business, big labour, organized religion and, especially government.  Real conservatives, therefore, should favour smaller and smaller and smaller governments, all of ‘em.  Real conservatives should oppose the United Nations, proper, as an unnecessary _order of government_ – the WTO and some UN member agencies are somewhat less objectionable because they are voluntary, special purpose _”unions”_ with limited mandates.

(Now , in fact, the Liberal Party of Canada is not _liberal_ at all – it is the party of big business, big labour and big government.  It is not clear to me that the Conservative Party of Canada is all that _liberal_ either but time will tell.)

Now, for some more ‘revolution’ (see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39489/post-336367.html#msg336367 ).

Some of the work the new Canadian *C*onservative government could do to restore misnamed _conservatism_ includes:

•	Re-_scoping_ the national government by asking again, the really smart questions Mike Harris asked a few years ago: _*”Who does what?”*_ and _*”Why is there so much overlap?”*_ and *”Can we provide the services people need and have a right to expect from the public purse without multiple layers of bureaucracy and politics?”*_

•	Cancelling, outright, wasteful and unnecessary programmes.  Wasteful but beneficial programmes can, probably should be recreated in efficient and effective forms.

•	Cancelling programmes which intrude on the privacy of individuals unless national security or public safety are, demonstrably, at stake.

•	Privatize, privatize, privatize.  If a programme does require the intrusive, compelling weight of officialdom – often armed officialdom then contract it out.  Conversely centralize under exclusive federal political and bureaucratic those (few) programmes which are essential, governmental and national
_


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Some of the work the new Canadian *C*onservative government could do to restore misnamed _conservatism_ includes:
> 
> 	Re-_scoping_ the national government by asking again, the really smart questions Mike Harris asked a few years ago: _*Who does what?*_ and _*Why is there so much overlap?*_ and *Can we provide the services people need and have a right to expect from the public purse without multiple layers of bureaucracy and politics?*_
> 
> ...


_

Another revolutionary! I'll meet you on the barricades, Edward!_


----------



## RangerRay (15 Feb 2006)

I agree.  I've always thought of myself as a _classical liberal_, but found the Liberal Party very much contrary to principles of _liberalism_.  Ironically, it's those scary "neo-conservatives" that seem to more closely aligned with _classical liberalism_.


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Feb 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I will draw your attention to the article posted in another thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38075/post-335870.html#msg335870.
> 
> Key points are that *the per capita GDP of the EU is 25% lower that the United States*, and that 40% of households in Sweden would be considered "low income" in America, with other European countries faring even worse. Canadian houshold incomes have been stagnant since the 1990s, so it isn't too hard to see what boat we are sailing in.



Of course incomes are lower in Sweden - it's a democratic socialist system. Where did I assert higher incomes in Sweden? I referred to the standard of living, which is rated above that of the US (and Canada, and a raft of other Western states). Its income distribution is (if I'm not mistaken) the most equitable in the world. Incomes may be higher in the US, undoubtedly, but once you factor in paying for health care, dentistry, child care, work leave, etc, the gap likely closes some. 



> The Liberal party neglected to include ownership of property as a right in the Constitution; a very important omission when you realize that property ownership is the practical realization of our political rights on a day to day basis. Paul Martin's "sophisticated" approach to dealing with the deficit was simply to raise taxes and perform Enron like accounting on the Government books, prima face evidence of assaults on property and arbitrary enforcement of the rules.



I don't recall any conviction of Martin on fraudulent book keeping. As for taxes, Martin intended corporate tax cuts but the NDP blew that one right out of the water. Despite all the griping and whining, the economy did just fine under the Liberals. 



> When it was pointed out that transferring vast sums from UI to general revenues wasn't allowed, he continued to do so, eventually getting around to amending the regulation (and not through the parliamentary process either). The correct policy response to a stagnant economy and to increase tax revenues is cutting taxes and regulations, as has been demonstrated all over the world.



Why? Because tax cuts automatically translate into an increase in aggregate demand? If only. That's one of the fallacies in monetarist economics - they've never successfully demonstrated that savings = investment, most especially when the solidity of aggregate demand is in question - namely during an economic slump. Combined with the unemployment and reduced investement generated by the jacked-up interest rates that always seem to accompany inflation-paranoid rightist economic policy, the whole approach starts showing holes. 

As one political economist put it: "The last time that the classical school of laissez-faire ruled the policy roost, it took 10 years of depression and a world war to convince people that classical economic thinking a la Corcoran might be flawed". Of course, when one generates economic theory based on principles abstracted from logic, neglects the observation step, and just plugs them into the system, it's hardly surprising that the practical application of those principles often falls flat on its face. Cut interest rates and achieve higher employment if you want to help the economy. It's not taxation that strangles growth - if that was true, Sweden wouldn't be experiencing 3.5% growth. People don't buy houses when interest rates are high. People don't take out business loans when interest rates are high. People don't take out consumer loans when interest rates are high.  



> One thing which has been missing throughout most of the world is a corresponding cut in government spending, but this isn't a fatal flaw; for example Mike Harris offset Liberal health care cutbacks by a total of $11 Billion CAD in the 1990s by using Ontario's increased tax revenues due to the tax cuts.



 Harris' tax revenues were due to the upswing that the entire North American economy was experiencing at that point. You can no more credit Harris for the Ontarian economy at that point than you can credit him with causing Walkerton. What WAS his doing was the downloading of costs to the municipal level while cutting provincial services and generally cocking the system as much as he possibly could. Then there was the nurse debacle, the school closings (while offering rebates to people sending their kids to private/denominational schools), the hikes in poverty and homelessness during an economic upswing because Harris had slashed programs, cuts to pregnant women's welfare (so they wouldn't "spend it on beer" - sound familiar?), the "restructuring" of health care which managed (I wouldn't have thought it possible) to screw the system up even more, and his legacy of deficit because he'd slashed taxes so far that the only thing supporting his new "revolutionary" system was the economic boom - once things settled the province started eating itself, especially when it came time to fix all the things Harris had broken. 



> The Liberals are also huge proponents of the nanny state, although fortunately they failed to implement many of their "Red Book" promises.



You mean like corporate tax cuts?



> Socialism is a bit like pregnancy, you can't be a "little bit" socialist. Each step logically leads to the next, and backtracking is going to be very difficult.



That's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. I suppose you can't be a "little bit" conservative - you're either a fascist or you're a liberal. Oh wait, if you're a liberal that must mean you're a socialist. So you've successfully narrowed the political spectrum down to fascism and socialism. Good to know - it makes things much simpler. 



> I'm not going to respond to the anti-American screed except to note that their system of government is different and they will have to seek solutions on their own.



But it's a conservative administration, is it not? The ideology is largely the same, it's just a matter of degrees and theirs is much further right than ours so one would expect them to be in keeping with all those lofty principles you mentioned but strangely enough, they're not. 

As for the "anti-American" tripe - please, we can do without the Godwinian "Nazi/holocaust card" being drawn. If I had a dollar for every time some accusation of "anti-Americanism" was tossed around on this site, I'd be a millionaire. Then I'd spend the million on educating the populous as to the definition of "knee-jerk".

 I take it from your criticism of Canada's policies under the Liberals that you must be "anti-Canadian", eh? 



> President Bush has perhaps sacrificed domestic policy to gain support for foreign policy, we all could hope for a different outcome on domestic spending, social security reform and so on, but that is something for the next President to address.



He hasn't sacrificed anything - that's the problem - he spends as though it's a "we can have it all" world and his foreign policy follows the same maxim. That's not to mention his questionable legal wrangling over surveillance, etc.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2006)

> Why? Because tax cuts automatically translate into an increase in aggregate demand? If only. That's one of the fallacies in monetarist economics - they've never successfully demonstrated that savings = investment, most especially when the solidity of aggregate demand is in question - namely during an economic slump. Combined with the unemployment and reduced investement generated by the jacked-up interest rates that always seem to accompany inflation-paranoid rightist economic policy, the whole approach starts showing holes.



Tax cuts encourage and reward individuals who earn, save and invest. You can't argue against Classical economics using Keynsian formulations like aggregate demand, it is as phasmagorical as "group rights". Since Keynsianism has no explanation for "stagflation" (and indeed in Keynsian economic theory, such a thing is *explicitly impossible*), I would suggest the period between 1973 and 1979 drops Keynsian economics into its own self induced hole. I notice that after monetary policy was fixed by Paul Volker in the erly 1980s, interest rates have been and remain low. Factual evidence is available for interested people who look at the historical data (or even out the window).

At any rate, these rants are diverting attention from the theme of the topic, which is how can Conservatives (Classical Liberals), effectively advance their philosophy. Judging by some posts here and in other blogs I read, it isn't enough to appeal to proven success stories throughout the world. As Edward has shown, and I have tried to from cutting and pasting from other sources, there also needs to be a coherent action plan to advance the conservative agenda at home and abroad.

Conservatism (Classical Liberalism) is potentially a very big tent; libertarians, conservatives, "neo-cons", "paleo-cons" and a host of other people share the ideals of individual liberty, ownership of property and the rule of law. We may differ on the practical means and applications for achieving these goals, but that is one of the things that sets us apart from the various flavors of socialism.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Feb 2006)

>I referred to the standard of living

What's the definitive and completely quantifiable measure you are using?

>As for taxes, Martin intended corporate tax cuts but the NDP blew that one right out of the water.

My recollection is that after Martin got the NDP to vote to prop up the government, the Liberals turned around and announced their intention to apply the cuts a few months down the road anyways.  Am I wrong, or did the ship settle back in at its waterline quite nicely?

>As one political economist put it: "The last time that the classical school of laissez-faire ruled the policy roost, it took 10 years of depression and a world war

As quite a few economists put it, the socialist policies of the US government likely prolonged the Depression by 5 or more years.  The economy should have recovered from a temporary setback if left to its own devices.  Regardless, due to the governmental interference there is too much noise in the data to assert that laissez-faire policies were or were not responsible for the length of the Depression.

>Socialism is a bit like pregnancy, you can't be a "little bit" socialist. Each step logically leads to the next, and backtracking is going to be very difficult. 

>That's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. I suppose you can't be a "little bit" conservative - you're either a fascist or you're a liberal.

Considering your admiration of the Swedes, I find it unusual that you are denying a conclusion they reached sometime in the 1930s - if you're going to go socialist, go all the way.

The curious thing about fiscal conservativism is that despite the general evidence favouring free market systems, it is frequently the fiscal conservatives who fall under the burden of demonstrating why increased government activity should _not_ be undertaken.  Usually the burden of proof is on the party which wishes to change the status quo.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2006)

Just a BTW, "Fascism" is a subset of Socialism. Using coercive regulatory and tax policy in order to carry out "social engineering" is sometimes referred to as "Welfare Fascism". I guess you can be a Fascist and a Liberal at the same time.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Feb 2006)

An elegant defense of your person:

http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/



> Freedom Party of Ontario leader Paul McKeever today condemned NDP MPP Peter Kormos' private member's bill which, if passed, would presume a dead or dying person has consented to the harvesting of his organs.
> 
> "*As it has been described, the bill, if made law, would violate both the liberty and the property of individuals",* says McKeever.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Feb 2006)

One of the reasons Conservatism (Classical Liberalism) is in difficulty is because of the way people think. The "masses" are the desired end result of most socialist, authoratarian or totalitarian regimes, people who follow passively and see no reason to question "what is". The "dumbing down" of our education system and systematic corruption of news and information organs to "infotainment" are good indicators, a small amount of downgrading begins a relentless vicious circle effect.

This isn't news, of course....

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view401.html#Ortega



> Jose Ortega y Gasset said in his 1930 The Revolt of the Masses, one of the essential (if you want to understand the world) books of the 20th Century in my judgment. For more on Ortega see http://www.historyguide.org/europe/gasset.html for a good summary of his life and some essential excerpts from his book. The book itself is actually fairly easy reading if you get a decent translation or read Spanish, and holds up very well indeed after seventy-five years.
> 
> 
> The characteristic of the hour is that the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever it will. As they say in the United States: "to be different is to be indecent." The mass crushes beneath it everything that is different, everything that is excellent, individual, qualified and select. Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated.  It is illusory to imagine that the mass-man of to-day will be able to control, by himself, the process of civilization. I say process, and not progress. *The simple process of preserving our present civilization is supremely complex, and demands incalculably subtle powers. Ill-fitted to direct it is this average man who has learned to use much of the machinery of civilization, but who is characterized by root-ignorance of the very principles of that civilization*.
> ...


----------



## Glorified Ape (23 Feb 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I referred to the standard of living
> 
> What's the definitive and completely quantifiable measure you are using?



I'm not using anything - the UN, CIA, and other bodies are. What gets used depends on what definition you're looking at - a strictly economic "standard of living" measure looks at GDP, GNP, PPP, etc. A "standard of living" measure taking account of qualify of life looks at the same measures, but also at access to health care, level of education, leisure time, social benefits, etc. The Economist put together a relatively decent quality of life index that includes the economic standard of living measurements as well as some other factors. I take some issue with aspects of the index, but it's better than a purely qualitative/quantitative measure. 

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf




> >As for taxes, Martin intended corporate tax cuts but the NDP blew that one right out of the water.
> 
> My recollection is that after Martin got the NDP to vote to prop up the government, the Liberals turned around and announced their intention to apply the cuts a few months down the road anyways.  Am I wrong, or did the ship settle back in at its waterline quite nicely?



If you mean "settle back" insofar as tax cut intent, then I guess so. 



> >As one political economist put it: "The last time that the classical school of laissez-faire ruled the policy roost, it took 10 years of depression and a world war



As quite a few economists put it, the socialist policies of the US government likely prolonged the Depression by 5 or more years.  The economy should have recovered from a temporary setback if left to its own devices.  Regardless, due to the governmental interference there is too much noise in the data to assert that laissez-faire policies were or were not responsible for the length of the Depression.[/quote]

Nor to suggest that the "socialist" policies were responsible, by the same token then. 



> >Socialism is a bit like pregnancy, you can't be a "little bit" socialist. Each step logically leads to the next, and backtracking is going to be very difficult.
> 
> >That's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. I suppose you can't be a "little bit" conservative - you're either a fascist or you're a liberal.
> 
> Considering your admiration of the Swedes, I find it unusual that you are denying a conclusion they reached sometime in the 1930s - if you're going to go socialist, go all the way.



I don't admire the Swedes, but they're a counter-example to the monetarist doom-sayers union that sees anything and everything not classical liberal (economically) as being doomed to failure. 

Sweden is hardly a fully socialist state - the closest anyone has come to that questionable goal was the USSR. Sweden still has privately owned (large and small scale), profit-driven enterprise - something verbotten in a "pure" socialist state. The Swedes operate in an expressly capitalism-based economic system with a social democratic government that actively pursues trade and investment and private enterprise attraction. High rates of taxation, social welfare progams, and unionization do not necessarily indicate a "socialist" state. 



> The curious thing about fiscal conservativism is that despite the general evidence favouring free market systems, it is frequently the fiscal conservatives who fall under the burden of demonstrating why increased government activity should _not_ be undertaken.  Usually the burden of proof is on the party which wishes to change the status quo.



I don't see how that's curious or peculiar - if I want to ammend policy, I have to demonstrate A) why the policy needs to be ammended and B) how such ammendments would bring about beneficial results. I would argue that fiscal conservatism (read: neo-classical/monetarist economics) has generally become the status quo, not the challenger. 



> Just a BTW, "Fascism" is a subset of Socialism. Using coercive regulatory and tax policy in order to carry out "social engineering" is sometimes referred to as "Welfare Fascism". I guess you can be a Fascist and a Liberal at the same time.



Where are you getting this? Fascism is a subset of political conservatism (I don't mean Bush/Harper/etc neo-liberal "conservatism" as the term is used commonly but aristocracy/absolutist/religious authoritarian-type political conservatism) The fact that both socialism and fascism entail a great deal of state intervention doesn't mean they're siblings. The emergence of fascism can be attributed partially to anti-Marxist/Communist/Socialist sentiments which isn't really surprising if you look at the vehemence with which Hitler, Mussolini, et al. held such sentiments. State intervention in fascism isn't in an attempt to "own" the means of production in entirety, as it is in a truly socialist or communist system, it's more a matter of control (which doesn't require ownership). Fascism doesn't make class distinctions, it operates generally along capitalist lines (though with heavy state regulation), and operates on notions of supremacy (of the state, nationality, race, etc. in direct contradiction of communism/socialism's fanatical subscription to "equality").

The problem, as I see it, is that terminology has become far too confused - given your own efforts at ensuring clarity of terminology, I think you'd agree. The labels "conservative" and "liberal" are far too abused and have been twisted and reversed by people that apparently have no idea what the hell they actually mean. Liberal now seems to mean "socialist" while "conservative" now means liberal. I think the problem lies in the the fact that both "poles" are essentially just variations on liberalism. The left-wing liberals are the social democrats, NDP-types, welfare-state supporters while the right-wing liberals are the governmental minimalists, libertarians, property-rights supporters.



> Tax cuts encourage and reward individuals who earn, save and invest. You can't argue against Classical economics using Keynsian formulations like aggregate demand, it is as phasmagorical as "group rights". Since Keynsianism has no explanation for "stagflation" (and indeed in Keynsian economic theory, such a thing is explicitly impossible), I would suggest the period between 1973 and 1979 drops Keynsian economics into its own self induced hole. I notice that after monetary policy was fixed by Paul Volker in the erly 1980s, interest rates have been and remain low. Factual evidence is available for interested people who look at the historical data (or even out the window).



The same could be said about monetarist shortcomings such as the NAIRU, quantity theory of money, and the ever-questionable psychological tripe they came up with to account for trends in employment/unemployment. This article says it better than I ever could: 

http://www.piczo.com/haroldchorneypoliticaleconomist?g=16371946&cr=2

Of particular interest are the studies he cites (by Baker/Epstein) - there's evidence going both ways. Neo-classical economics isn't nearly as grounded in fact and empiricism as it's made out to be. 



> At any rate, these rants are diverting attention from the theme of the topic, which is how can Conservatives (Classical Liberals), effectively advance their philosophy. Judging by some posts here and in other blogs I read, it isn't enough to appeal to proven success stories throughout the world. As Edward has shown, and I have tried to from cutting and pasting from other sources, there also needs to be a coherent action plan to advance the conservative agenda at home and abroad.
> 
> Conservatism (Classical Liberalism) is potentially a very big tent; libertarians, conservatives, "neo-cons", "paleo-cons" and a host of other people share the ideals of individual liberty, ownership of property and the rule of law. We may differ on the practical means and applications for achieving these goals, but that is one of the things that sets us apart from the various flavors of socialism.



I think one thing "conservatism" could do is distance itself from all the nutty, bible-thumping, knee-jerk reactionaries that seem to have flocked to its banner. Of course, that's easier said than done when every vote counts. As for all "socialists" (you seem to love that term, regardless of its inaccuracy) being uniform in their attitudes towards the practical application of their ideology, I'd have to disagree. 

I find this idealistic view of your ideology to be a bit strange, considering your obvious intelligence and education. "Conservatism" really isn't any different from "socialism" insofar as its potential, empirical "rightness", or logic is concerned. That's not to say it's wrong, in an absolute sense, I just don't agree with it. That being said, I don't think the left-wing liberals have everything right, operate solely on empirical fact, are entirely logical, etc. I just side with them more often than not on points where it ultimately comes down to opinion. Maybe I'm cynical, I just can't view anything political through the idealistic lens you seem to have.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2006)

You can't move the goal posts after the goal is scored: 



> *Socialism* is an ideology of a social and economic system in which the means of production are *collectively owned and administered by all of society.* Amongst other things, this is intended to produce a more evenly spread distribution of wealth. The idea of abolition of private property became a part of the idea in the early 19th century. How this democratic society should be run exactly and how it should be implemented or achieved is a matter of controversy and has resulted in many inspired theories of socialism and related ideas



Fascism and National Socialism change the equation slightly by suggesting that all individual and private effort be applied to further the goals of the State, however defined. Notably, the defining is done by a very small elite, or even a single supreme leader. In essence, the commissar dosn't own the property, he just tells me how I can use it.


----------



## Gunnar (24 Feb 2006)

I've skimmed the various discussions here, and I'd like to point out something about Sweden....most countries have a savings rate of about 2%, meaning that people save about 2% of their incomes on average.  There is a direct correlation between savings and increase in growth, as measured by GNP or GDP.  Canada has traditionally had a savings rate of about 4%, which accounts for our truly stellar growth over the years.  I have no idea what it is at present, but I believe it is trending towards the norm, i.e., down....however, Sweden, our wonderful standard of living country, has a NEGATIVE savings rate.  That means that most Swedes go into debt just to pay for all the things they need to pay for.

I dunno about you, but standard of living aside, you can only use your credit card so long before it all comes crashing down.  And even if it doesn't crash, it can get steadily farther and farther behind....what's the birth rate in Sweden?  Are there signs of *growth*, not just a good standard of living?....'cuz if you have a country of comfortable octengenarians who will all die leaving no-one to carry on, I'd find it hard to call that country a success....


----------



## Glorified Ape (24 Feb 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> You can't move the goal posts after the goal is scored:
> 
> Fascism and National Socialism change the equation slightly by suggesting that all individual and private effort be applied to further the goals of the State, however defined. Notably, the defining is done by a very small elite, or even a single supreme leader. In essence, the commissar dosn't own the property, he just tells me how I can use it.



Who's moving goalposts? Fascism, as articulated and manifested by Mussolini and, with some tweaks, by Hitler was expressly NON-socialist. Private property was extant and there was no intention of abolishing the concept - in fact, it was the major industrialists and other upper-class, wealthy property owners that lent fascism much of its original support. Neither society was democratic (as per your quoted definition of socialism) and Mussolini was expressly contemptuous of democracy. Fascism and socialism share almost nothing in their theoretical basis aside from their collectivism - socialism is motivated by bringing about class equality and an even distribution of wealth, fascism is motivated by notions of supremacy and nationalism and doesn't recognize "class" as a relevant factor. Fascism does exercise heavy control of production but it does not OWN (an important distinction) the means of production (though certain nationalised industries existed) - the individual owners are still there making their profits. If anything, it's a corporatist structure, not a socialist one. 



> I've skimmed the various discussions here, and I'd like to point out something about Sweden....most countries have a savings rate of about 2%, meaning that people save about 2% of their incomes on average.  There is a direct correlation between savings and increase in growth, as measured by GNP or GDP.  Canada has traditionally had a savings rate of about 4%, which accounts for our truly stellar growth over the years.  I have no idea what it is at present, but I believe it is trending towards the norm, i.e., down....however, Sweden, our wonderful standard of living country, has a NEGATIVE savings rate.  That means that most Swedes go into debt just to pay for all the things they need to pay for.
> 
> I dunno about you, but standard of living aside, you can only use your credit card so long before it all comes crashing down.  And even if it doesn't crash, it can get steadily farther and farther behind....what's the birth rate in Sweden?  Are there signs of *growth*, not just a good standard of living?....'cuz if you have a country of comfortable octengenarians who will all die leaving no-one to carry on, I'd find it hard to call that country a success....



Both Sweden and the United States (and Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Austria, etc.) all experienced negative household saving rates last year (2005). A comparison of the household saving ratio between Europe, Japan, and the US found the US to have the lowest rate: http://www.oecd.org/document/33/0,2340,en_2649_34487_32033377_1_1_1_1,00.html

For an interesting read on saving rates and why their importance is overblown: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/alanreynolds/2006/02/16/186737.html (I hate to cite townhall.com since it's a conservative idiot-tank, but the article is good) 

As for economic growth, as of 2004:
US real growth rate: 4.4%
Sweden real growth rate: 3.6%

Concerning population growth rates, Sweden's is at 0.17% and Canada's is at 0.9%. Both countries would have negative growth rates if not for immigration. I guess Canada is doomed as well, what with our population growth rate and our aging population. An old population is only a problem if the system can't support them. Massive retirements mean increased demand for labour with a correlating increase in wages. If Sweden so desires, I'm sure it would have absolutely no problem increasing its growth rate through immigration - there are no shortage of people wanting in.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Feb 2006)

>High rates of taxation, social welfare progams, and unionization do not necessarily indicate a "socialist" state.

Based on the definitions you guys are citing, you're probably correct.  However, just as the meaning of "liberalism" has migrated, so evidently has the meaning of "socialism".  If you accuse a self-identified Canadian socialist of being "communist" or "Stalinist" or "fascist" or "Nazi" or "Maoist" or "Leninist" etc, the first thing he'll do is energetically distance himself from the tyrannical statists by renouncing the Motherland/Fatherland glory trip, the militarism, the "breaking of eggs" (by the millions and tens of millions), and the state ownership, and continue by preening over social welfare programs and policies (including taxation and unionization) designed to reduce wealth and income imbalances, help the needy, and generally give the state a huge involvement in economic outcomes.  His intentions are noble, you see.  How could that possibly be wrong, or go wrong?

Sometimes you can corner a socialist into defending communism, and the morally defensible shred of excuse will be that communism has never really been tried.  By definition, I suppose it hasn't.  But then I look at the list of "isms" that have been tried, and ask myself if that was the original destination or if someone got lost during the search for something else because, well, it just got so hard without bending a few moral straightedges here and there.  A socialist, were there such a thing, is probably harmless; but, socialists have an alarming habit of turning out to be an intermediate developmental stage on the way to something else.  It's hard to take someone seriously who can be counted on early in a conversation about public spending to prefix a conclusion with "Well, you know the people can't be trusted..." (yes, I know that's a "straw man", but there are apparently a lot of actual scarecrows out there), without understanding why he might be equally untrustworthy and that therefore the preferred and default condition is to respect our mutual suspicion by respecting each others' freedoms and wallets.

Like my grape vine, my bamboo, those damn vines with the white flowers and the suckers that act like strawberry plants but produce nothing edible or aesthetically pleasing, socialism needs to be regularly and enthusiastically pruned back lest it kill the seed corn.

Here endeth the rant.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2006)

Fascism, National Socialism (funny, ther's that word _*Socialism*_ again) and Communism are all subsets of Socialism, and trying to appeal to the idea that socialism is democratic is hilarious (Social Democrats have demonstrated how they intend to operate with the EU and to a lesser extent Canada; toothless and ineffectual parliaments, and unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats or activist judiciary (or both) setting the agenda beyond the control or reach of the citizenry. Tomahawk posted this: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40261/post-341463.html#msg341463 which shows even in the Anglosphere, there are attempts to move from democracy to oligarchy (Ministerial power). 

The rights of the sovereign individual are what mark Western civilization, and the Conservative (Classical Liberal) philosophy is what defines the west. There are certainly differences between various sub groups inside the Conservative tent (Religious "social conservatives" believe that Individual rights, property rights and the rule of Law are provided externaly through God's grace, libertarians believe these rights are intrinsic to people. Regardless on where we think these come from, we are advocating much the same things).

Some useful discussion of political systems and where they stand in relationship to each other can be found here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23744/post-128824.html#msg128824

(_edited to add Tomahawk6's post_)


----------



## Glorified Ape (25 Feb 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >High rates of taxation, social welfare progams, and unionization do not necessarily indicate a "socialist" state.
> 
> Based on the definitions you guys are citing, you're probably correct.  However, just as the meaning of "liberalism" has migrated, so evidently has the meaning of "socialism".



That's the problem - people throw around terms with a great deal of inaccuracy. I'm not sure if it's hyperbole or if they're just unaware of what "liberal" "conservative" and "socialist" actually constitute. 



> If you accuse a self-identified Canadian socialist of being "communist" or "Stalinist" or "fascist" or "Nazi" or "Maoist" or "Leninist" etc, the first thing he'll do is energetically distance himself from the tyrannical statists by renouncing the Motherland/Fatherland glory trip, the militarism, the "breaking of eggs" (by the millions and tens of millions), and the state ownership, and continue by preening over social welfare programs and policies (including taxation and unionization) designed to reduce wealth and income imbalances, help the needy, and generally give the state a huge involvement in economic outcomes.  His intentions are noble, you see.  How could that possibly be wrong, or go wrong?



What you're describing isn't a socialist. All the socialists I've known have no problem with state ownership as it's a fundamental tenet of their ideology. What you're describing is a welfare liberal - a sizeable nanny state operating on a capitalist, profit-driven system. 



> Sometimes you can corner a socialist into defending communism, and the morally defensible shred of excuse will be that communism has never really been tried.  By definition, I suppose it hasn't.  But then I look at the list of "isms" that have been tried, and ask myself if that was the original destination or if someone got lost during the search for something else because, well, it just got so hard without bending a few moral straightedges here and there.  A socialist, were there such a thing, is probably harmless; but, socialists have an alarming habit of turning out to be an intermediate developmental stage on the way to something else.



I'd say that's highly debatable - Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and other social democratic countries haven't gone communist or become some oligopolistic police states. 



> It's hard to take someone seriously who can be counted on early in a conversation about public spending to prefix a conclusion with "Well, you know the people can't be trusted..." (yes, I know that's a "straw man", but there are apparently a lot of actual scarecrows out there), without understanding why he might be equally untrustworthy and that therefore the preferred and default condition is to respect our mutual suspicion by respecting each others' freedoms and wallets.



I agree, but as with most things it's a matter of degrees - how much trust do you place in the people? Anarchism is the most "trusting" "ism", I suppose, but I think that's going a bit too far. Radical individualism is almost as bad as radical collectivism (IE communism). There's a happy balance somewhere in between, and it's where that equilibrium lies that's the debate, as I see it. 



> Like my grape vine, my bamboo, those damn vines with the white flowers and the suckers that act like strawberry plants but produce nothing edible or aesthetically pleasing, socialism needs to be regularly and enthusiastically pruned back lest it kill the seed corn.



A bit melodramatic, don't you think? Kind of reminiscent of McCarthy's sentiments. How would you go about "pruning" socialism out of society? 



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Fascism, National Socialism (funny, ther's that word _*Socialism*_ again) and Communism are all subsets of Socialism, and trying to appeal to the idea that socialism is democratic is hilarious (Social Democrats have demonstrated how they intend to operate with the EU and to a lesser extent Canada; toothless and ineffectual parliaments, and unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats or activist judiciary (or both) setting the agenda beyond the control or reach of the citizenry. Tomahawk posted this: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40261/post-341463.html#msg341463 which shows even in the Anglosphere, there are attempts to move from democracy to oligarchy (Ministerial power).



Communism a subset of socialism? What?? It's the reverse - socialism is a theoretical stop along the path to communism, with capitalism preceding socialism chronologically. The "socialism" in National Socialism is not actual "socialism", nor did Hitler exhibit socialist loyalties in thought or practice. Nazism is about as "socialist" as the DPRK is "democratic". 

Nothing is beyond the reach of the citizenry as long as they still legitimately elect their representatives. MPs will ultimately do whatever they have to do to get elected. If the citizenry wants a change of the judiciary, they can elect the people to do it. Would it be instantaneous? Probably not. As for the European Union, the ELECTED parliament has the ability to reject the EU budget (and thus controls the EU) and to dissolve the EU Commission. The Commission is elected indirectly insofar as elected ministers of constituent state governments serve on the Commission. Yes, the people designing (not setting) the policies are unelected. Wow - what a departure from the norm [/sarcasm]. I guess that means the US, Canada, and just about every other country employing bureaucratic policy analysis and formulation by unelected civil servants is undemocratic. While we're at it, why don't we start electing the parking enforcement officers and the clerks at the patent office.

The LRRB is not undemocratic and won't lead to the downfall of British society. Just look at the article: "ministers will have to face at most a short debate in a committee and a one-and-a-half hour debate on the floor." This isn't carte blanche for ministers to enact whatever laws they please - the Commons can still shoot down the bill, the process has just been streamlined. That, and the bill hasn't even been subjected to the tinkering/amending that always comes with the legislative process. That being said, I agree that it COULD bestow an inappropriate level of power. This article elaborates a bit more on the perspective of those proposing the bill and those questioning it: 

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/constitution/story/0,,1715467,00.html

On the topic of the political compass, I prefer the one provided on the website as it avoids labels like "Necessary Evil" "Dangerous-but-Good" and "Reason Enthroned". http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Fascism is in the upper right hand quadrant, socialism in the upper left hand quadrant. As I said - they both share statist ideas, but that's about where the similarity stops. Take a look at the examples in the diagram further down the page and you'll see what I mean (particularly the lie of Stalin and Hitler, though both represent extremes within fascism and communism). I guess the important factor is the differentiation between economic and social/political ideals. 



> The rights of the sovereign individual are what mark Western civilization, and the Conservative (Classical Liberal) philosophy is what defines the west. There are certainly differences between various sub groups inside the Conservative tent (Religious "social conservatives" believe that Individual rights, property rights and the rule of Law are provided externaly through God's grace, libertarians believe these rights are intrinsic to people. Regardless on where we think these come from, we are advocating much the same things).



Just because Western civilization is a democratic, generally free civilization does not mean that the majority of its consituents can be defined as conservative. Given the European propensity for welfare policies, it would be hard to make that stick. I'd agree that democracy, capitalism, and individual liberties are the hallmark of Western civilization but the degree of each which conservatism desires and those actually practiced by the majority (Europe) are pretty different. As I said before, it's a matter of degrees - it's not a matter of black and white, "I hate the individual"/ "I love the individual", "Profit is good"/"Profit is bad", "I'm a socialist"/"I'm a conservative". Few things, most especially in human affairs, are ever anywhere near that simple. 

Edited for terminology (how surprising).


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Feb 2006)

>How would you go about "pruning" socialism out of society?

Remove and reduce state involvement.

>Nothing is beyond the reach of the citizenry as long as they still legitimately elect their representatives.

Nothing is beyond the reach of the citizenry, period.  Self-restraint is the problem.  If something is wrong to do, a vote doesn't excuse it.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Feb 2006)

Since all forms of Socialism are predicated on the "Collective" controlling the "Means of Production", I really have no problem defining Communists, Social Democrats or the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party) as falling in the same "tent".  There are indeed differences in how they operate; a communist would define you according to your economic situation ("class"), while a Nazi would define you by your ethnic origins. Under a Communist regime, you go to work at a state owned institution for the benefit of the State, under a Social Democratic or Fascist regime, you notionally own the property, but the State defines (to a greater or lesser extent) the actual outcomes of your productive labour, either by confiscating your wealth through high levels of taxation and regulation, or more directly by giving you your quota for the next "four year plan". (Nazi Germany practiced both methods)

In my previous posted example, religious conservatives believe Individual rights, ownership of property and Rule of Law are results of God's Grace, while libertarians would argue these are intrinsic and inherent properties of all human beings, different points of view but arguing for the same end results. With Socialism we have different paths leading to the same end points: people only regarded as part of a "group", and the efforts of the "group" co-opted towards some end defined by a "higher authority", and one which individuals are discouraged (if not actively coerced) from opting out of.

Since police states and violent repression got a bad name in the 1919-1945 period, they generally survive in out of the way places like North Korea and the People's Republic of China, but there are lots of ways to skin a cat, administrative impediments (red tape) can be applied against the recaliant citizens instead. The active can be frustrated in their ambitions, and the remainder cowed ("you can't fight city hall"). Low voter turnouts are the _desired_ outcome of our new ruling class.

*Western Civilization rests on the underpinnings of the Sovereign individual exercising his rights, using his own property in the ways that provide the maximum benefit to himself, and having these rights and properties protected under a Rule of Law.* The extent this is *not* being followed seems to track with my thesis, the farther towards socialism a nation or society moves, the poorer and less capable that society becomes. While it is possible to mask the extent of the problem, or even attempt to overcome it by conquest and absorbing the wealth of the conquered nations (i.e. WW II, the Viet Nam wars), history does catch up in the end. Europe may no longer be Conservative (or Classical Liberal, if you preffer), but neither is the EU a political, economic or military "superpower" commensurate with their size, resource base or population. Canada dropped off the international radar some time ago and when the USSR imploded the successor states are in no condition to even solve their own problems.

Once again, a cold dispassionate look at the factual evidence is needed to draw the proper conclusions. If you really believe that having a 25% lower GDP makes your standard of living better, PM me and I will let you know where you can send 25% of YOUR wealth. Or perhaps you can explain how the Republic of Ireland has raised their per capita GDP to $34,100 in 2005 ( Canada $32,800) by *lowering* taxes and regulations. 

This is an age old pattern (Athens, with a fairly "Liberal" view of individual rights, property and rule of law could only be overwhelmed in the Peloponnesian wars by the combined might of Sparta and her Allies, most of the other city states of Greece and the Persian Empire. Venice, another small city state with a Classical Liberal society, was able to match the military and economic might of the Ottoman Empire at its hight, and the most "Liberal" (Classical Liberal, that is) states in the 15, 16 and 1700's like England, the Netherlands and Sweden could suddenly emerge as powers with influence far beyond their small size, population and resource bases.

Given these success stories across the breadth and depth of history, you would think this would be shouted from the rooftops, and in the last election we should have seen a Tory landslide. We didn't, so there is more selling of the philosophy to be done.


----------



## Glorified Ape (10 Mar 2006)

> >How would you go about "pruning" socialism out of society?
> 
> Remove and reduce state involvement.



Ahhhhhh, I thought you meant "prune" out socialism as an ideology, which I doubt could be achieved without coercion (and even then). 



> >Nothing is beyond the reach of the citizenry as long as they still legitimately elect their representatives.
> 
> Nothing is beyond the reach of the citizenry, period.  Self-restraint is the problem.  If something is wrong to do, a vote doesn't excuse it.



Absolutely not, but if the populous feels that not enough self-restraint has been shown, they can elect someone else - as per the last election. Politicians and bureaucrats can generally be trusted to exercise as much power as they possibly can (and desire to) within the limits of the system (both informal and explicit). This is only a problem if the populous doesn't like the product, the way I see it. 






			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Since all forms of Socialism are predicated on the "Collective" controlling the "Means of Production", I really have no problem defining Communists, Social Democrats or the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party) as falling in the same "tent".  There are indeed differences in how they operate; a communist would define you according to your economic situation ("class"), while a Nazi would define you by your ethnic origins. Under a Communist regime, you go to work at a state owned institution for the benefit of the State, under a Social Democratic or Fascist regime, you notionally own the property, but the State defines (to a greater or lesser extent) the actual outcomes of your productive labour, either by confiscating your wealth through high levels of taxation and regulation, or more directly by giving you your quota for the next "four year plan". (Nazi Germany practiced both methods)



The commonality you're describing is statism, not socialism. Both fascism and socialism prefer statism (in differing degrees, based on their flavour), but that no more makes them members of the same political ideology anymore than it makes fascism a subset of theocracy because they're both authoritarian (which is a statist classification). The mercantilist monarchist states of Europe were relatively statist, but I wouldn't characterize a mercantilist monarchy as socialist. 



> In my previous posted example, religious conservatives believe Individual rights, ownership of property and Rule of Law are results of God's Grace, while libertarians would argue these are intrinsic and inherent properties of all human beings, different points of view but arguing for the same end results. With Socialism we have different paths leading to the same end points: people only regarded as part of a "group", and the efforts of the "group" co-opted towards some end defined by a "higher authority", and one which individuals are discouraged (if not actively coerced) from opting out of.



That's collectivism (of a more authoritarian persuasion), not necessarily socialism (though a socialist state such as North Korea would fit that description to a T). Theocracy fits that description perfectly, but a theocracy cannot be, by definition, socialist since true socialism holds atheism as one of its basic tenets. Anarcho-syndicalism is an example of a socialist, collectivist ideology that's radically anti-statist. The different branches of anarchism provide interesting examples of seemingly contradictory ideologies, like Christian anarchism - collectivist, anarchist, but based in religion; or libertarian socialism (that phrase makes me laugh) - allows private property, and is collectivist but anti-statist. They'd all undoubtedly fail, but they do a good job of illustrating the difference between economic, political, social, and governmental/state concepts. 



> Since police states and violent repression got a bad name in the 1919-1945 period, they generally survive in out of the way places like North Korea and the People's Republic of China, but there are lots of ways to skin a cat, administrative impediments (red tape) can be applied against the recaliant citizens instead. The active can be frustrated in their ambitions, and the remainder cowed ("you can't fight city hall"). Low voter turnouts are the _desired_ outcome of our new ruling class.



I'm not sure where you're drawing that last statement from, I.E. what evidence you have. As for the rest of it, I agree, but bureaucratic red tape is the hallmark of just about every government, be it in the US or China. Indeed, the bureaucracy is a necessary organ of government without which the government cannot provide even the most basic of services (such as elections, policing, the military, etc.).




> *Western Civilization rests on the underpinnings of the Sovereign individual exercising his rights, using his own property in the ways that provide the maximum benefit to himself, and having these rights and properties protected under a Rule of Law.*



So long as there is are laws and a state to enforce them, the individual is never sovereign. Sovereignty entails absolute authority over the jurisdiction (in this case, the individual himself) being described and even the most minimal of legal and enforcement apparatuses, by their very existence, impose authority over the individual. 



> The extent this is *not* being followed seems to track with my thesis, the farther towards socialism a nation or society moves, the poorer and less capable that society becomes. While it is possible to mask the extent of the problem, or even attempt to overcome it by conquest and absorbing the wealth of the conquered nations (i.e. WW II, the Viet Nam wars), history does catch up in the end. Europe may no longer be Conservative (or Classical Liberal, if you preffer), but neither is the EU a political, economic or military "superpower" commensurate with their size, resource base or population. Canada dropped off the international radar some time ago and when the USSR imploded the successor states are in no condition to even solve their own problems.



I think Europe is still quite liberal insofar as it still holds democracy and the importance of the individual as fundamental tenets, but no, they're not libertarians, which is what you seem to be describing every time you talk about "classical liberalism". John Stuart Mill was a classical liberal but I'm sure alot of his beliefs would clash with the present-day conservative "classical liberals", which is why I think the term libertarians describe them more closely. It's all a matter of degrees - both "Liberals" (lefties) and "Conservatives" (righties) stem from classical liberalism but their interpretation of "how much, when, and where" in regards to freedom differ. 



> Once again, a cold dispassionate look at the factual evidence is needed to draw the proper conclusions. If you really believe that having a 25% lower GDP makes your standard of living better, PM me and I will let you know where you can send 25% of YOUR wealth. Or perhaps you can explain how the Republic of Ireland has raised their per capita GDP to $34,100 in 2005 ( Canada $32,800) by *lowering* taxes and regulations.



I don't believe a 25% lower GDP makes your standard of living better, but I don't believe that a country needs to have a GDP of $40 000 in order to be considered successful or to have an excellent quality of life. It all comes down to how you define success - a fanatical Muslim would classify the entirety of Western society as an abject failure because his notion of success is based in the Koran. Likewise, you consider Sweden and other states as less successful because they have more regulation and a lower GDP/capita. Others would consider them more successful because they have equitable income distribution and greater social services. That being said, Norway's GDP/capita is the second highest in the world, but I doubt you'll agree that that means their system must be better as a result. Equatorial Guinea has the highest forecasted GDP per capita in the world (2005), so the measure itself is pretty darned flawed when evaluating the "success" of a country. 

The main issue here seems to be that we don't share the same conception of success. By the conservative standard of "success", Sweden would be a spectacular success if its economic and societal regulation was non-existent and its GDP/cap was $60 000, even if 40% of the population was living on 500 calories/day and 60% had little-to-no access to basic health services. As long as the society is as free as it can be and economic indicators are great, it's a success. I'm somwhere in the middle between the libertarians and the social democrats - I believe in freedom of the individual but I also believe in the importance of the collective. There's a happy balance somewhere between the two, a kind of societal Pareto optimum. That's why I tend to lean towards the Liberal Party on most things - they're not the NDP and they're not the Conservatives, both of which I disagree with on most issues. It just so happens that the party I agree with most often has a crappy record on scandals. ;D 



> This is an age old pattern (Athens, with a fairly "Liberal" view of individual rights, property and rule of law could only be overwhelmed in the Peloponnesian wars by the combined might of Sparta and her Allies, most of the other city states of Greece and the Persian Empire. Venice, another small city state with a Classical Liberal society, was able to match the military and economic might of the Ottoman Empire at its hight, and the most "Liberal" (Classical Liberal, that is) states in the 15, 16 and 1700's like England, the Netherlands and Sweden could suddenly emerge as powers with influence far beyond their small size, population and resource bases.
> 
> Given these success stories across the breadth and depth of history, you would think this would be shouted from the rooftops, and in the last election we should have seen a Tory landslide. We didn't, so there is more selling of the philosophy to be done.



Yes, and the Mongols were quite successful too but I wouldn't call them liberal. Your attributions of causation here are highly dubious. There are a great number of historical circumstances, random events, and other variables that factored into the success of European "liberal" states (and that characterization, especially in the 16th and 17th centuries, is questionable). The death of Khan while the Mongols were on Western Europe's doorstep is one example. I don't disagree that liberalism has had a gigantic amount of influence, but also keep in mind that the type of liberalism you seem to be advocating (libertarianism) isn't anywhere near what those states had, nor really what any state has (including the US). 

  By your "the more freedom/liberalism/libertarianism, the better" theory, anarcho-capitalism would be the optimal and most succesful system, though I would suggest Hobbes' state of nature would be the most likely result. The non-aggression principle is absurd. That seems to be one of the major failings of libertarianism and anarchism - they place far, far too much faith in the goodness of people. 

Just as an aside, are you big into Rothbard? I read a bit about him a while back, and again just now while I was looking into libertarianism.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Mar 2006)

>if the populous feels that not enough self-restraint has been shown, they can elect someone else

Er, it's the self-restraint of the populace that worries me, not the self-restraint of the politicians.  It's hard to cure people of the habit of using the ballot box to extract privileges at the expense of others.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Mar 2006)

You can nit pick all you like, but if disparate societies ranging from Classical Athens, Venice, Elizabethan England, the Netherlands in the 1600's, the Little Tigers in the 1980s, Ireland in the 1990s all have political, military or economic (or all three) success quite out of proportion to their size and resource bases, then it makes sense to look for a common theme.

Each of these nations, relative to their peers, allowed greater degrees of individual freedom, especially freedom of expression (the free flow of ideas), ownership of property, and limited State intervention in the individual disposition of property. People who are free to trade ideas and information, and who can arrange their own affairs to maximise their own perceived self interest will always outperform those who cannot.

Now you can call the opposite state of affairs Socialism, collectiveism, or any other sort of "ism" you want, but the ultimate state of affairs is the same there as well, servile and impoverished people without resources to accomplish their goals. Even your straw man of Sweden is just that, *Swedes have 25% fewer resources to accomplish their goals* (and they are one of the wealthy nations in Europe). How that can be translated to having a better standard of living requires the services of a Philosophy or English Lit graduate, sorry, I am only versed in Economics and History.


----------



## Glorified Ape (17 Mar 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >if the populous feels that not enough self-restraint has been shown, they can elect someone else
> 
> Er, it's the self-restraint of the populace that worries me, not the self-restraint of the politicians.  It's hard to cure people of the habit of using the ballot box to extract privileges at the expense of others.



Oops... I thought you were referring to politicians over-stepping their mandate. I suppose you're right, but that will always happen, depending on your outlook. Those that don't want police services or armed forces have to shoulder the cost extracted from them by the majority that does. 



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> You can nit pick all you like, but if disparate societies ranging from Classical Athens, Venice, Elizabethan England, the Netherlands in the 1600's, the Little Tigers in the 1980s, Ireland in the 1990s all have political, military or economic (or all three) success quite out of proportion to their size and resource bases, then it makes sense to look for a common theme.



Nitpick? That's precisely the problem with your approach, as I see it - you're taking a peppering of examples from history that fit your case and ignoring those that don't. That's not even broaching the topic of causation, which is far from established even in the examples you cite. 



> Each of these nations, relative to their peers, allowed greater degrees of individual freedom, especially freedom of expression (the free flow of ideas), ownership of property, and limited State intervention in the individual disposition of property. People who are free to trade ideas and information, and who can arrange their own affairs to maximise their own perceived self interest will always outperform those who cannot.



How far does it go? What do you see as the ideal state (if your ideal includes a state)? One problem I see is that you equate "more" with "better". New Hampshire is probably the most libertarian state (if I'm not mistaken), but it's not the most successful and that example controls for cultural differences, history (to some degree), etc. How on earth, if that doesn't make the grade, can you extend it to cases spread across history, cultures, and geography?



> Now you can call the opposite state of affairs Socialism, collectiveism, or any other sort of "ism" you want, but the ultimate state of affairs is the same there as well, servile and impoverished people without resources to accomplish their goals. Even your straw man of Sweden is just that, *Swedes have 25% fewer resources to accomplish their goals* (and they are one of the wealthy nations in Europe). How that can be translated to having a better standard of living requires the services of a Philosophy or English Lit graduate, sorry, I am only versed in Economics and History.



And like I said, using the GDP/capita as a measure of success is flawed - Equatorial Guinea, Norway, and Luxembourg are the three highest GDP/capita countries projected for 2005. Now while I agree that both Norway and Luxembourg have good quality of life, Equatorial Guinea certainly does not. And all three don't fit your "more freedom = more success" theory. According to your reasoning, the welfare-statists of Luxembourg and Norway have it right, not the more conservative US.  Are we in Wonderland yet, Alice?


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2006)

Pulling examples that cross historical and geographical boundaries is just a fairly straightforward comparative analysis. They still teach this at college, has it been dropped from universities? Since I am posting to a board and not writing "*The Failure of Socialism Vol 1-3*", I am going to stick with short arguments which you can use to start your Google searches. The subject of causation is well established here, the rights of the sovereign individual are paramount, freedom and wealth are closely interconnected, and this relationship has been demonstrated in EVERY society where the rights of the sovereign individual are elevated relative to their peer states. The historical cases cited (Athens, England, Holland, Venice, the Little Tigers, Ireland) are in fact extreme examples, since their economic, political and military powers were far out of proportion to their resource bases. If you want one to one comparisons, try Athens/Persian Empire; Elizabethan England/Imperial Spain, Holland/England, Little Tigers/China, Ireland/Canada.

Since you want to know how far it goes, then a state like New Hampshire can be compared to a similar sized unit in any other part of the world. Significantly, it will only suffer in comparison to other US states, which should tell you something. Even extending the argument of more freedom=more wealth, the "Red" states tend to be better off than the "Blue" states. In Canada, Alberta comes off far ahead of Quebec, despite both provinces having large natural resource bases. Perhaps the fact Quebec has a much higher level of taxation and squanders its wealth through a plethora of government programs has something to do with it?

I believe this question was asked of you before; what *quantitative* measure are you using to determine quality of life? It is trivial to point out states like Equatorial Guinea do not support the sovereign individual, hence the first order GDP/Capita measure is distorted by some other factor (i.e. resource extraction). GDP/Capita is a very useful measure to start, once you see "why" a nation is wealthy, then you can see how these lessons are applicable to us. 

This brings us back to the point of this thread; *Conservatism (Classical Liberalism) has a proven track record of liberty and wealth creation which is unmatched by any other political or economic system in history.* Most other systems either produce stagnation (tribalism, feudalism) or actively destroy liberty and wealth (socialism in any of its forms). Canada's economic lethargy should begin to lift in the next few years under Prime Minister Harper's (modest) shift in direction, so you don't even need me to offer the proof; it will be happening right outside your door.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Mar 2006)

>Those that don't want police services or armed forces have to shoulder the cost extracted from them by the majority that does.

Surely you can do better than that.  Do you seriously intend to equate the basic institutions necessary to safeguard essential liberties with something like public funding of some people's cultural preferences?


----------



## DJ (18 Mar 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> In Canada, Alberta comes off far ahead of Quebec, despite both provinces having large natural resource bases. Perhaps the fact Quebec has a much higher level of taxation and squanders its wealth through a plethora of government programs has something to do with it?



Do you really think that you can equate Alberta's oil wealth with Quebec's resources?


----------



## a_majoor (19 Mar 2006)

Resources are resources, and Quebec has a very large and diversified resource base that is less suceptible to industry cycles than Albertan oil. It has the *most* potential to be the leading province in Canada, but it is not.

For a really extreme example, the former USSR had the resources of an entire continental landmass, including many valuable and exotic materials such as titanium, as well as more mundane items like oil, timber and food. The USSR was also governed by the Communist Party, which practiced a form of socialism based on the theories of Marx and interpretations by I.V. Lenin. Theory (including some being quoted here) would suggest that this combination of socialism coupled to a rich human and natural resource base would be a totally unstoppable combination.

The end result after 70 years was a nation in ruins, the environment poisoned, a demographic collapse happening and the average life span decreasing. Of course with their shriveled GDP/capita, Russia and the Russian people have very few resources available to reverse this decline. The shift from Socialism to Autocracy bodes ill for the long suffering people of Russia, this will constrain the ability of the people to exchange ideas, use existing resources in novel ways or create new wealth and resources to solve their problems.


----------



## RangerRay (20 Mar 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> In Canada, Alberta comes off far ahead of Quebec, despite both provinces having large natural resource bases. Perhaps the fact Quebec has a much higher level of taxation and squanders its wealth through a plethora of government programs has something to do with it?



I would almost say that a better comparison would be between Alberta and Saskatchewan.  They have virtually the same resources (as far as I know, oil and gas has no boundaries) yet a fundamental difference in economic policy.  One province is booming while the other stagnates in an ecomony created by crown corporations, and loses poplutaion to its more affluent neighbour.

Just looking at my own province, BC has a robust economy when there is a market-friendly party in power.  When the NDP are in power, the economy goes in the tank and people flee for Alberta.

Too much of a coincidink for me!


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2006)

Another analysis of Conservatism. The poster is advocating very limited government, essentially a small "l" Libertarian position.

http://commonsenseaintsocommon.blogspot.com/2006/07/defining-conservatism.html



> Defining Conservatism
> This is one of those issues that I've been thinking about most of my adult life. Pulled into the mix are both my personal experiences, a ton of reading from a lot of different sources, media concepts of conservatism, both here in Canada and elsewhere, and a certain degree of randomness as to what I consider to be relevant.
> 
> When I boil it all down to basic principles, the one thing that Conservatism means to me is "small government". To put some more meat on the bones, *people have created governments to do that which they cannot effectively do individually. Government that limits itself to only those purposes is a small government. Thomas Jefferson once said "That government is best which governs least.", and this, to me, is the best summary of conservatism that I can think of.*
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Sep 2007)

Another look at Conservatism, this time from an objectivist viewpoint: (multi part post)

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1876-Up_from.aspx



> *Up from Conservatism*
> by Robert James Bidinotto
> 
> [Editor's note: On September 23, 2007, this article was honored with a prestigious 2007 Folio "Eddie" Gold Award for Editorial Excellence.]
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Sep 2007)

Long article; part 2:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1876-Up_from.aspx



> So who are today’s conservatives, and what do they believe?
> 
> *“Principled Unprincipledness”*
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Sep 2007)

Part 3:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1876-Up_from.aspx



> *Pragmatism*
> 
> Because their source of morality is otherworldly, and because they therefore do not believe that morality can be consistently practiced in this world, many conservatives have thrown in the towel, embracing inconsistency and compromise as “necessary evils.” Pragmatists are the conservatives who preach “the negation of ideology” and “principled unprincipledness.”
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Sep 2007)

Part 4

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1876-Up_from.aspx



> *Altruism*
> 
> One of the most toxic influences in our political life is the moral view that equates “virtue” with “self-sacrifice.” No other single factor has been as responsible for eroding America’s individualist heritage and capitalist system than the view that self-sacrifice to others constitutes our highest moral duty and virtue. Yet, it is a “virtue” that conservatives have never rejected.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Sep 2007)

Part 5:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1876-Up_from.aspx



> Fortunately, they are not the only intellectual forces at work.
> 
> *Individualism*
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Oct 2007)

If Conservatives are to be successful in the long term, they need to clearly be a party of ideas. While this seems to fly in the face of recent history (The Liberal Party was still using the 1993 "Red Book" as their 2005 platform, and nothing new has surfaced from them since); in the past Liberals *did* have ideas. Louis St Laurent is the architect of many of modern Canada's institutions and international security agreements, and Pierre Trudeau was the architect of the "Just Society". Similarly, Brian Mulroney ran and won on Free Trade, and Mike Harris ran and won on effective tax cutting on the Conservative side.

Ideas are always open to question and analysis, I only put forth these examples because they are pretty clear cut. John Tory did not run on ideas, and look what happened to him:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=9de4432d-9564-44f4-9dfe-1dfa6a43f082&p=1



> *Bye-Bye, Mr. Nice Guy*
> 
> Adam Daifallah
> National Post
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (27 Oct 2007)

From my far away vantage point, it appears that the British Tories will emulate their Ontario namesakes result with their "Blairesque" leader, David Cameron.  He has pretty much repudiated Thatcherism and appears to be steering the Tories toward "Labour-lite" policies.

On the other hand, here in BC, this is meeting a different result.  After their victory in 2001, Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals embarked on "Harris-inspired" program of reducing the size and scope of the provincial government, and decreasing taxes.  However, after losing ground in the 2005 election, the BC Liberal government has become bland, avoiding controversial policies, and moving towards the centre.  Currently, Premier Campbell and the BC Liberals have never been more popular!  ???


----------



## a_majoor (28 Oct 2007)

Interesting observation, but time will tell. The BC Liberals were elected because they had distinctive ideas, but are now in the process of repudiating them. In the next election, will people vote for them, or a party which clearly stands for something? (Rhetorical question at best).


----------



## RangerRay (29 Oct 2007)

As to the BC Liberals, I believe that they will be re-elected without any problems.  Even though they are not as "right-wing" as they were in their first term, there is no credible free-enterprise alternative for the more "conservative" voter to support.  I believe most "conservative" voters will still vote for the BC Liberals simply to keep the Socialist Horde (aka the NDP) out of office.

In BC, the NDP only wins when the free-enterprise vote (comprised of federal Conservative and blue Liberal voters) is split.  Right now, there is no credible alternative on the right.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Nov 2007)

Here is a site more geared to actions: 

http://www.freedom-force.org/



> The Freedom Force strategy can be summarized as:
> Don't fight city hall when you can BE city hall.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2008)

Thoughts for a new generation of Conservatives:

http://www.amazon.ca/Comeback-Conservatism-That-Can-Again/dp/0385515332



> *At a moment of crisis and pessimism for American conservatives, David Frum offers fresh ideas—and fresh hope.*
> 
> Not in a generation has conservatism been in as much trouble as it is at the end of the Bush years. A majority of Americans say the country is “on the wrong track.” Voters prefer Democrats over Republicans on almost every issue, including taxes. The married, the middle-class, the native-born are dwindling as a share of the population, while Democratic blocs are rising. A generation of young people has turned its back on the Republican party.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2008)

A review of David Frum's latest book:

http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/apr08/daifallah.pdf



> *After Bush: updating conservatism*
> David Frum. Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win
> Again. New York and Toronto: Doubleday, 2007
> Review by Adam Daifallah
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jun 2008)

While David Frum says Conservatism needs to change and evolve, this poster disagrees. 

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2008/06/conservatism-is-timeless.html



> *Conservatism is Timeless*
> Some conservatives, like David Frum and others, have argued that conservatism needs to change in order to win. Adaptation to new realities, evolution of thought, etc...
> 
> But conservative principles are timeless: freedom, the rights of the individual, democracy, free markets (capitalism), the rule of law, personal responsibility, peace through strength, government of the people, the subjugation of government to the will of the electorate, less government is better government. These are what conservatism is.
> ...



I agree in the sense that the fundimentals never change, but what is needed is a better tactical sense of how to apply the fundimentals to the issues of the day, in a manner people readily understand.


----------



## adaminc (17 Jun 2008)

You guys should read up on the Freedom Party, supposedly they are going to be a new party in the Federal Election in 2008. Whether or not that will actually happen I don't know. But I do like some of their policies. Especially the ones on Property rights.

They seem very Libertarian like.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2008)

Rebuilding of Conservatism in the US and strengthening it throughout the world requires a building of Classical Liberal culture:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ask-dr-helen-where-is-conservative-culture/



> *Ask Dr. Helen: Where Is Conservative Culture?*
> 
> Posted By Helen Smith On November 10, 2008 @ 12:53 am In . Column1 01, . Positioning, Art, Ask Dr. Helen, Books, Culture, Film | 47 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2008)

Knowledge and understanding are powerful weapons once harnessed:

http://thecanadianrepublic.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-conservatives-must-abandon-anti.html



> Saturday, December 20, 2008
> *Why Conservatives Must Abandon Anti-Intellectualism & Reclaim The Realm Of The Mind*
> 
> On one level, I can appreciate why so many North American conservatives have chosen to turn up their noses at academics. Having spent the majority of my adult life dealing with the so-called 'intelligentsia,' I can confirm that they are, to generalize, an impossible group of garrulous and anorchid weasels. The few scholars who are able to scramble out of the pit of evil that is modern day pragmatism do so only to embrace some trendy political philosophy, typically Kantian or some idealistic derivative thereof, that is so entirely divorced from reality that one is left to wonder whether they can still be said to live on earth.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Dec 2008)

But in this debate over intellectualism versus anti-intellectualism, or as Thomas Reid, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and Immanuel Kant would have it (and Mike Harris?) Common Sense is the debate over the philosophy or the philosophers?

The Britain of my youth was death against intellectuals - although there were many intellectuals there.  But the last thing that anyone would put on their calling card was "Intellectual".  That seemed a very "European" conceit to us, to declare yourself an Intellectual.  It would get you laughed out of both the pub and the club.

These days I am struck by how many people will cheerfully describe themselves as Intellectuals.

By and large these are people that have a track record of "Doing" very little.  They have spent a lifetime in criticism and never had to apply their principles to reality and face consequences.

They regularly denigrate the "wisdom of the mob", or common sense and as a consequence fail to understand concepts like populism and the stock market or even pragmatism and the art of compromise.

My problem with "Intellectuals" of the left or the right is their inherent belief in their rightness and the need for their principles to prevail.  

They are dangerous.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Dec 2008)

I think the issue is more education vs intellectualism: an educated public will be less susceptible to demagogues of any stripe and be able to examine and judge issues on the facts and their own merits.

Otherwise we get Global Warming hysteria, "Peak oil", Keynesian "stimulus" packages, etc.......


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Dec 2008)

Two links to previous posts of mine:



> My personal favourite statistic is the comparison between the number of public libraries in Ontario in the 1940s (>400) versus Quebec (<10).  That wasn't a result of federal policies or anglo policies.  That was a result of conscious decisions by the "elite".


  Source

And 



> In William Johnson's translation of the Nemni's "Young Trudeau" ".....almost all the students (at Trudeau's alma mater St-Jean de Brebeuf), including Trudeau, ended up with identical values with respect to Catholicism and French-Canadian nationalism.  And they were convinced that they reached these values of their own free will.  How did the Jesuits of Brebeuf succeed in putting their distinctive imprint on students like Pierre Trudeau?.......The school libraries were notable above all for the important works of literature that, censored by the Church, were missing from the shelves.  To bring any book into the college premises required written approval by the college authority, unless the book was on the program.  Any book without that approval was confiscated.  "The bad book: that was enemy number one," recalled Georges-Emile Lapalme, who in 1961 would become Quebec's first minister of culture."  pp 48-49.


  Source

That 400/10 ratio for me defines the difference between the Two Solitudes, a Canadian expression of an International phenomenon.  It is the dfference between the world of educated miners in which my Grandfather grew up and the cultural elite that spawned Pierre Trudeau.

It is the difference between seeking your own answers and waiting for answers to be provided.

It is the difference between controlling the message to impose order and embracing chaos and disorder as a viable system.

It is the difference between searching for wisdom and accepting the wisdom of the mob and the market.

It is the difference between the authoritarians (of left and right, fascist, communist or socialist) and the classical liberals.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Dec 2008)

Jerry Pournelle:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2008/Q4/view550.html#Friday



> There are often insightful articles in The American Conservative, but for me there's too much glee when liberals and neocons make disastrous errors. Russell Kirk taught us that we ought to approach defects in our nations as we would the wounds of a father. The neocons were useful allies during the Cold War, but the term "neo-conservative" always was a contradiction in terms. American Conservatives have some common interests with neocons, but we should not forget their Trotskyite origins. It's a bit odd: some of the former Communists, like Whitaker Chambers, came to their senses and became actual conservatives; but they were almost all actual Communists, members of CPUSA and under Party Discipline. Most of the neo-cons were Trotskyites or came from Trotskyite families (many being too young to have any notion of what things were like back in the Glory Days of the Trotskyites) and when they left their affiliations they didn't give up the notion that the world could be remade by dedicated revolutionaries and social engineering; that if they got control of the government they could do something wonderful. Give me the sword of state and I will make a more beautiful world.
> 
> *Real conservatives understand that control of government isn't the key to making a wonderful world. At best we can get rid of some obstacles and give people opportunities to improve their lives.* One would think that a study of history would show that, but apparently a lot of smart people continue to believe that they can remake not just their city, or county, or state, or nation, but the whole world, and all they need is control of the army and the tax collectors. Actually they don't think that way: they think about the wonderful things they can do, and forget that to do them they need tax collectors, and to support the tax collectors they need police, and behind the police stands the Army, prison, and the hangman. (Of course we don't have hangmen any more. We're more humane now. Progress.)
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jan 2009)

Classical Liberal (AKA Conservative) values are actually similar; all these prescriptions can be applied to our situation as well despite the lack of a well written and clear cut document like the Declaration of Liberty and the Constitution of the United States:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123086011787848029.html



> *Conservatives Can Unite Around the Constitution*
> The coalition that supported Reagan is as viable as ever.
> 
> By PETER BERKOWITZ
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jan 2009)

I do not believe that _American conservatism_ – which I define as a mix of near libertarians, _classical liberals_ (advocates of individual rights (including privacy), fiscal prudence and small government), _America first_ or  near _nativists_ (nearly throwbacks to the “_Know Nothings[url]_”) and the religious right – can or should exist much longer.

There never was any intellectually acceptable reason to unite _classical liberals_ with, for example, the religious right – their views are diametrically opposed, one to the other. It is a marriage made in hell.

The grouping of the _classical liberals_ with the _America first_ faction is equally problematical because the latter must end up being ‘big government conservatives’ a la George W Bush – someone with whom, as it (his policies) transpired, real _classical liberals_ do not want to be associated.

The libertarians, _America firsters_ and the religious right should all be left, by the Republican Party, to go their own ways. The Republicans should focus on rebuilding the independent (of big government) spirit that built modern America. Independence means that one keeps big collectives – like bureaucracies and churches – at arm’s length. Independence is not anti-_communitarianism_; in fact real American ‘independence’ (rather counter-intuitively) embraced local, community based self-help programmes as ‘better’ (more efficient and effective) than anything that came out of the county seat or the state or national capitols. Independence, in the 21st century, means recapturing the ‘small town’ values of thrift, trust in neighbours, responsibility, humility and hard work. That's not a bad base for any political party.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There never was any intellectually acceptable reason to unite _classical liberals_ with, for example, the religious right – their views are diametrically opposed, one to the other. It is a marriage made in hell.



Isn't that what Stephen Harper is trying to do?


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jan 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Isn't that what Stephen Harper is trying to do?



That's certainly what a lot of Conservatives (and Liberals, too) believe.

I'm not so sure.

First off, the religious right in Canada is smaller and less well organized than it is in the USA and, except for the CPC, it has no place to go except e.g The Christian Heritage Party or wherever Focus on the Family tells 'em to go.

Second, I think Harper wants to *drive* the Conservatives *to* the moderate middle, away from the religious right.

Thus, I suspect that, notwithstanding his own (perhaps strongly held) religious principles, Harper wants to marginalize the religious right in Canada, in favour of more tradition (blue) Conservative values: small town, small business, etc.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2009)

American Conservatives need to regroup and redefine themselves (or get back to first principles). Newt Gingrich has something to say about that:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2009/01/conservative-way-forward.html



> *The Conservative Way Forward*
> 
> The current GOP leadership is clueless. I supported Newt Gingrich for president in 2008 although he didn't run, but I'm praying he will in 2012. Hopefully, democracy in America will still exist then. Watch Gingrich's very informative and challenging address to ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) HERE.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 May 2009)

The rule of law is important:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023548.php



> *The meaning of Chrysler*
> 
> May 13, 2009 Posted by Scott at 5:50 AM
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 May 2009)

Progressives often think Americans are pirates; maybe they are right after all:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_17-2009_05_23.shtml#1242820796



> *A Preposterous Suggestion: Of TJ, Pirates, and America's Founding*
> 
> In the course of doing interviews on The Invisible Hook over the last several weeks I’ve had a number of people ask me if I thought America’s Founding Fathers might have been influenced by early 18th-century pirates in framing the United States government.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jun 2009)

Jerry Pournelle reflects on the differences between Parties and movements. We seem to have a similar disconnect between the "Conservatives and the Conservative Party:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q2/view574.html



> I am neither a great fan nor an enemy of Rush Limbaugh, but I agree with him more often than not. My major criticism is his delivery, which is loud and insistent. I prefer a less strident atmosphere and what Possony used to call rational discussion. Clearly Limbaugh's method works --he has an enormously larger audience than I do, and many more dedicated fans and subscribers (although I don't mean to slight those who support this place. Thanks to all who subscribe and renew.)
> 
> He had two items today that I thought worth reflection. The first was purely pragmatic regarding health care reform: before we deliver another 15% of the GDP to Obama's management team, would it not be better to wait a bit to see how well his present policies work? It's not clear that the management team understands the economy, but they have certainly been given more power over it than any American government has ever had. Obama says that if we don't do his health care reform soon, we never will. I question that. If what the Obama team is doing works, Obama will surely not lose popularity, and there will be far more support for the notion of turning this knotty problems over to a team that has successfully managed economic recovery. What's the great hurry?
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jun 2009)

I suggest Canada has the same problem, and needs the same soution:

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/philip_howard/2009/06/spring_cleaning_in_washington.html



> *Spring Cleaning in Washington*
> 
> Just a few months ago, members of Congress took turns wagging their fingers at CEOs of the automakers for not making tough choices--not shedding "legacy costs," not making products consumers wanted, not cutting bloated bureaucracies.  Detroit had become self-referential, unable to compete because it was unwilling to deal with its internal constituents.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jul 2009)

A third interesting piece, from today’s _National Post_, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/18/david-frum-american-conservatism-in-its-decadent-phase.aspx


> David Frum: American conservatism in its decadent phase
> 
> Posted: July 18, 2009
> 
> ...




This is, as Frum says, not too surprising. Conservatism, in both Canada and the USA, needs more than just work. It needs to rediscover its classical, 19th century *liberal* roots and core values. It needs to, *must* discard and destroy the wholly *illiberal*, collectivist, busybody influences of the “religious right;” it must rediscover _enlightened capitalism_ and replace the greed based system currently in vogue in business and labour; it needs to fall back on its small town/small business roots and let the Democrats and the Liberal Party of Canada have big business, big banks, big labour and big government. Conservatives and Republicans should be the parties of the ordinary, _little guy_ who wants to get ahead on his own merits and efforts.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Oct 2009)

The conservative movement is really about reestablishing connections between people, neighbourhoods and regions. This is hardly a new idea, and here is a bit about how it was replaced and the consequences:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q3/view590.html#Wednesday



> *Tocqueville, The Associations, and Welfare*
> 
> Tocqueville's Democracy in America is a work few have read, although many cite it. At one time it was assigned in academic oriented high schools, but no more. It's too quaint, and a bit long, for the modern intellectual taste. For all that it remains an influential and important work.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2009)

In this post, in a locked thread, I said, _“The kids got their cause and their violence; they keep at it today, even, especially when, as with the _G8_ and WTO and _Summit of the Americas_ and the G20, they are abysmally ignorant of the issues at hand. Protests, in 21st century North America, including Ottawa in 2001, are nothing more than an excuse for self indulged children to riot. They – the children - don’t know why they’re screaming but screaming, rock throwing and window smashing attract cameras (more self indulgence) and it’s _Revolution For The Hell Of It_ ... That’s it: that’s why they want to demonstrate. They are really protesting their own boring, pointless, idle lives.”_

Now, in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, Barbara Kay takes that notion a bit further:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/14/barbara-kay-the-decline-of-maturity.aspx


> Barbara Kay: The decline of maturity
> 
> October 14, 2009
> 
> ...




This _perception_, that “we” are immature, self-indulgent, perpetual adolescents is held beyond the narrow confines of the _National Post_’s opinion pages. It is, I think deeply enough held to actually merit serious discussion. 

The _cause_ of making adult thinking and adult conduct popular, again, night be something _conservatives_ should embrace.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Nov 2009)

Taking up the cause of Liberty should always be a key plank in the Conservative/Classical Liberal/Libertarian camp:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/03/berlin-wall-democracy-barack-obama-opinions-columnists-claudia-rosett_print.html



> *How The Wall Fell*
> Claudia Rosett, 11.03.09, 7:17 PM ET
> 
> *When the Berlin Wall came down 20 years ago, it did not fall from sheer wear and tear of tyranny.* *People actively chose to destroy it.* They tore down that iconic wall not only with pickaxes, hammers and bare hands, but as a culminating act of decades of sacrifice, courage, determination and a complex, globally contested war of ideas.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2009)

Respecting the Rule of Law (part of the Classical Liberal/Libertaerian/Conservative "Big Three")

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/12/gop-introduces-.html



> *GOP Introduces Geithner Penalty Waiver Act*
> 
> Congressmen John Carter (R-TX) and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) yesterday introduced the Geithner Penalty Waiver Act, requiring that the IRS assess the same penalty against U.S. taxpayers that came forward in the UBS tax fraud investigation as paid by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for failing to pay taxes on his IMF income -- zero.  From Congressman Carter's press release:
> 
> Carter says *the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates equal penalties for similar offenses, and that the failure of the IRS to assess any penalties against Geithner demands similar penalties for all taxpayers with substantially equivalent cases.* “This bill seeks to codify what is now established by the law of precedent,” says Carter. “The Geithner case has established a legal precedent for the determination of penalties by the IRS, and that precedent can be cited in all federal tax courts. The penalty is now set at zero.” “Taxpayers who willfully attempt to evade paying their fair taxes should pay a penalty, or our tax code becomes unenforceable,” says Carter. “This bill is not to reward tax evaders, but to defend the Rule of Law itself. If we as a nation choose not to enforce the law against the politically privileged, then we cannot enforce the law against others without undermining respect for the law itself.”


----------



## a_majoor (26 Apr 2010)

The TEA party is clearly a form of Classical Liberalism in action. How long before it takes root here?

http://newledger.com/2010/04/what-the-tea-party-movement-is-really-about/



> *What the Tea Party Movement is Really About*
> by Francis Cianfrocca
> 
> I can’t turn around without reading something new about how the Tea Party is the 10-20 percent marginalized rump of Rush Limbaugh listeners who want to keep the government from making life better in every way. Most commenters dismiss the TP as a nuisance deserving only to be ignored. Some go a little farther. David Brooks fears the TP because, as he notes, some TPers are independents, not Republicans, and their few percentage points are enough to swing lots of elections. Noam Chomsky fears the TP because he sees in it the germ of an American Nazi party that is only waiting for its charismatic Hitler to emerge and destroy the world with military power that, unlike Germany’s in 1939, is unchallengeable.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Apr 2010)

Political philosophy, Aristotle is the father of the United States:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/04/026193.php



> *At some point you have grabbed enough power*
> Share Post   Print
> April 30, 2010 Posted by Scott at 7:12 AM
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 May 2010)

Taking the offense in the "culture wars". This is needed in Canada as well, maybe even more so because of decades of "official multiculturalism" which divides people even more sharply:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/its-time-gop-needs-to-radically-change-tactics-with-minorities/?singlepage=true



> *It’s Time: GOP Needs to Radically Change Tactics with Minorities*
> 
> What the GOP has done for decades to reach minorities has not worked, and will never work.
> May 5, 2010
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 May 2010)

From a larger article. I think TEA party activism can certainly take root in Canada given the increasing disconnect between political elites and the people (look at the evolving HST controversies in BC and Ontario, especially now the huge cost to ordinary taxpayers and consumers is becoming clear):

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/05/08/r-utah/



> The game was redefined in a single place and time from “one of Republicans versus Democrats” (Romney’s reference) to that of “Small Government versus Big Government”. In isolation the Bennett defeat is insignificant, but it now raises the wider question of whether the ‘Smaller Government’ idea can catch on. If it does then it has the potential to redefine the political landscape in ways that are both a threat and opportunity to different communities.
> 
> The Tea Parties represent an asymmetric threat to political organizations optimized for party-line warfare. The threat is no longer across the aisle but outside the building. As such, two possibilities suggest themselves. The first is that the Washington elite will circle the wagons, bury their minor differences and concentrate on keeping the money and power flowing to the capital. A threat from outside the building is after all, a threat to everybody inside the building. The other possibility is that enough members of the elite will realize that jig is up and strive to accommodate themselves to the new reality. In the coming months we are likely to see both gambits. Some politicians will opt to tap the tide; others will seek to master it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 May 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is a good ℞ for conservatives in government everywhere:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/down-with-big-government/article1576419/


> Down with big government
> *If the Conservatives had held to this principle, Rahim Jaffer, abortion and the Gay Pride parade wouldn’t have become issues*
> 
> Tom Flanagan
> ...



The old adage, _“who governs least governs best”_ is grounded in good, solid practicality. People are, *always*, most able to manage their own affairs for themselves. There are some _essential_ public functions including maintaining a sound, stable, properly valued currency, the defence of the realm and so on but, basically, especially when “times are tough,” doing less is doing better.

Canadians, like Americans and Europeans, are in love with their _”freebies”_ (social programmes, including the world’s biggest one: the US Social Security system) and their favourite _”causes”_ (like being green and “pro-choice”) but now is a good time, because these are “tough times,” to get the government out of the way. Those who want to be green or who want to stand on one side or the other of e.g. abortion or _gay rights_ may continue to do so, without any government money. That would be an honest, _conservative_ approach.


----------



## RangerRay (10 Jun 2010)

An interesting article on the Tea Party:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/tea-party-jacobins/?pagination=false

and a Burkean review of this article:

http://burkescorner.blogspot.com/2010/06/tea-party-movement-libertarian.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jun 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is some “flesh and blood” to amplify Prof. Mark Lilla’s _cri de cour_ from the “old left”  in the New York Review of Books (posted just above by RangerRay):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/strong-showing-for-conservative-women-among-us-primary-voters/article1597553/


> Strong showing for conservative women among U.S. primary voters
> *Anti-incumbent sentiment strong, but Arkansas Democratic senator survives*
> 
> Steven R. Hurst
> ...



And see this, also reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ about one of the “new faces,” most definitely not one of the  “angry white men” who are typically blamed by people like Prof. Lilla for the decline of the old, deferential, order - Nikki Haley:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/meet-the-new-face-of-republican-power-female-high-powered-and-growing-in-strength/article1598566/


> owered and growing in strength
> *Primaries vault GOP image beyond that of “angry white men”*
> 
> Konrad Yakabuski
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jun 2010)

Further: In the  New York Review of Books article referenced just above, Prof. Mark Lilla said:

_” Which brings us to Fox News. The right-wing demagogues at Fox do what demagogues have always done: they scare the living daylights out of people by identifying a hidden enemy, then flatter them until they believe they have only one champion—the demagogue himself. But unlike demagogues past, who appealed over the heads of individuals to the collective interests of a class, Fox and its wildly popular allies on talk radio and conservative websites have at their disposal technology that is perfectly adapted to a nation of cocksure individualists who want to be addressed and heard directly, without mediation, and without having to leave the comforts of home.

The media counterestablishment of the right gives them that. It offers an ersatz system of direct representation in which an increasingly segmented audience absorbs what it wants from its trusted sources, embellishes it in their own voices on blogs and websites and chatrooms, then hears their views echoed back as “news.” While this system doesn’t threaten our system of representative democracy, it certainly makes it harder for it to function well and regain the public’s trust.

The conservative media did not create the Tea Party movement and do not direct it; nobody does. But the movement’s rapid growth and popularity are unthinkable without the demagogues’ new ability to tell isolated individuals worried about their futures what they want to hear and put them in direct contact with one another, bypassing the parties and other mediating institutions our democracy depends on. When the new Jacobins turn on their televisions they do not tune in to the PBSNews Hour or C-Span to hear economists and congressmen debate the effectiveness of financial regulations or health care reform. They look for shows that laud their common sense, then recite to them the libertarian credo that Fox emblazons on its home page nearly every day: YOU DECIDE.”_

Which brings me to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, about a _proposal_ by Quebecor to establish a new analog of _Fox News_ in Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebecor-eyes-fox-news-style-tv-for-canada/article1598301/


> Quebecor eyes Fox News-style TV for Canada
> *Former Harper aide spearheading bid for channel that speaks to conservative-minded Canadians*
> 
> Steven Chase And Susan Krashinsky
> ...



Now, I have little faith in any business plan coming out of _Quebecor_, Pierre Karl Pélideau always reminds me of a old, sad joke which was told about another Québec “whiz kid”:

Q: _“How do you make a small fortune?”_
A: _”start with a large one!”_

That being said there is precious little diversity in the news/commentary (they are already too intermingled for my tastes) provided by CTV/CBC/Global so I suspect a new “voice” might prosper if it has the *right* mix of “shouting heads.”


----------



## GAP (10 Jun 2010)

Well, if nothing else, it might offer an alternative to constant c-Conservative bashing that I see on a daily basis on all the present channels. 

note to self: you shouldn't have to apologize for being conservative.....even if the TV says you should.... :


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jun 2010)

Maybe, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, the new Canadian _conservative_ news channel is moving faster than I thought it might with sometime Army.ca contributor David Akin being recruited:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/fox-news-of-the-north-nabs-its-first-host/article1599162/


> 'Fox News of the North' nabs its first host
> 
> Jane Taber
> 
> ...




Who, indeed.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2010)

Progressivism and Classical Liberalism may in fact be swept away by changes happening under our feet, everything from ubiquitous communications to access to vast databased of information to the end of "credentialism" (_anyone_ can contribute to Wikipedia, or start their own blog, own band, own movie studio etc. with cheap consumer grade equipment...).

What comes next is unknown territory, the same way oligarchies or monarchies were unable to comprehend the waves of democratic or Socialist revolution.

http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/07/16/the-ancien-regime-isnt-going-out-without-a-fight



> *The Ancien Regime Isn’t Going Out Without a Fight*
> July 16, 2010 - by Ed Driscoll
> 
> Jonah Goldberg asks, “When Did the Rules Change?”
> ...


----------



## HavokFour (20 Jul 2010)

I'm going to vote Conservative for the sole purpose of not letting Dalton get in again and slip in another tax right under our noses.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jul 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> I'm going to vote Conservative for the sole purpose of not letting Dalton get in again and slip in another tax right under our noses.



I was surprised last night to watch the news and the ONT Government is encouraging the Provincial unions and Civil Servants to freeze their wages.  This after raising taxes and "Fees".  I guess they have a "Death Wish".


----------



## HavokFour (20 Jul 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I was surprised last night to watch the news and the ONT Government is encouraging the Provincial unions and Civil Servants to freeze their wages.  This after raising taxes and "Fees".  I guess they have a "Death Wish".



They know they have no chance in hell of being re-elected. All this tax BS is them lining their pockets for a comfortable retirement.

Fun fact: ███████████████████████████████████████████████████

*Edit: I am a sleep deprived derp. Disregard last statement.*


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jul 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> Fun fact: Did you know the "eco" tax here on certain items (paint, electronics, etc) doesn't even go towards environmental programs? Straight into Dalton's pocket.



You're going to have to cite *reputable* sources for a statement like that.

You've been getting a bit of a free ride since you got here, now it's time to start following the rules.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jul 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> Fun fact: Did you know the "eco" tax here on certain items (paint, electronics, etc) doesn't even go towards environmental programs? Straight into Dalton's pocket.


1)  What recceguy so eloquently said.
2)  Looks like the eco-tax is soon to be past tense:


> The McGuinty government is set to scrap its recently imposed eco fees on thousands of consumer products in the wake of consumer anger and retailer irritation.
> 
> Environment Minister John Gerretsen is expected to announce today that the Liberals will eliminate the environmental fees on thousands of potentially hazardous products -- less than three weeks after retailers were required by Stewardship Ontario to start charging customers on new products from fluorescent bulbs to fire extinguishers ....





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I was surprised last night to watch the news and the ONT Government is encouraging the Provincial unions and Civil Servants to freeze their wages.  This after raising taxes and "Fees".  I guess they have a "Death Wish".


There's always "the Rae solution"  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2010)

More on the culture wars. I never really thought Bob Dylan represented the "Left" despite what most people said, his music was and is his own. On the other hand, I had never thought of his music as representing the "Right" either:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-bridge-bob-dylan-the-ruling-class-and-the-country-class/?singlepage=true



> *The Bridge: Bob Dylan, the ‘Ruling Class,’ and the ‘Country Class’*
> How Bob Dylan checked out of the culture war.
> September 15, 2010 - by Brendan Bernhard
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Sep 2010)

While I don't agree with everything in the foregoing article, it raises some things to think about. It would be foolish to distill the left vs right comparison into simple concepts, but there's perhaps a germ of truth here. In that the conservatives prefer to be judged by their efforts or accomplishments, where liberals prefer to be judged by their beliefs. One only has to recollect how many times the term "right thinking" is uttered by the Liberals and NDP to illustrate the point here in Canada. Such a term is an anathema to a true conservative who probably doesn't care, and is not impressed by what you think but is likely more concerned or impressed by what you do.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Sep 2010)

The Conservative trope may be radically redefined in the near future, as activists like the TEA party movement rise up and consume the old party establishment. I think this was once the goal of the Reform Party movement in Canada, but after reaching a high tide in the late 90's, it seems to have faded away. I wonder what the long term will hold for the TEA partiers?

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/09/15/some-thoughts-on-the-conventional-wisdom-department-of-psephological-prognostication/?singlepage=true



> *Some Thoughts on the Conventional Wisdom, Department of Psephological Prognostication*
> September 15, 2010 - by Roger Kimball
> 
> Talking with various friends these past weeks about the upcoming election, I was often put in mind of Matthew 13:42: ibi erit fletus et stridor dentium: There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. The primaries yesterday provided a preview of what I had in mind. “Oh, those awful tea-party candidates! They’re ruining everything.”
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Sep 2010)

I think Reform helped the conservative side of the political ledger to realign, although it took long enough.  Ultimately I expect the TP to do the same thing, albeit not as destructively.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Sep 2010)

The people championing the "Conservative" (AKA Classical Liberal) cause need to work very hard to be seen as upholders of the Rule of Law and uprooters of corruption in fact as well as theory:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/lawless-legislators-the-federal-rupture-of-the-rule-of-law/?singlepage=true



> *Lawless Legislators: The Federal Rupture of the Rule of Law*
> In recent years, it has succumbed to the rule of men.
> September 24, 2010 - by Jeff Perren
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Sep 2010)

Well here is a very useful definition to keep in mind:

http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/247783/exchequer-vs-economist



> I think it’s a pretty useful heuristic: If you’re not willing to have somebody hauled off at gunpoint over the project, then it’s probably not a legitimate concern of the state.



So look around and decide which government projects so important that you could justify armed force to carry out or complete.....



Then work to eliminate the rest.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2010)

Progressivism is thrashing in Europe and the United States, and our interdependence on the global economy means there will be no insulation for us when the crash comes (Our Own Progressives are busy fighting against the current Government, and we havn't slid as far down the slope as many others....yet). This article speaks about the beginning of the fall, what Conservatives/Classical Liberals/Libertarians need to do now is not only look to the future and take active measures to protect ourselves and loved ones, but also to work to define the shape of the coming order. If we do not, the chaos will breed the "Man on the White Horse" and the changing order will become the "New Order" 

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/10/20/gone-with-the-wind/



> *Gone With The Wind*
> October 20, 2010 - by Richard Fernandez
> 
> Headlines saying the UK is cutting half a million government jobs and slashing welfare are running alongside stories describing street battles in France over plans to increase the retirement age. “Teams of riot police carried out dawn raids to free France’s oil depots on Wednesday as industry said the strikes against pension reforms were costing them at least £100 million per day.” The cuts will save Britain a paltry 81 billion pounds over four years. Even if the French government succeeds, it will only raise “the minimum retirement age by two years to 62 and the age for a full pension to 67, moves that would put France in line with other Group of Seven nations.”
> ...


----------



## ProudNewfoundlander (1 Nov 2010)

What conservatives need to do is more explicitly stand for small government and individual rights. I'm tired of conservatives babbling about "Freedom" and "Government off your back" and then use elected office to tell me who I can marry, what I can watch, what I can read, and what I can put into my body. All in the name of upholding their Moral Order; much of it influenced by the Bible


----------



## a_majoor (7 Nov 2010)

Transformation will take a long time:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janetdaley/8114728/The-West-is-turning-against-big-government-but-what-comes-next.html



> *The West is turning against big government - but what comes next?*
> The struggle to curtail the social democratic state could have ugly consequences, says Janet Daley.
> 
> By Janet Daley
> ...


----------



## Ex-SHAD (28 Nov 2010)

Since the latter half of the 1960’s and up until now, right leaning and conservative Canadians have watched in horror as the Canadian Left has slowly eroded away at our national heritage and Judeo-Christian values, replacing our honor and our pride with watered down new nationalism consisting of bashing upon the United States and applying the usage of “Eh” at the end of any sentence.  

Now for Canadians who oppose this rather tepid and uninspired “New Nationalism”, haven’t had many options in the past, other than immigrating to the United States, where they have found their new fellow citizens share with them a common bond, but also have found that every time they venture back to their country of birth, they feel more disconnected from it, to the point where one day, they either abandon their Canadian Citizenship entirely or it simply becomes a footnote to tell their children and grandchildren about.

Now the question posed to us, is how do we make conservatism both more relevant in Canadian society? I believe that by making the following changes, we can stem the exodus of right wing Canadians and make conservatism relevant in the Canadian political area.

The Issues:

Free Speech:

Now when it comes to freedom of speech, Canada would rate rather highly by international standards, but unfortunately we are not fully free to express ourselves. I would like to direct your attention towards the “Section 01” of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which includes a “Limitation Clause” which does not protect all free speech. 

Now to many conservative minded Canadians the idea that your speech could be regulated or even challenged under the law, is both fairly abhorrent and defies the freedoms in which our forefathers fought and died to defend. 

Now some will tell us that we should limit things such as hate speech, or the promotion of genocide or any other topic which we might find unpleasant. The problem with this line of thinking is that, all sides should be able to express their views, no matter how offensive, ill informed or wrong they may be. After all, the cornerstone of a democracy is the right for the citizenry to be heard, and that voice should be unimpeded, no matter what it feels the need to express.


Firearms Control:

Now many on the left would tell you, that by limiting the ability of citizenry to bear and keeps arms makes for a safer society, but this is simply not true!

For many years now, the Canadian population has had their firearms rights either abrogated or restricted to the point, where Canadian Citizens now have to take mandatory firearms courses, register their weapons with a large and ineffectual government body and finally will no doubt be found guilty if they were to ever use those weapons in defense on their own dwelling. Now thankfully our friends at the National Rifle Association, and its Canadian equivalent the National Firearms Association have helped to stem some of the ludicrous legislation put forward by those on the left, for the most part we are slowly trundling down the path to becoming a firearms free country.

After all, when did we vote to abrogate our right to self defense, and put our fate in the hands of ruffians, rapists and murderers? I for one, feel unsafe in most parts of Canada these days, as I know that if I were to be assaulted, I would no doubt be faced by an armed attacker, who could cause me grievous bodily harm or potentially kill me, but if I were to defend myself with a less than lethal alternative such as OC spray or an ASP baton, I would be treated on the same level, as those who have attempted to accost me, and God forbid if I were to use a firearm.


Gay Marriage:

Though in recent years this issue has mostly faded into the background, but for many conservative Canadians it remains a strong bone of contention. 

Now like many changes that tend to happen in modern Canadian society, rather than being put to a vote, the issue of allowing homosexuals to marry was taken out the hands of the Canadian voter and pushed through the legislative process as though it were nothing more than footnote to larger and more pressing national concerns.

Now for anyone of faith, the idea that homosexuals can marry is a fairly repulsive concept, but what furthermore puts the proverbial stick in the eye, when it comes the gay marriage debate, is the fact that men on the cloth who volunteer to serve in the Canadian Forces, are forced to allow gay marriages in their place of worship, even though their calling as a man of God, expressively forbids this practice.


Socialized Medicine:

Now some will say, that one of the greatest things about living in Canada is our access to “free healthcare” though for anyone who has had to endure the nightmare that is the Canadian healthcare system, they’d rather worry about co-pays than have to deal with the “quality” care that is the Canadian Healthcare System.

Now many activists will tell you that in the United States, that socialized medicine is a right and that they’d rather have a country that took care of everyone, and in no way would want the citizenry to have any form of personal responsibility for their healthcare needs. Now I will admit that it’s true that in the United States that many Americans are uninsured, and do not have regular access to a healthcare provider, but I can also unequivocally say that no one is ever turned away, contrary to myth popularized by the left in Canada. 

Socialized medicine, does not provide a better standard of care, and more than often it’s actually worse than if an individual did not seek treatment at all. Also, when it comes down to brass tacks, there’s no such thing as free healthcare, but instead we are simply being gouged by the government, while not having the option to seek private care, unless you leave the country.


The Solution:

If we want to create an atmosphere in Canada that is more friendly to conservatives and right wing minded people, then we must push for judicial reform when it comes to our freedom of speech and expression, and push for the repeal of “hate speech laws” and any other judicial activism that infringes on the rights of Canadian Citizens to freely express themselves.

On the issue of firearms control, conservative Canadians must educate their fellow citizens about the right to bear arms, and we must push for both the establishment of a constitutional reform that would recognize the right to keep and bear arms, along with the right to concealed carry and the right to defense of one’s property (Castle Doctrine).

With reference to the issue of gay marriage, a simple solution would be to push for a repeal of the current status of gay marriage, and then to push for constitutional reform on the issue, and hopefully allowing for the passage of a defense of marriage act, that would protect traditional marriage, and would permanently bar gay marriage on Canadian soil, or the recognition of gay marriages abroad.

Finally, when it comes to the issue of socialized medicine, the first step must be the repealing of the Canadian Healthcare Act, and allow doctors to charge what they feel is reasonable for their services. Also, the insurance industry in Canada would expand, thereby creating jobs and making for a more prosperous and healthy nation.


In conclusion, with a little bit of gumption, and willingness to seek change, conservative Canadians can again make Canada a shining city which the world would envy, and would do much to stem the “brain drain”, and make the decision to move down to the United States, a climatic one, rather than a political, economic or moral decision.


----------



## Nemo888 (28 Nov 2010)

Find a me a conservative politician who is not a demagogue and I'll vote for them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Nov 2010)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Find a me a conservative politician who is not a demagogue and I'll vote for them.



So you're saying you don't vote at all right? Every politician in Canada is a demagouoe including Count Iggy and gang and Taliban Jack et al.


----------



## GAP (28 Nov 2010)

I was going to say a lot, but on reflection......it's free speech  :



> Now some will tell us that we should limit things such as hate speech, or the promotion of genocide or any other topic which we might find unpleasant. The problem with this line of thinking is that, all sides should be able to express their views, no matter how offensive, ill informed or wrong they may be. After all, the cornerstone of a democracy is the right for the citizenry to be heard, and that voice should be unimpeded, no matter what it feels the need to express.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Nov 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> I was going to say a lot, but on reflection......


I agree. 
I spent about 10 minutes trying to draft a response, but even as a self-described conservative, I'm left with.....   :brickwall:



...who has yet to see any lemming-like exodus to the US   :


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2010)

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> Since the latter half of the 1960’s and up until now, right leaning and conservative Canadians have watched in horror as the Canadian Left has slowly eroded away at our national heritage and Judeo-Christian values, replacing our honor and our pride with watered down new nationalism consisting of bashing upon the United States and applying the usage of “Eh” at the end of any sentence.
> ...
> The Issues:
> 
> ...




Many will not be surprised that I, a self-described _classical liberal_ (which, generally, is taken to mean modern conservative), disagree with you.

Freedom of speech is not a conservative/liberal issue; it is a freeman vs subject issue. You are correct in the symptom, hate speech and embarrassment are not, in any way, sufficient to restrict the *right* to free expression of opinion, subject only to a few (existing) laws about inciting violence and the like, but I think you are wrong in the 'cure.' The right cure is a change in social attitudes which will, in due course, rid us of Human Rights Tribunals and all that trash. 

Firearms control is a political but, mainly, bureaucratic or _management_ issue. Both liberal and conservatives may, and do, support or oppose ranges of firearms control measures.

Gay Marriage is not a political issue. Marriage itself ought not to be a political marriage. It is a religious custom that need not and should not be regulated in any way at all by the state – again subject only to not being cruel to animals, etc. Child rearing and support are not 'marriage' issues but  children can and should be protected in law. Gay marriage does not matter to any *real* classic liberal/,modern conservative; it does matter to a religious minority which must never be allowed to impose its views on the rest of us.

Heath care is, inevitably, an economic and _management_ issue. It will, eventually, be resolved because the existing system is economically unsustainable. Again both liberals and conservatives will hold ranges of views about the 'right' mix of solutions but some mix is on the way.


----------



## observor 69 (28 Nov 2010)

E.R. would you call yourself a Progressive Conservative or the new Conservative?
Here's hoping the answer is Progressive Conservative.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> E.R. would you call yourself a Progressive Conservative or the new Conservative?
> Here's hoping the answer is Progressive Conservative.




I've been a Conservative voter ever since Trudeau; before that I was a Liberal. I have been an active monetary supporter of the Conservative Party (in its various guises) since I retired from the military.

I thought and still think that Pierre Trudeau was a national political, policy and economic disaster: without a doubt the worst person ever to hold high office in Canada. I despaired through the essentially Liberal Mulroney years and even worse through the Trudeau rudux era of Chrétien. Harper is modestly more *classically l*iberal than he is _neo_-*c*onservative which makes him the only half decent prime minister since 1967.

What I cannot abide are:

1. Economic illiterates - e.g. the BQ, NDP and over half of the current Liberal caucus;

2. Policy vandals - everyone who thinks Trudeau was anything other than a nightmare; and

3. The religious right - who are entitled to their opinions but who must never, ever be allowed to try to impose them on you and me.

But, you know, if the Liberals had half the brains the gods gave to green peppers and had they, therefore, drafted John Manley to be leader a couple of years ago, and had he disavowed the Trudeau legacy - not in so many words, of course, I might be a Liberal today.


----------



## Nemo888 (28 Nov 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So you're saying you don't vote at all right? Every politician in Canada is a demagouoe including Count Iggy and gang and Taliban Jack et al.



I always vote locally, but not always nationally. I generally hate party politics. Party tribalism subverts the Democratic process. I agree that all parties are ruled by demagogues. 

I think the best  conservative in recent memory was Paul Martin. Turned around a 42 billion dollar annual deficit and paid down 36 billion in debt. Had the balls to restructure CPP so we might actually get pensions when we retire unlike the gutless Americans. In his first budget as leader he brought in increased armed forces spending and national childcare with NO deficit  and even reduced corporate taxes. Started the public investigation into the sponsorship scandal.

He was more great accountant than demagogue. No charisma.

 No wonder Liberals axed him. He was the best Conservative PM in living memory.


----------



## GAP (28 Nov 2010)

> In his first budget as leader he brought in increased armed forces spending and national childcare with NO deficit  and even reduced corporate taxes.



Really? 

Those nasty Conservatives must of got rid of that childcare thingy.....damn.....


----------



## Nemo888 (28 Nov 2010)

What does that even mean? He balanced budgets and was fiscally responsible. True Conservative values. Maybe if we could throw out Harper and make McKay the leader the Conservatives might actually have a chance at a majority. Harper is just not great leader material. The left won't stay split forever. They will do what the Reform and Conservatives had to do in the end.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Nov 2010)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The left won't stay split forever. They will do what the Reform and Conservatives had to do in the end.



There's no way the NDP and Liberals will ever merge. The NDP is far too stuck in the 1950s socialism to ever be a real threat to lead the country, the Liberals only need their votes now because they can't figure out who to lead the party because they really have no platform than "whatever the public wants".


----------



## Nemo888 (28 Nov 2010)

They will form a coalition. Which they can do even with a split vote.  Harper is a lame duck and can't get a majority. The only person I can think of to replace him (who could get a majority) is McKay. Harper needs to go.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Nov 2010)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> They will form a coalition. Which they can do even with a split vote.  Harper is a lame duck and can't get a majority. The only person I can think of to replace him (who could get a majority) is McKay. Harper needs to go.



Any coalition would have to be absolute, ie: no conditional membership like the BQ in the last attempt. I suggest that talk of a coalition has to be brought forward early in an election so as not to appear to shanghai the vote after the fact. Notwithstanding, I doubt that the Libs or NDP will stand on principle in the next election any more than they did in the last. After all, both leaders categorically dismissed the possibility of a coalition, and then attempted to form one almost immediately after the vote tally.

Unfortunately, Mr Harper is violently disliked by the MSM which uses their privileged position to cast him in a many negative slants as they can. I wager a third minority government for the Conservatives will force a leadership review that Mr McKay might well win.

My  :2c:


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Nov 2010)

Harper's done very well with what he's given. I'm pretty sure this is the longest serving minority government in Canadian history, which is something at the least. His leadership style, however, doesn't lend well to most people. I do think Peter McKay would make a good leader (and garner those extra votes for a majority), especially with being the MND during the majority of the Afghanistan Conflict. I think Iggy's one misstep away from either a snap election in which he'll fail miserably, or a leadership review. Either way he's gone.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Nov 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think Iggy's one misstep away from either a snap election in which he'll fail miserably, or a leadership review.



Neither of which would be bad for the Conservatives. Looking at potential replacements for Mr Ignateff, Bob Rae is almost universally hated in Ontario, and Denis Coderre is almost universally hated in Quebec. 

I look forward to the ensuing "night of the long knives".


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2010)

I am still of the opinion that the Liberal Party has passed the best before date (several bloggers have pointed out the Liberal decline actually began in the 1990's when they essentially became an Ontario only party; today they are dug into Toronto and even that stronghold is being attacked at bayonet point by the Conservatives, NDP and Greens).

If there is any hope for the Canadian Left to regain power, the NDP (as the largest and best organized national party) will have to take the lead and court the Orange Liberals, the Bloc and the Greens to create a unified Socialist Alliance Party. 

If the Conservatives want to gain a majority, I will take the counterintuative approach and say they need to ditch "Liberal lite" and openly stand for "Classical Liberal" principles. The TEA party movement in the United States demonstrates that people do believe in principles and will support politicians who will act on these principles (how well this actually works in practice is going to be interesting to watch). This might also trigger a "coalition of the winners" as Blue Liberals caucus with the CPC as a better vehicle to express their values.

I would think that the current stalemate should have people thinking of out of the box approaches, so expect strange trial baloons and shifting alliances as the parties experiment to break the logjam.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Dec 2010)

I figured this was really the only relevant topic to put this. Harper isn't this evil robot the media seems to make him out to be. Yes he knows the politics game well, and plays it heavy-handedly, but I contend he needs to do that to keep the minority government running (its worked wonders so far). My proof that he's not a robot? This video of 2 songs he performed at the Conservative Caucus Christmas party, not for a photo-op, but to entertain his party members. He's actually not that bad at singing either, I'd invite him out to karaoke.

The video: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101208/harper-piano-tories-101208/ Includes 2 songs, Sweet Caroline and Jumpin Jack Flash.


----------



## Redeye (9 Dec 2010)

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> Since the latter half of the 1960’s and up until now, right leaning and conservative Canadians have watched in horror as the Canadian Left has slowly eroded away at our national heritage and Judeo-Christian values, replacing our honor and our pride with watered down new nationalism consisting of bashing upon the United States and applying the usage of “Eh” at the end of any sentence.
> 
> Now for Canadians who oppose this rather tepid and uninspired “New Nationalism”, haven’t had many options in the past, other than immigrating to the United States, where they have found their new fellow citizens share with them a common bond, but also have found that every time they venture back to their country of birth, they feel more disconnected from it, to the point where one day, they either abandon their Canadian Citizenship entirely or it simply becomes a footnote to tell their children and grandchildren about.
> 
> ...



Broadly we don't have the freedom not to be offended, but one should no more have the right to incite hate or violence than they should have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.  Use of the law to restrict freedom of expression should be (and interestingly enough, is) rarely used, only under the most extreme of circumstances.



			
				Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> Firearms Control:
> 
> Now many on the left would tell you, that by limiting the ability of citizenry to bear and keeps arms makes for a safer society, but this is simply not true!
> 
> ...



Right.  Because America with its fairly "liberal"/"permissive" stance on firearms ownership is so safe, and proves that proliferation of firearms without much for control makes for so much more orderly a state.  I have no problem with reasonable and prudent restrictions on access to firearms.  Mandating background checks, safe handling training, etc doesn't strike me as a particularly big intrusion.  Neither, really, does registration.  I oppose it on the more practical basis of the fact that it doesn't do anything.  And I own firearms. Plural.



			
				Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> Gay Marriage:
> 
> Though in recent years this issue has mostly faded into the background, but for many conservative Canadians it remains a strong bone of contention.
> 
> ...



For anyone of faith?  Well, it seems you're wrong there.  Many churches in Canada embrace the reality that some people happen to be homosexual because that's the way they are, and presumably, in the eyes of someone of faith, the way "God" made them.  Last time I checked, no religious organization is compelled to marry anyone that doesn't meet their requirements.  A Roman Catholic priest could refuse to marry me just as easily as they could choose to refuse to marry a gay couple, and to the best of my knowledge, none of us would have any recourse.  Why has this issue faded into the background?  Because it's done, the sky didn't fall and won't fall, and we've all moved on.



			
				Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> Socialized Medicine:
> 
> Now some will say, that one of the greatest things about living in Canada is our access to “free healthcare” though for anyone who has had to endure the nightmare that is the Canadian healthcare system, they’d rather worry about co-pays than have to deal with the “quality” care that is the Canadian Healthcare System.
> 
> ...



No one is ever turned away.  Right.  And who pays for that care, generally administered by emergency rooms at very high cost, and often for things that preventative medicine might have abated?  Oh yeah, EVERYONE.  Sounds pretty socialized to me already, so why not actually have a universal insurance system so that everyone can access care?

I like your "better standard of care" canard.  Numerous studies would argue differently, but why let facts get in the way.  Private systems deliver excellent care for those lucky enough to be able to afford access, but what of those who cannot.  What of those who for all the personal responsibility they feel cannot afford adequate insurance, or worse, cannot obtain it due to pre-existing conditions.  What of those who have their insurance rescinded or realize that it doesn't cover enough?  I'm pretty glad I'll never face that nightmare.  I'm married to an American who's experienced both systems.  She has a chronic condition that would give any insurer in the States a convenient excuse to deny her coverage.  Guess which system she'd rather deal with.

Anyone who thinks healthcare is "free" is of course an idiot.  There's room to improve our system, yes, but you will never convince a majority Canadians that universal healthcare is a bad thing, and any improvements will need to be made within that context.



			
				Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> The Solution:
> 
> If we want to create an atmosphere in Canada that is more friendly to conservatives and right wing minded people, then we must push for judicial reform when it comes to our freedom of speech and expression, and push for the repeal of “hate speech laws” and any other judicial activism that infringes on the rights of Canadian Citizens to freely express themselves.



Provide a specific example of how such laws in any way have been used to unjustly infringe on the rights of anyone.  Then maybe I'll take you seriously.



			
				Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> On the issue of firearms control, conservative Canadians must educate their fellow citizens about the right to bear arms, and we must push for both the establishment of a constitutional reform that would recognize the right to keep and bear arms, along with the right to concealed carry and the right to defense of one’s property (Castle Doctrine).



Good luck with this argument.  That right doesn't exist in Canada, it never has (except by a very liberal interpretation of English Common Law) , and I stand a better chance of accomplishing the (actually physically possible) task of walking through a concrete wall than ever seeing Castle Doctrine being accepted in Canada.  Ditto with CCW.



			
				Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> With reference to the issue of gay marriage, a simple solution would be to push for a repeal of the current status of gay marriage, and then to push for constitutional reform on the issue, and hopefully allowing for the passage of a defense of marriage act, that would protect traditional marriage, and would permanently bar gay marriage on Canadian soil, or the recognition of gay marriages abroad.



Great, so we'll reopen an idiotic and pointless debate (that's rather ironically unconservative, why should the government have any say over the matter to begin with) so it can go before the courts who will then again rule the same way on the whole thing.  Anything else we should waste a bunch of time and money on while we're at it?



			
				Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> Finally, when it comes to the issue of socialized medicine, the first step must be the repealing of the Canadian Healthcare Act, and allow doctors to charge what they feel is reasonable for their services. Also, the insurance industry in Canada would expand, thereby creating jobs and making for a more prosperous and healthy nation.



Good luck!



			
				Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> In conclusion, with a little bit of gumption, and willingness to seek change, conservative Canadians can again make Canada a shining city which the world would envy, and would do much to stem the “brain drain”, and make the decision to move down to the United States, a climatic one, rather than a political, economic or moral decision.



Thanks for this post illustrating exactly why conservativism has waned in Canada and will continue to do so.


----------



## Nemo888 (9 Dec 2010)

Ex-Shad,

All these issues are irrelvant. No electable party would dare change legislation on any of those issues. Though many will make noises about them in the time leading up to an election to play to the base of single issue voters. Single issue have a voter turn out 3 to 5 times greater than the average lazy Canadian. Playing to your single issue gives you the ability to punch above your weight at the ballot box. But if you play to them too much you lose centrist voters which are the majority.

Free Speech limits in the constitution are irrelevant. I can think of no one being prosecuted currently.

Easing firearms restrictions would please rural voters and alienate urban ones and a disproportionate number of women.

Ending gay marriage would destroy your urban votes. Most people in cities know gay people. If they have been around awhile they know how bad things were when AIDS was in full swing. People were dying and their mates had no access to their  pensions, health insurance or had medical power of attorney. Leaving family members who had not been spoken to in over 20 years to handle the estate. Often not letting them see their dying life mate. That is what started the gay rights movement in the first place(@Mario below IMO not many straight people cared until this started happening en masse). The majority of urban voters would write you off as an insensitive jerk.

Ending socialized medicine would alienate almost everyone. Letting the poor suffer in a very rich country is about an un-Canadian as you can get. That issue alone would lose you 75% of the vote immediately.

I hope the Conservative party would wake up and stop pandering to this base. 90% plus of the issues government faces are economic. These issues are noisy distractions. There has been no movement on any of these issue since 2005. But what are they doing about the record deficit? How will Canada deal with the American economy going down the toilet perhaps for decades (see Japan)? So what did we learn from the financial meltdown? Are Laissez Faire and trickle down the best models for growth and prosperity or can strengthening the middle class allow society to make larger gains? Should something be done about the insane level of income disparity?

Your already have a party. You don't need to make Conservatives irrelevant. It's called the Christian Heritage Party. The Conservative party wants to be elected. Your regressive ideas are the touch of death to a majority government.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Dec 2010)

What evil lurks in the hearts of politicians?  The Shad knows.


----------



## mariomike (9 Dec 2010)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Ending gay marriage would destroy your urban votes. Most people in cities know gay people. If they have been around awhile they know how bad things were when AIDS was in full swing. People were dying and their mates had no access to their  pensions, health insurance or had medical power of attorney. Leaving family members who had not been spoken to in over 20 years to handle the estate. Often not letting them see their dying life mate. That is what started the gay rights movement in the first place. The majority of urban voters would write you off as an insensitive jerk.



I believe Operation Soap started the gay rights movement in Canada.
Toronto: 7 Feb 1981
"3,000 go on rampage in Metro riot: Homosexuals protest steambath police raids"

"The event is now considered one of the crucial turning points in Canadian LGBT history, as an unprecedented community mobilization took place to protest police conduct. One of the protest marches during this mobilization is now generally recognized as the first Toronto Pride event.":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history_in_Canada#1981


Edit to add. Yellow highlights mine. - mm
This was before AIDS was first reported.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2010)

The ongoing existence of "Human Rights" tribunals and commissions is the ongoing threat to freedom of speech and expression, particularly in the fact there are no standards of process or evidence such as found in Courts of Law. Several Canadian Bloggers are being prosecuted (or perhaps persecuted is the correct word) under these provisions.

You can be accused and never face (or even know) your accuser, sessions are held in camera to prevent the public from knowing what goes on, hearsay is allowed as evidence while the truth is not allowed as a defense (Mark Steyn and Maclean's Magazine were accused and prosecuted for accurately quoting a European Iman, and the accusers were able to "shop" for jurisdictions and eventually filed identical complaints in BC, Ontario and the CHRC). Luckily, Saskatchewan has struck a blow for freedom by eliminating Tribunals and forcing the commission to take complaints into the Court system where rules of procedure and evidence will be enforced.

We also have the arbitrary powers of the CRTC, which in its infinite wisdom, "deemed" that Canadians were "satisfied" with their existing service and simply refused to hear the application of QMI for a new television channel; a procedural trick which makes it impossible to appeal. Canadians who are satisfied with existing services can keep them, Canadians who are *not* satisfied are not given a choice in the matter. (If Canadians really were "satisfied", QMI would not have sensed an unmet demand and started the project; if they are wrong, they will loose their shirts and few will be the worse for it).

Unfettered and unaccountable powers by unelected bureaucrats is the biggest single threat to freedom, and the Conservatives have a potential "two-fer"; they can reign in the debt by defunding and eliminating many of these unaccountable agencies, or sharply limiting their powers (the CRTC should simply be in charge of auctioning off spectrum and ensuring there is no technical overlapping of frequency bands; there is no need to control what we watch or listen to).


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Dec 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...
> Unfettered and unaccountable powers by unelected bureaucrats is the biggest single threat to freedom, and the Conservatives have a potential "two-fer"; they can reign in the debt by defunding and eliminating many of these unaccountable agencies, or sharply limiting their powers *(the CRTC should simply be in charge of auctioning off spectrum and ensuring there is no technical overlapping of frequency bands; there is no need to control what we watch or listen to)*.




Without boring everyone with technical details, that is not what the CRTC can or should do. It (spectrum management) is already done, competently, by Industry Canada.

The CRTC does have one useful role: when Industry Canada says "there are _n_ AM radio, _n'_ FM radio and _n*_ VHF and UHF TV Channels in ________ region," then someone must decide who gets to use them. That role rests with the CRTC in Canada. Since the "good old days" of the Board of Broadcast Governors the CRTC's powers have been expanded, usually unnecessarily, into various other areas like telephony (which is no longer a monopoly that _needs_ regulation) and cable (which has, practically, limitless bandwidth). One could, even, argue that broadcast licence auctions would suffice for station assignments, too.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The CRTC does have one useful role: when Industry Canada says "there are _n_ AM radio, _n'_ FM radio and _n*_ VHF and UHF TV Channels in ________ region," then someone must decide who gets to use them. That role rests with the CRTC in Canada. Since the "good old days" of the Board of Broadcast Governors the CRTC's powers have been expanded, usually unnecessarily, into various other areas like telephony (which is no longer a monopoly that _needs_ regulation) and cable (which has, practically, limitless bandwidth). One could, even, argue that broadcast licence auctions would suffice for station assignments, too.



Thanks for the clarification, this is what I was trying to say, but poor wording on my part muddled the picture.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Dec 2010)

What Conservatives (Classical Liberals, libertarians etc.) have to do to win the culture wars:

http://blogs.forbes.com/objectivist/2010/12/27/can-arthur-brooks-beat-back-big-government/



> *Can Arthur Brooks Beat Back Big Government?*
> Dec. 27 2010 - 1:11 pm | 252 views | 3 recommendations | 4 comments
> posted by YARON BROOK AND DON WATKINS
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Dec 2010)

Personally, I think today's society is all about the pursuit of happiness... provided someone else does the work.


----------



## Nemo888 (28 Dec 2010)

Ayn Rand Thucydides? Do you actually know what Ayn Rand stood for?



> Rand advocated the right to legal abortion.[93] She opposed involuntary military conscription (the "draft")[94] and any form of censorship, including legal restrictions on pornography.[95] Rand opposed racism, and any legal application of racism, and she considered affirmative action to be an example of legal racism.[96] As a life-long atheist Rand rejected organized religion and specifically Christianity, which she decreed "the best kindergarten of communism possible."[97] More recent Objectivists have argued that religion is incompatible with American ideals, and the Christian right poses a threat to individual rights.[98] Objectivists have argued against faith-based initiatives,[99] displaying religious symbols in government facilities,[100] and the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools.[101] Objectivists have opposed the environmentalist movement as being hostile to technology and, therefore, to humanity itself.[102] Objectivists have also opposed a number of government activities commonly supported by both liberals and conservatives, including antitrust laws,[103] public education,[104] and child labor laws.[105]
> 
> 93 ^ Rand 1964, p. 103
> 94 ^ Rand, Ayn (1989). "Of Living Death". The Voice of Reason. Edited by Leonard Peikoff. New York: New American Library. ISBN 0-453-00634-5.
> ...



This platform of Extreme Conservatism looks like a great election platform,....if you like LOSING! Why not try something, well, more conservative.  Most people like antitrust laws, public education, and child labor laws. I know I do.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Dec 2010)

As a matter of fact I do know what Objectivism is about, and have read Ayn Rand. IF you re read the post carefully, you will see the central argument of that post concerns the idea of who our work and effort should be directed towards.

One does not have to be an Objectivist to believe that a person is the arbitrator of their own efforts and should collect the rewards of their work, likewise one does not have to be an Objectivist to suggest that charity is giving of yourself, not forced redistribution of your time and effort ("Spreading the wealth around" to quote a well known political figure).

Remember, there is nothing to stop you, personally, from treating with people who share your values, or withdrawing your trade and association with people who do not share your values, donating to charities of your choice or personally volunteering to help others. The argument is really should you be forced to contribute to causes you do not support, and by extention, is it moral to strip you of resources which you could have contributed to causes you do support?


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2011)

“ 	_I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies._"
  	
— William Tyler Page, The American's Creed

From the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/21/AR2011012106907.html



> *An anti-authority creed*
> By George F. Will
> Sunday, January 23, 2011
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2011)

Another burr under the saddle that is driving the conservative movement in the US and to a lesser extent throughout the world. Why be played for a sucker when you can join frces and make real changes to the system?

Instapundit 30 Jan 2011



> CHANGE: The Squeezing Of The Middle Class.
> 
> Another sign of the coming middle class anarchy? If the middle class gives up on the rule of law, beware.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2011)

An interesting take on an ancient philosopher. Since Conservatism, Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are all about how _individuals_ deal with rights, property and freedom, Sun Tzu has some sage advice on how to deal with bureaucratic States which value rules in order to try to eliminate uncertainty (which is of course impossible in a universe with infinite degrees of freedom. See also the Local Knowledge Problem)

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/stratblog/2011/02/08/sun-tzu-the-enemy-of-the-bureaucratic-mind/



> Sun Tzu: The Enemy of the Bureaucratic Mind
> Walter Russell Mead
> 
> Reading Sun Tzu’s classic The Art of War for the Bard grand strategy seminar this winter was an unsettling experience.  Of course, that is the point.  The Art of War is one of those books that doesn’t want to sit there in your lap; it wants to reach up and slap you in the face.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2011)

The End of the Beginning

An interesting Youtube clip which attempts to explain the historical forces which unleashed "Progressiveism" and the realignment of forces which spell the end of that particular philosophy. What comes in the Post Progressive age isn't clear, but we can see some foretastes in the use of Internet and other technologies to create our own social, political and economic networks outside of centralized control. (Think of shopping on Amazon.com. Also think of how Amazon.com shoppers don't have to pay tax on their purchases...)


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Mar 2011)

One of the most insightful comments on the subject:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good﻿ of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

 – C. S. Lewis


----------



## a_majoor (12 Mar 2011)

The idea that libertarianism is a social movement rather than a polirtical one fascenates me. Here is another example of libertarian/objectivist tropes slipping into the mainstream by seemingly stealth means:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-objectivist-with-the-dragon-tattoo/?singlepage=true

[/quote]
*The Objectivist with the Dragon Tattoo*

With his Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy, for reasons that will likely forever remain unknown, a Scandinavian leftist managed to create a libertarian parable for the ages.
March 12, 2011 - by Benjamin Kerstein Share |  

One of the strangest publishing phenomena in recent memory is the extraordinary international success of Stieg Larsson’s Millennium trilogy. A semi-famous left-wing Swedish journalist who died young and relatively uncelebrated, the three mystery novels Larsson wrote before his death, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played with Fire, and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest, have sold millions of copies worldwide, gained a dedicated cult of adoring fans, spawned a hugely popular Swedish film series, and set in motion a Hollywood remake directed by celebrated filmmaker David Fincher.

There is really only one reason for the massive success of Larsson’s trilogy: a fascinating, unique, and entirely fictional young woman named Lisbeth Salander. While the books’ Swedish setting, their overtones of political and social criticism, and their main character, the plodding journalist and obvious Larsson alter ego Michael Blomquist, are interesting variations on the conventional mystery, it is Salander who elevates the proceedings into something entirely new in crime fiction.

Women have figured in detective novels before, of course, all the way back to Agatha Christie’s whimsically menacing old spinster Miss Marple, but there has never been anything like Lisbeth Salander. A genius computer hacker with a photographic memory, Salander is also a bisexual, possibly autistic, anti-social misfit who stalks the streets of Stockholm with a punk haircut and a face full of piercings. A victim of longtime physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, Salander is given to fits of barely controlled violence directed against those who have exploited, abused, and wronged her. She is now a role model and hero to women worldwide, mainly because of the brutal and uncompromising revenge she takes on the rapists, murderers, and other assorted criminals she encounters over the course of the Millennium trilogy. She — and her popularity — are also a glorious spanner in the works of what, on the surface, appear to be the very conventional liberal politics of Larsson’s books.

Larsson’s personal political views are not in doubt. He was a longtime member of the Swedish radical left, and his magazine Expo was famous for exposing the dark underbelly of the Swedish right wing. In an early and now invalidated will, he went so far as to leave all his assets to the local communist party. At first glance, the novels seem to follow Larsson’s ideology fairly closely. Blomquist, Larsson’s alter ego, is an aging libertine who carries on a longtime affair with another man’s wife — with her husband’s knowledge — and spends his time bedding numerous women while congratulating himself for not bowing to conventional social expectations. The Expo-like magazine he runs is all but identical to Larsson’s own. The books themselves deal with subjects like rampant violence against women, trafficking in prostitutes, and the crimes, conspiracies, and cover-ups engineered by the collusion between government and big business. Indeed, there are moments when the books seem to stop dead in their tracks so that one of Larsson’s characters can deliver an NPR-style bromide on a subject dear to the liberal heart.

In the midst of all of this, Lisbeth Salander explodes like a grenade tossed into an ammunition dump. Ferociously individualist, incorruptible, disdainful, and suspicious of all forms of social organization, and dedicated to her own personal moral code, Salander often seems to have stepped into Larsson’s world from out of an Ayn Rand novel. She despises all institutions, whether they are business corporations, government agencies, or the Stockholm police. Rejecting all forms of ideology, she is dedicated only to her own individual sense of justice. Relentlessly cerebral, she trusts only what she can ascertain with her own mind and her own formidable talents. She considers Blomquist a naïve fool because of his belief that social conditions cause people to commit the horrible crimes he investigates. At one point, as Blomquist ponders the motivations of a brutal serial killer, Salander erupts, “He’s just a pig who hates women!” Salander believes there are no excuses, everyone is responsible for their own actions, including herself, and must answer for them accordingly.

In short, Salander is as close to an avenging angel libertarianism is ever likely to get, and her presence in the novels throws the books’ politics into a bizarre contradiction. Far from the left-wing bromide in favor of democratic socialism it appears to be, the Millennium trilogy, as Ian MacDougall has pointed out in the leftist journal n+1, often appears on second glance like a calculated and relentless evisceration of the Swedish welfare state. Indeed, not only is Salander a walking rebuke to the myths of Scandinavian socialism, but she  is usually portrayed by Larsson as being absolutely correct in her attitude toward it. “In this Sweden,” MacDougall writes:

The country’s well-polished façade belies a broken apparatus of government whose rusty flywheels are little more than the playthings of crooks. The doctors are crooked. The bureaucrats are crooked. The newspapermen are crooked. The industrialists and businessmen, laid bare by merciless transparency laws, are nevertheless crooked. The police and the prosecutors are crooked.

In Larsson’s world, it is only the individual — usually Salander — with their own personal sense of right and wrong and the courage to act on it, who can save the day.

It is, perhaps, telling that millions of readers around the world, whatever their political orientation, have become fans of the Millennium series and especially of Lisbeth Salander. Indeed, it appears that Steig Larsson, though he himself might have been horrified at the prospect, gave birth to one of the great literary ironies of our time: for reasons that will likely forever remain unknown, a Scandinavian leftist managed to create a libertarian parable for the ages.

Benjamin Kerstein is a writer and editor who lives in Tel Aviv.
[/quote]


----------



## a_majoor (4 Apr 2011)

Anti-Intellectualism is a charge often trotted out by opponents of conservative thought. Here is an interesting debate on the front page of Instapundit today (04 April 11):

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/



> *"A DEFENSE OF “ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM:”*
> 
> Part of the problem is that the American distrust of intellectualism is itself not the irrational thing that those sympathetic to intellectuals would like to think. Intellectuals killed by the millions in the 20th century, and it actually takes the sophisticated training of “education” to work yourself up into a state where you refuse to count that in the books. Intellectuals routinely declared things that aren’t true; catastrophically wrong predictions about the economy, catastrophically wrong pronouncements about foreign policy, and just generally numerous times where they’ve been wrong. Again, it takes a lot of training to ignore this fact. “Scientists” collectively were witnessed by the public flipflopping at a relatively high frequency on numerous topics; how many times did eggs go back and forth between being deadly and beneficial? Sure the media gets some blame here but the scientists played into it, each time confidently pronouncing that this time they had it for sure and it is imperative that everyone live the way they are saying (until tomorrow). Scientists have failed to resist politicization across the board, and the standards of what constitutes science continues to shift from a living, vibrant, thoughtful understanding of the purposes and ways of science to a scelerotic hide-bound form-over-substance version of science where papers are too often written to either explicitly attract grants or to confirm someone’s political beliefs… and regardless of whether this is 2% or 80% of the papers written today it’s nearly 100% of the papers that people hear about.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Apr 2011)

The growth of the conservatives in Canada, the TEA party movement in the United States and the growth of libertarianism as a social movement may all be related to the "preference cascade", as the control of information and the "narrative" is broken by the communications revolution:

http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2011/04/american-preference-cascade.html



> *The American “Preference Cascade”*
> 
> What’s a “preference cascade?” It’s people who believed they were alone in their beliefs who suddenly find out that they are part of a much larger group. It’s human nature to not want to be an oddball. It’s human nature not to want to be a one-man revolution. It’s when you find out that most of the people around you share your views that revolutions are made.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 May 2011)

When the poor voted for the CPC it puzzled the members of the Poverty industry. Weirdly the Star seems to get it:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/989087--goar-why-the-poor-cast-votes-for-conservatives?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4dcb1f9ba9299fa0,0



> *Goar: Why the poor cast votes for Conservatives*
> Published On Wed May 11 2011
> 
> By Carol Goar Editorial Board
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 May 2011)

Political philosophy in 3 min or less:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-buzVjYQvY&feature=player_embedded#at=65


----------



## a_majoor (24 May 2011)

An interesting conversion from Progressivism; the author's book is intended to bring other people into the Classical Liberal fold. Small side note. I once attended a seminar by the Institute for Liberal Studies being held at the University in Windsor. After a program break, the meeting resumed with about 20 new people in attendance. Most left at the next break, but I talked to the one who stayed. The group had thought the seminar was by the Liberal Party of Canada, most left after the session because we were tlking about property rights and other Classical Liberal ideas. He stayed, which in that unscientific sample was a 1:20 conversion rate. Much work indeed....:

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/05/23/david-mamets-progress/



> *David Mamet’s Progress*
> 
> Posted By Roger L Simon On May 23, 2011 @ 10:19 pm In Uncategorized | 3 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 May 2011)

A bit of a backwards view, but since the current Conservative government isn't very....conservative....there may be some merit to this avenue of attack. OTOH, I am afraid that Edward has Canadians pretty well pegged when he makes the split 25% TEA party movement candidates, 50% Status Quo and the other 25% not caring enough to get involved. Still, an internal takeover of party machinery might have some effect, look at the amount of coverage generated by the very small number of Christian evangelecals in the Conservative movement. Now if up to 40% of the CPC membership had alligence the TEA party principles..... >

http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/92486



> *Glenn Harlan Reynolds: Tea Party movement likely to have unglamorous but effective future*
> 
> By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds 05/02/10 3:00 AM
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jun 2011)

An interesting look at the difference between political "elites" and the rest of us. The different values and mind sets of people with nominally the same sets of political values is interesting:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/palin-paul-revere-and-republicanism/?print=1



> *Palin, Paul Revere, and Republicanism*
> Posted By Rick Richman On June 11, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Culture,History,Media,Politics,US News | 1 Comment
> 
> We all know a little more about Paul Revere than we did a week ago, thanks to Sarah  Palin – or more accurately, thanks to the avalanche of posts analyzing what she meant by her impromptu response [1] to an unrecorded question about Revere:
> ...


----------



## Redeye (11 Jun 2011)

Why on earth is anyone still defending Sarah Palin?!

The only people who should be wanting her to have any continued role in politics are comedians.

And the idae that people "conceded she was right" is rather ridiculous.  Her answer made it very, very clear that she had no idea what Paul Revere actually did and how it was connected to the Old North Church.  The great thing about her is that every question put to her is a "gotcha" question.

She's a pathetic sideshow, and I don't understand why anyone cares.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> An interesting look at the difference between political "elites" and the rest of us. The different values and mind sets of people with nominally the same sets of political values is interesting:
> 
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/palin-paul-revere-and-republicanism/?print=1


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Why on earth is anyone still defending Sarah Palin?!
> 
> The only people who should be wanting her to have any continued role in politics are comedians.
> 
> ...




Sadly, especially for US Republicans but, equally, for the _substance_ of US politics, Palin matters. She is a *celebrity* and, like Oprah, she is much loved, even 'revered' in our celebrity obsessed, "gimme" culture.

The US Democrats, a fairly well disciplined mob, have people who are equally "pathetic" but they do a better job of sidelining them - a function in which they are aided by a media that is, broadly - but not deeply, anti-Republican.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jun 2011)

I understand that you can contrast as often as you can compare - and it has been pointed out that some people don't accept this analogy - but I see Sarah Palin acting in the Aimee Semple Macpherson mode.  Love her or hate her she has a following and is consequently an influential person - Just like Oprah and just like Jack Layton.

And failure to communicate in rounded Oxbridge-Harvard vowels and clearly enunciated syllables should never be confused with a lack of intelligence.   Some of the most adept problem-solvers I have encountered never got past grade 8 and equally some of the most vacuous twits have been the overly proud bearers of MBAs.

Sarah will not be wished away any more than Rush Limbaugh or Barack Obama will.  She is part of the discourse.  Will she become President?  Hard to say but I would bet against it.  Would she make a good President?  Equally hard to say but I wouldn't bet against it.  There have been a whole lot of underperformers that have held that position over the years and she at least has put in some time learning and practising the craft.

I wonder if Andrew Jackson  could get elected these days?

There's a life that would keep the tabloids profitable.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jun 2011)

Governor Palin's political aspirations are not the point of the article, rather the response of the so called political and media elites.

It is interesting to note that Governor Palin is a more or less self made person, who does not have credentials from some Ivy League university. Paul Rervere was also a self made person by the standards of the 1700's, and was also kept at arms length from the centers of power and influence in the American revolution. Revere never achieved the sort of influence Governor Palin has today, but was indeed a powerful spokesman for the ideals of a meritocracy as the driving ideal of America after the revolution. It would be interesting to imagine how things might have turned out if people like PAul Revere had access to modern communications technologies...

As for her political aspirations, she has most of what is needed for success in American politics, name recognition, money, and a large band of followers spread across the United States. It is quite possible she may run, and it is equally possible she will be satisfied to remain a kingmaker like she did in the 2010 mid terms. If she is a king maker, she can probably trade that into a cabinet post and continue to build and refine her own organization for 2020. We will be hearing from Governor Palin for a long time to come.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jun 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...
> ... We will be hearing from Governor Palin for a long time to come.




That is almost certainly true, but she's not, in my opinion, the person from whom American needs to hear. Who is that person? Who is the (Republican) politician who will say, "we need to cut spending and raise taxes - a national carbon tax - and the cuts to spending need to include big, Big, BIG cuts to entitlements and to defence spending, too." I don't know, but when (s)he shows up and speaks up I bet Americans will vote for him/her.


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Jun 2011)

Agree Thucydides. How quick one here is to jump on the same bandwagon. He doesn't get it. 

This link is for you Redeye. I am sure you will be able dig something here to validate your views: MSNBC’s searchable database of the emails can be found at http://palinemail.msnbc.msn.com

What a waste of time and money.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska, June 11 (Reuters) - More than *24,000 pages* of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s emails show her getting to grips with mundane state issues, feuding with the media and dealing with her sudden rise to national prominence, but do not appear to contain any damaging material.

The six cartons of documents include emails from Palin’s official account as well as two private Yahoo accounts — chiefly gov.sarah_zyahoo.com — which she used to conduct state business, a practice that critics said circumvented Alaska’s open-records law.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/Palin+emails+offer+inside+glimpse+revelations/4932013/story.html#ixzz1OzmfBMk2


----------



## Redeye (11 Jun 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Agree Thucydides. How quick one here is to jump on the same bandwagon. He doesn't get it.
> 
> This link is for you Redeye. I am sure you will be able dig something here to validate your views: MSNBC’s searchable database of the emails can be found at http://palinemail.msnbc.msn.com
> 
> ...



Couldn't care less about her emails - or about her at all.  The fact that she's seen as at all relevant is a pretty good illustration of why conservativism must be marginalized as much as possible.  The promotion of a woman who couldn't even do the job she was elected to do, whose constant gaffes should be an embarrassment to any cause with which she'd seek to affiliate herself, is a sign of how devoid of actual ideas the GOP in general is.  Without their highly effective propaganda machine (Faux News) they'd already be irrelevant.  Alas...


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Jun 2011)

From a friend in Texas:

The ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER 

OLD VERSION: 

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house, and laying up supplies for the winter. 

The grasshopper  thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. 

Come winter, the ant is warm  and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE OLD STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION: 

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house,and laying up supplies for the winter. 

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. 

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving. 

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. 

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? 

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, We Shall Overcome.

Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper's sake. 

President Obama condemns the ant and blames  President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope  for the grasshopper's plight. 

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid  exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. 

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of  the summer. 

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to  pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government  Green Czar and given  to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is  in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't  maintain it. 

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper  is found  dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over  by a gang of spiders who terrorize and ramshackle the once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood. 

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it. 

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2012.

I've sent this to you because I believe that you are an ant!

You may wish to pass this on to other ants, but_* don't bother sending it on to any grasshoppers because they wouldn't understand it, anyway. *_


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Couldn't care less about her emails - or about her at all.  *The fact that she's seen as at all relevant is a pretty good illustration of why conservativism must be marginalized as much as possible.*  The promotion of a woman who couldn't even do the job she was elected to do, whose constant gaffes should be an embarrassment to any cause with which she'd seek to affiliate herself, is a sign of how devoid of actual ideas the GOP in general is.  Without their highly effective propaganda machine (Faux News) they'd already be irrelevant.  Alas...




Palin has nothing to do with *principled conservatism*, nor are Obama and his gang representative of *principled liberalism*. Palina, Limbaugh _et al_ and Obama, Pelozi, Reid, etc are representatives of the telegenic, unprincipled, marketable, packaged _commodities_ that front for the extremes in America's culture wars.

There's nothing wrong with conservatism or liberalism, _per se_, just with the extremes to which both have been dragged by e.g. William F Buckley and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. - proving yet again that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.


----------



## cavalryman (11 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> conservativism must be marginalized as much as possible



Palin aside, though I hear she can shoot moose better than I can, would you care to explain the quote above which seems to call for the silencing of at least 40% of the folks who bothered to vote in Canada's last election?


----------



## Redeye (11 Jun 2011)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Palin aside, though I hear she can shoot moose better than I can, would you care to explain the quote above which seems to call for the silencing of at least 40% of the folks who bothered to vote in Canada's last election?



Do you actually believe that's what I was saying?  No.  I just hope the ideas that modern conservatives, particularly those in the US, have come to grasp are exposed as the nonsense that they certainly appear to be and are outright rejected by the electorate.  Canada's conservatives, fortunately, aren't that bad.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Jun 2011)

Redeye, please do me a favor. Use another word besides 





> nonsense


, especially at the beginning of your reply to a post that does not fit into your ideology.

If I read that word one more time in one of your posts I am going to puke.

I am sure I have traits others here can take shots at also.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Do you actually believe that's what I was saying?  No.  I just hope the ideas that modern conservatives, particularly those in the US, have come to grasp are exposed as the nonsense that they certainly appear to be and are outright rejected by the electorate.  Canada's conservatives, fortunately, aren't that bad.




What you actually said was _"conservativism must be marginalized as much as possible."_ That seems to be a pretty clear, simple, declarative phrase that doesn't appear to offer much wiggle room.

I personally, think Palin is a marginal political celebrity rather than being a serious contender for high national office but I also believe that her _celebrity_ status means she can make a lot of political mischief whenever and why ever it suits.

Conservatism, despite John Stuart Mill's unkind views on it and conservatives, is a valued and legitimate political philosophy. Not, had you said _"mindless *illiberalism* must be marginalized as much as possible"_ I would have applauded - but I suspect that's not what you meant because you appear to, simultaneously, oppose US Repulican and Canadian Conservative illiberals and support US Democrat and Canadian Green illiberals.


----------



## Redeye (13 Jun 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Redeye, please do me a favor. Use another word besides , especially at the beginning of your reply to a post that does not fit into your ideology.
> 
> If I read that word one more time in one of your posts I am going to puke.
> 
> I am sure I have traits others here can take shots at also.



With due respect, I don't care.  If something is nonsense, I'll call it what it is.  I'm not in the business of mincing words to appeal to other people.

I accept that my statement above was not worded to convey the intended meaning.

Further to Mr. Campbell's comment, the main source of my frustration with civil society and politics in general is that here is no decent centrist party.  I can't find anyone to support because the ideas of every option are abhorrent to me, quite a predicament.  I find mindless liberalism as distasteful as mindless conservatism, and with both dominating discourse it seems we are doomed to have no decent options.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ... {t}here is no decent centrist party.  I can't find anyone to support because the ideas of every option are abhorrent to me, quite a predicament.  I find mindless liberalism as distasteful as mindless conservatism, and with both dominating discourse it seems we are doomed to have no decent options.




Arguably and I think it is fair to say, Stephen Harper has moved the Conservative Party of Canada into the _mushy middle_. It is, _de fact_, a "centrist party," albeit with a strong "right" wing.

The Liberals were the same party from 1947 until 1967 - then they lurched, mindlessly, left - leaving the field open for Diefenbaker and Mulroney, neither of whom could manage to build a real, _principled_ centre, centre right and right of centre political _movement_ that could express itself within one political party.


----------



## Redeye (13 Jun 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Arguably and I think it is fair to say, Stephen Harper has moved the Conservative Party of Canada into the _mushy middle_. It is, _de fact_, a "centrist party," albeit with a strong "right" wing.



That's a reasonably fair statement, but there remains a lot of traits of Mr. Harper's party that I find abhorrent.  They seem to hold the democratic process in contempt, and are lucky there's no decent opposition given the number of stupid things they've done, like the G8/G20, for example.  While it seems they realize they have to govern more or less from the centre in order to remain in office, there remains a strong subset of the party that is much more to the right, and all I can do is hope they remain muted.  It was my realization that those people existed, particularly after the merger with the Reform Party, that led me to give up my membership in the party.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Liberals were the same party from 1947 until 1967 - then they lurched, mindlessly, left - leaving the field open for Diefenbaker and Mulroney, neither of whom could manage to build a real, _principled_ centre, centre right and right of centre political _movement_ that could express itself within one political party.



And we wonder why people are not bothering to vote, or coming out for the drivel-spewing NDP?


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Jun 2011)

Redeye, please add the word 





> abhorrent


 to my request.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That's a reasonably fair statement, but there remains a lot of traits of Mr. Harper's party that I find abhorrent.  They seem to hold the democratic process in contempt, and are lucky there's no decent opposition given the number of stupid things they've done, like the G8/G20, for example.  While it seems they realize they have to govern more or less from the centre in order to remain in office, there remains a strong subset of the party that is much more to the right, and all I can do is hope they remain muted.  It was my realization that those people existed, particularly after the merger with the Reform Party, that led me to give up my membership in the party.
> 
> And we wonder why people are not bothering to vote, or coming out for the drivel-spewing NDP?



Same exact can be said for the liberals, Adscam, et al. You don't have a lock on feeling disgusted by the party(ies) that don't dance to your personal tune. 

Hey, here's an idea. Get into politics and see if your personal platform appeals to enough Canadians to give you a job.


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Jun 2011)

Too late. He missed out on a total of $2.00, contribution to political parties.


----------



## Redeye (13 Jun 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Same exact can be said for the liberals, Adscam, et al. You don't have a lock on feeling disgusted by the party(ies) that don't dance to your personal tune.



And never did I claim I did.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Hey, here's an idea. Get into politics and see if your personal platform appeals to enough Canadians to give you a job.



I've considered that - that's why I was a card-carrying party member and went to conventions etc to try to be a part of the process, but then I realized it wasn't really worth it.  Without a media machine to back ideas, well, you get the idea...


----------



## Redeye (13 Jun 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Redeye, please add the word abhorrent to my request.



So added.  Like your previous request, I intend to completely ignore this one.


----------



## Redeye (13 Jun 2011)

Now, back to the topic at hand - I'm starting to actually think about what the Conservatives can/should do to try to win back some more appeal - what I consider most worrisome is the idea of importing failed policy ideas from the USA.  The Conservatives started down that road in the mortgage market and have fortunately walked back on them a fair bit, thanks to seeing the results of the housing bubble in the USA I suspect.  I'm interested to see what's going to happen when the inevitable discussions will begin on modernizing healthcare and further pension reforms, as well.  With no real ability to speculate what will become of the Liberal Party by the next campaign, it'll be interesting to see how the newly strengthened NDP gets involved as well.  Both the NDP and Liberals will certainly be busy trying to establish their positions in that debate before the election, I suspect.  The Conservatives are likely to have to campaign even more from the centre - but we'll see I guess.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jun 2011)

>They seem to hold the democratic process in contempt

Does your memory go back any further than 2008, and do you assume that prior majority governments were squeaky clean because they never found themselves in contempt of Parliament?


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jun 2011)

We already have modern health care.  If you mean you want more health care for less money, good luck with that as long as it is largely centrally planned and managed.

We do need pension reform, though: legislation to prevent the socialization of losses without recouping the costs from the "profits".


----------



## Redeye (13 Jun 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >They seem to hold the democratic process in contempt
> 
> Does your memory go back any further than 2008, and do you assume that prior majority governments were squeaky clean because they never found themselves in contempt of Parliament?



I'm not talking about the contempt of Parliament matter, I'm talking about contempt for the entire process of democracy - proroguing Parliament to stave off elections, a complete lack of transparency they campaigned on.  Whining about the audacity of opposition parties having the audacity to vote non-confidence.  Things like that. Again, I've NEVER claimed that no other party has done such things or ever will do such things, that's not the point.

As far as your point on healthcare - we have a decent system but it's going to face demographic challenges that will force it to change - and there will be a large national conversation on how it will change at some point I'm sure.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about the contempt of Parliament matter, I'm talking about contempt for the entire process of democracy - proroguing Parliament to stave off elections, a complete lack of transparency they campaigned on.  Whining about the audacity of opposition parties having the audacity to vote non-confidence.  Things like that. Again, I've NEVER claimed that no other party has done such things or ever will do such things, that's not the point.
> 
> As far as your point on healthcare - we have a decent system but it's going to face demographic challenges that will force it to change - and there will be a large national conversation on how it will change at some point I'm sure.




Proroguing parliament is a normal, routine procedural matter. It became an issue in Canada because a few deeply anti-Conservative commentators propagandists told lies and convinced many (most?) Canadians, the majority of whom are abysmally ignorant of the "machinery of government," that Harper was/is some kind of fascist. The propagandists were, still are, dishonest, and those who believed and continue to believe them are still *stupid*.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about the contempt of Parliament matter, I'm talking about contempt for the entire process of democracy - proroguing Parliament to stave off elections, a complete lack of transparency they campaigned on.  Whining about the audacity of opposition parties having the audacity to vote non-confidence.  Things like that. Again, I've NEVER claimed that no other party has done such things or ever will do such things, that's not the point.



Nonsense.

Sounds just like the previous liberal governments. : Once again, while you say it's like the others not to have done the same, you constantly try peg the blame on the Conservatives, as if they _were_ the only ones doing something and that _is_ the point. Your disclaimers, after the fact when called on it, do nothing to convince others that you're just making a convenient, all inclusive reference, because you're not.


----------



## Redeye (13 Jun 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Nonsense.
> 
> Sounds just like the previous liberal governments. : Once again, while you say it's like the others not to have done the same, you constantly try peg the blame on the Conservatives, as if they _were_ the only ones doing something and that _is_ the point. Your disclaimers, after the fact when called on it, do nothing to convince others that you're just making a convenient, all inclusive reference, because you're not.



When was the last time a Liberal minority prorogue Parliament? Twice?  Not that it might not have happened, but I don't recall it.  I shouldn't have to make any "disclaimers" because it should be fairly obvious that discussing a specific government, and the distaste I have for some of their shenanigans has nothing to do with a party label.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> *]When was the last time a Liberal minority prorogue Parliament? Twice?*  Not that it might not have happened, but I don't recall it.  I shouldn't have to make any "disclaimers" because it should be fairly obvious that discussing a specific government, and the distaste I have for some of their shenanigans has nothing to do with a party label.




1963-65: Mike Pearson had three sessions (means two prorogations) in two years. Did he, too, hold democracy in contempt?


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jun 2011)

A link to a long article of interest. One thing about Conservative (CLassical Liberal) thought is there is no shying away from the notion that people are flawed, and therefore their institutions will be flawed as well. The author extends this to examining revolutions (which generally bring about flawed results), and the rather p[aradoxical position of the United States being both a Revolutionary nation (both in terms of its hisrtory and the radical social order instituted by the Revolution) and a Conservative nation (in the sense that attempts to maintain a stable global order is a very Conservative position, given many nations and societies have great pressures building up towards revolutionary change i.e the Arab Spring). Woth a read:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/12/the-conservative-revolutionary/


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jul 2011)

The evolution of Conservative thought:

http://princearthurherald.com/archives/5959



> *Genuis: Churchill had a good left-wing idea*
> 
> Posted on July 21st, 2011 by Garnett Genuis in Politics
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Aug 2011)

A European view of the debt showdown in the United States. If the "Progressive" left is dying, what will post progressive society look like?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100099357/the-real-story-of-the-us-debt-deal-is-not-the-triumph-of-the-tea-party-but-the-death-of-the-socialist-left/



> *The real story of the US debt deal is not the triumph of the Tea Party but the death of the Socialist Left*
> By Toby Young US politics Last updated: August 2nd, 2011
> 18 Comments Comment on this article
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Nov 2011)

I think this guy has cause and effect backwards (economics does not drive culture; I would argue that culture defines how economics will be practiced), but this is an interesting argument. After the end of the Progressive project, a new culture wil define how economics, politics etc. will be practiced in the post progressive world. If we are lucky, it will resemble "Democracy in America" where communities grow organically from voluntary associations. If we are unlucky, we will be followin the "Man on the White Horse", with all that implies...

Capturing and dominating "culture" is important; the Communists, Fascists and Progressives all made long (or short and bloody) marches through the institutions of media and the academy in order to indoctrinate the masses of people.

http://canadiancincinnatus.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/11/if-culture-is-upstream-of-politics-what-is-upstream-of-culture-.html



> *If culture is upstream of politics, what is upstream of culture?*
> 
> There has been a dawning realization among the more astute conservative thinkers like Mark Steyn that politics is not enough. To win the game from the liberals one must win the culture because culture is upstream of politics. Our movies, our TV shows, our magazines, our video games and our fashion tastes will shape our beliefs, which will be reflected in our preferences in the polling booth. The enemy of this brand of conservatism is the ‘fiscal conservative’ who wants to think only of ‘serious’ issues and leave all the arts and crafts fluff to the liberals. As people like Mark Steyn point out, they are fools.
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (23 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A European view of the debt showdown in the United States. If the "Progressive" left is dying, what will post progressive society look like?



As the Spartans replied to Philip of Macedon, "If..."


----------



## a_majoor (27 Nov 2011)

The Spartans lost

Here is something to add to the toolkit when answering the "Progressives" on the topic of "Social Justice"


----------



## Redeye (27 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Spartans lost
> 
> Here is something to add to the toolkit when answering the "Progressives" on the topic of "Social Justice"



So you're as ignorant of history as you are of politics, and basically everything else, eh? Not shocking. I was reading this weekend about the interesting fact that numerous studies have consistently shown that Fox News viewers are the most misinformed people – significantly they've been shown to be more ignorant of reality than people who don't watch news at all. If you actually knew your history, you'd know that after that exchange with the Spartans, Philip never attempted to take the city. Neither did Alexander, for much the same reason - it was easier to conquer elsewhere. It was eventually forced to join the Hellenic League, but maintained a defiant degree of independence.

I guess there's not really any hope for you, though. I've noted that you lack much ability to actually engage in any sort of discussion, other than posting nonsense from a variety of blogs which lack any real credibility. So now that you've embarrassed yourself, I think I shan't bother with you further.

Just for anyone interested, here's one of many recaps of all of the studies on Fox viewers. It's interesting (and sad) how consistent the outcomes of the studies are. There's many others, and the source documents are pretty easy to find, and pretty much irrefutable. The only challenge ow is how to fix the poisonous effect of that reality.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/22/374434/fox-news-viewers-misinformed-study-jon-stewart/


----------



## Infanteer (27 Nov 2011)

Let's cool the Internet chest thumping in a politics thread please.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Nov 2011)

Actually, since all his responses are _ad hominem_ attacks rather than responses to ideas or propositions, I'm content to simply let it slide and keep the set on "ignore".


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2011)

VDH on why taxes should not be increased (besides the standard economic reasons):

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/why-not-pay-higher-taxes/?singlepage=true



> *Why Not Pay Higher Taxes?*
> November 26, 2011 - 3:22 pm - by Victor Davis Hanson
> 
> The usual liberal complaint against the conservative opposition to higher income taxes is greed and the better-offs’ self-serving reluctance to pay their “fair share.” But while perhaps true in some instances, I don’t think that is an accurate writ against most of those in that now demonized $200,000 and above categories who resent forking over more. Rather, here are a random 12 complaints that I hear from those who become furious about preposed higher income tax rates:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2011)

A more detailed critique of the "Social Justice" meme for your toolkit:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2011/11/21/social-justice-greed-and-the-occupy-wall-street-movement/



> *Social Justice, Greed And The Occupy Wall Street Movement*
> 
> “It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program – on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off – than on any positive task.”  Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
> 
> ...


----------



## 57Chevy (8 Dec 2011)

The thread title seems relevent enough.              (Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act)

Parliament has become irrelevant under Harper
PM fired or forced out 10 government watchdogs
Stephen Maher, Postmedia News 07 Dec
http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/Stephen+Maher+Parliament+become+irrelevant+under+Harper/5815682/story.html

On Wednesday, Canadian President Stephen Harper will fly to Washington for a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, where the two are expected to unveil a new border agreement.

Whoops. That should read Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Sorry.

These days it's easy to get confused about the role of Harper, who is nominally the prime minister of a Westminster cabinet government in which the central functions of government are carried out by Parliament.

Over time, under successive prime ministers, power has shifted away from Parliament, but under Harper it has become thoroughly subordinated to the backroom operatives in his office, who wield the real power.

It is not, as Rick Mercer suggested last week, time to shut down the House, since Parliament can still serve as a helpmate to the anonymous men and women who really run the country, but we ought to acknowledge that we are in a new era in which Parliament is a shadow play.

In the days of John A. Macdonald, Parliament was the place where the nation's key debates took place. There were plenty of "loose fish" back then, MPs who would vote for or against bills depending on their judgment, so the debates were crucial.

Macdonald lamented the difficulty of herding those loose fish. "Anyone can support me when they think I'm right," he said. "What I want is someone that will support me when I am wrong."

Harper couldn't make a similar complaint, because every single member of the Conservative caucus supports him, every time, right or wrong.

These days, the important debates take place not in the House but on TV screens - much in the form of paid advertising - and each party is therefore run by marketing specialists.

All but a handful of very strong MPs are elected by those marketing teams, so they can't claim an independent mandate. The recent orange wave, where dozens of unknowns were swept into office on Jack Layton's coattails, shows that our system is becoming more leader-centred.

In a traditional parliamentary system, leaders win their mandate from MPs in the House. Thus, John Diefenbaker was effectively taken down by his own caucus. By 1988, when a majority of Liberal MPs tried to oust John Turner, he was able to beat them back, claiming a direct mandate from party supporters.

Over time, prime ministers have used that direct authority - a result of electronic media - to strengthen their hand, starting with Pierre Trudeau, who weakened ministers by strengthening the central agencies.

Harper has continued that centralization and subordinated the public service, so that significant plans are drawn up in his office, not the offices of his ministers or bureaucrats, and the legislative process in the House is an empty ordeal that must be endured.

So the cabinet is a focus group, and most ministers are best understood as spokesministers, reading lines written by the PMO.

(For that reason, I find it hard to work up much enthusiasm for calls for the resignations of ministers like Bev Oda or Peter MacKay, even when they have misled the House.)

In this session, Harper's people have used time allocation as never before, cutting off debate to force through their bills.

It is possible that after Christmas, once he has got the urgent stuff through, Harper will make greater use of parliamentary committees, allowing them to actually work on bills, but for the moment, we have legislation by fiat.

A nasty recent push poll in Montreal - in which the Conservatives told voters that Liberal MP Irwin Cotler would soon be leaving his seat - suggests that the Tories intend to conduct a permanent campaign, as in the United States.

This presidentialization of the Canadian system is worrying, not because of some fetishistic attachment to the trappings of Parliament, but because it allows for greater centralization than is found in other democracies.

In the United States, Obama can't act without Congress. In Britain, prime ministers can never impose iron discipline on their huge, leaky caucuses.

A better comparison to the Canadian situation might be Russia, where Vladimir Putin is able to act without concern for the formal role of institutions, although in Canada there are a series of extra-governmental actors - the premiers, the courts and the media - that would prevent any government from going too far.

And we have watchdogs - the auditor general, the parliamentary budget officer and the like - but according to a count by Queen's University Professor Ned Franks, Harper has fired or forced out 10 watchdogs, which tends to cow the others.

In the last election, in the face of a Liberal campaign that attacked him as an enemy of Parliament, Harper communicated a powerful message of strength and stability and convinced Canadians he was best equipped to manage the economy.

Voters will judge him on those terms in four years. Until then, he has extraordinary latitude to act as he sees fit.


----------



## GAP (8 Dec 2011)

Gee....the MSM said the same thing about Cretian's iron fist hold parliament.....slow news day....let's bash this year's PM.... :


----------



## RangerRay (9 Dec 2011)

The concentration of power in the PMO has been ongoing since Trudeau.  They only call it "presidential" now because Stephen Harper is PM.  Compared to Canadian prime ministers, US presidents have very little power.  To call the PM's power under Harper "presidential" only highlights the author's bias against PM Harper.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Dec 2011)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> The concentration of power in the PMO has been ongoing since Trudeau.  They only call it "presidential" now because Stephen Harper is PM.  Compared to Canadian prime ministers, US presidents have very little power.  To call the PM's power under Harper "presidential" only highlights the author's bias against PM Harper.




 :goodpost:

Michael Pitfield, Trudeau's Clerk of the Privy Council, and a very, very bright if, often, misguided fellow, is to "blame" for starting the _concentration of power_ ball rolling. He did so for commendable reasons: governments under St Laurent, Diefenbaker, Pearson and Trudeau had become more and more cumbersome - despite some quite brilliant men being at the top of the bureaucratic heap (Clerk). But there was too much overlap, too many competing 'priorities' and too many powerful bureaucratic empires. Pitfield's reforms began to cut through the bureaucratic jungle but at the expense of e.g. ministerial responsibility. Today (well 15 years ago, anyway) the Clerks' weekly _breakfasts_ with Deputies and heads of agencies were more important than cabinet meetings and, like cabinet meetings, usually only a small _slice_ of the potential membership was invited to attend.






Michael Pitfield
Clerk of the Privy Council
January 16, 1975 to June 4, 1979
March 11, 1980 to December 9, 1982


----------



## 57Chevy (9 Dec 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> And we have watchdogs - the auditor general, the parliamentary budget officer and the like - but according to a count by Queen's University Professor Ned Franks, Harper has fired or forced out 10 watchdogs, which tends to cow the others.



E.R.
Is it not the watchdogs that help to ensure the transparency of our government ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Dec 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> E.R.
> Is it not the watchdogs that help to ensure the transparency of our government ?




I am, philosophically, opposed to most "watchdogs," the obvious exception being the auditor general - all auditors must be independent of those they audit.

In my opinion most "watchdogs" and ALL ombudsmen should be fired and ministers, very senior civil servants and judges should ensure that laws and regulations are obeyed - or, if/when the laws and regulations no longer make sense, repealed.

"Watchdogs" and ombudsmen are *proof* that politicians, bureaucrats and chains of command are inept or corrupt. Prime ministers, ministers, deputy ministers, chiefs of staff and commissioners ought to be firing people, not hiring "watchdogs" to deflect attention away from problems. If a minister or deputy or chief of staff cannot fire the crooks and bunglers then the PM needs to fire the minister, deputy, etc, etc. If the PM cannot do that then the people need to fire him (or her) come the next election.

But PMs, ministers and so on, including, too often chiefs of staff, are usually cowards, so ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2011)

Perhaps this is one of the reasons people seem to have so much difficulty in understanding or believing in such ideas as Classical Economics, tax cuts to jump start the economy, Supply Side economics, the Laffer Curve, Austrian school economics and so on (which is especially puzzling considering the long and well documented track record. Can anyone be taken seriously when they attempt to argue in the face of an increase in Provincial revenues of $20 billion dollars that the "Common Sense Revolution" hurt the Ontario economy?)

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_peril_of_smart_politicians_Hh74dtNxYtTdZhgHkID3NK#ixzz1g93Rw5Lb



> *The peril of ‘smart’ politicians*
> 
> Last Updated: 3:52 AM, December 10, 2011
> 
> ...


----------



## 57Chevy (11 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I am, philosophically, opposed to most "watchdogs," the obvious exception being the auditor general - all auditors must be independent of those they audit.
> 
> In my opinion most "watchdogs" and ALL ombudsmen should be fired and ministers, very senior civil servants and judges should ensure that laws and regulations are obeyed - or, if/when the laws and regulations no longer make sense, repealed.
> 
> ...



I don't particularly care for the term 'watchdog' because it makes me think of a pit-bull frothing at the mouth
while attached to a huge chain.
A better term could be used such as 'overseer', or something similar to that effect.

It's like a catch 22 situation. On one hand we expect to have responsible government. And on the other
we employ 'watchdogs' to make sure that the government is actually acting responsibly. So yes, I agree that
they do prove the inadequacy issues. I was not looking at it in that light.

We know that corruption is found just about everywhere in some form or another, and in most cases can be
quite a lengthy task to expose.
The firing should and needs to come from the appropriate authority like the PM but the investigation of 
wrongdoing needs to remain separate.

I do not understand how 'watchdogs' deflect attention away from problems though. Unless they themselves become
or are the problem.

In 2006 we saw the implementation of the Federal Accountability Act (FAA) or Bill C-2 in which a portion of
it promises to protect 'whistleblowers' from negative repercussions, which as far as I can tell, reinforced the
position or grounds of those 'watchdogs'. 
That is to say, if 'watchdogs' are in fact 'whistleblowers'. I could be wrong.

Then again, if a 'watchdog' gets fired for some reason or another, it doesn't actually abolish the position,
they may just hire one that won't bark. 
Which would then be a complete failure because democracy is supposed to be all about integrity.

As Edward Kennedy said " Integrity is the lifeblood of democracy. Deceit is a poison in its veins."


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Dec 2011)

The government already has a watchdog-
It is called the Official Opposition.  If they bother to do their job correctly.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2011)

Classical liberal thought is basd on free speech and association, as well as property rights and the rule of law. If universities are creating a culture that restricts free speech, then the foundations of Classical Liberalism are being undermined by the very institutions which are supposed to protect and preserve them:

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/12/09/canadian-universities-failing-to-protect-free-speech-report/



> *Canadian universities failing to protect free speech: report*
> Charles Lewis  Dec 9, 2011 – 2:02 AM ET | Last Updated: Dec 9, 2011 7:42 AM ET
> 
> Dean Bicknell / Postmedia News files
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Dec 2011)

I think the biggest problem is that real capitalists have been sidelined while bankers who cheat the system  make billions. Rehypothecating debt so you can buy government bonds at 4 times your original capital gives 2% bonds an 8% yield with money that never existed in the first place. How is that Capitalism? That is some crony milking the system of my tax dollars and giving himself multimillion dollar bonuses for being so smart. Stopping that would give the right some credibility. Let's face it middle of the road Harper still only gets 38% of the popular vote. People think conservatives are in the pocket of these banker welfare bums even though all parties are equally in their pocket. Our banks are not even that safe. CIBC has 72 billion and RBC 50+ billion tied up in these rehypothecated collateral schemes. Fractional reserve banking needs to be split off from real banks before the next bubble bursts.


----------



## Redeye (11 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Perhaps this is one of the reasons people seem to have so much difficulty in understanding or believing in such ideas as Classical Economics, tax cuts to jump start the economy, Supply Side economics, the Laffer Curve, Austrian school economics and so on (which is especially puzzling considering the long and well documented track record. Can anyone be taken seriously when they attempt to argue in the face of an increase in Provincial revenues of $20 billion dollars that the "Common Sense Revolution" hurt the Ontario economy?)



People don't believe in supply-side economics, because it's been discredited by history. The Laffer Curve doesn't seem to hold water in the real world, otherwise the Bush tax cuts would have actually done something to help the US economy rather than forcing it into the abyss it's in now, and that's why no one can make a rational argument for tax cuts stimulating the economy since it doesn't seem to have ever happened. Likewise, Austrian economics is regarded by economists across the spectrum as a fringe set of ideas. The reason that conservatism stands the best chance ever of being completely rejected by voters is that it is starting to show itself for what it is. The more the Republican Party in the USA, for example, becomes easier to paint as the party of division, obstruction, and celebrating failure, the easier it'll be to get people engaged and out to vote.


----------



## Nemo888 (12 Dec 2011)

I have to agree. Trickle down economics is almost a joke in most academic circles. Hayek's utopian world view of laissez faire captialism was discredited the year it came out. The Road to Serfdon was not bad though. Economic libertarianism has gone too far when bankers can invent capital out of thin air to the tune of trillions of dollars just so they can collect interest and fees on it. 17+ trillion dollars disappeared last time. How many more when Europe caves in? These douche bags need to be given some rules. 

Rule one: No fractional reserve banking for retail banks. Only investment banks. This was one of the few things we learned from the Great Depression. Clinton made a great error repealing it. 

Rule two: No off balance sheet rehypothecation of assets multiple times in off shore havens. CIBC I'm looking at you! 72 billion and near record profits during the worst recession since 1930. That does not smell right. Your 250$ asset does not get to become thousands in investment capital choking the bond market. God that burns me. Bankers are worse than those moms with 4 different kids each from a different father. Welfare bums who think they are better than us. Bankers are the new used car salesmen.


----------



## RangerRay (12 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> Michael Pitfield, Trudeau's Clerk of the Privy Council, and a very, very bright if, often, misguided fellow, is to "blame" for starting the _concentration of power_ ball rolling. He did so for commendable reasons: governments under St Laurent, Diefenbaker, Pearson and Trudeau had become more and more cumbersome - despite some quite brilliant men being at the top of the bureaucratic heap (Clerk). But there was too much overlap, too many competing 'priorities' and too many powerful bureaucratic empires. Pitfield's reforms began to cut through the bureaucratic jungle but at the expense of e.g. ministerial responsibility. Today (well 15 years ago, anyway) the Clerks' weekly _breakfasts_ with Deputies and heads of agencies were more important than cabinet meetings and, like cabinet meetings, usually only a small _slice_ of the potential membership was invited to attend.
> 
> ...



We might be getting off-topic here, but I thought this article in the Globe and Mail on the power of the Prime Minister was apt.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-whos-most-powerful-of-all/article2266183/



> NEIL REYNOLDS
> Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s most powerful of all?
> 
> Published Monday, Dec. 12, 2011 2:00AM EST
> ...



In other words, the PM's powers have been there since Confederation.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Dec 2011)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> We might be getting off-topic here, but I thought this article in the Globe and Mail on the power of the Prime Minister was apt.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-whos-most-powerful-of-all/article2266183/
> 
> In other words, the PM's powers have been there since Confederation.




Very true, but the _*political*_ power of the _bureaucratic centre_ (PCO, Finance and TB) grew, immensely, under Pitfield and continues to grow today - including the power to intervene, directly and authoritatively, in military administrative and operational matters for _policy_ reasons. Some member of this forum who have, more recently than I, served in NDHQ can attest to this.

The top level of the bureaucracy is, properly, concerned with policy, but the line, such as it is, between policy and politics is thin and often very nearly invisible.

My feeling is that Privy Council Clerk Wouters is even more _controlling_ (and over a wider range of matters) than was his predecessor Kevin Lynch.






             
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Clerk of the Privy Council Wayne Wouters with Prime Minister Harper         Former Clerk Kevin Lynch

I post the pictures because people ought to see who runs Canada, day by day and generation by generation - the top level bureaucrats, unlike 99.99% of politicians, have a long range (20+ year) _visions_ of Canada and they have an outline plan of how to get there.

And by the way, they, those top level bureaucrats, are relentlessly _liberal_, but they are _classically liberal_, by which most people, today, mean _conservative_ - so we are in the right thread.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2011)

Its always interesting to see people making claims about economics by totally ignoring history. Saying "Tax cuts don't work" only makes sense if you pretend that the US GDP did not grow 33% during the Reagan administration or the Harris government did not collect $20 billion more in revenues at the end of their term in office, or Saskatchewan is not undergoing an economic boom that dates to the demise of the NDP government there, or the "Go Go 60's" did not start with the Kennedy tax cuts. Or do economic growth and revenue spring from the ground?

Of course countervailing evidence about the effectiveness of Keynesian economics goes down the memory hole as well; otherwise there would be a very spirited discussion about how the massive deficit spending initiated by the Democrat house and senate starting in 2006 failed to stop the economic recession from happening, but also how the "Stimulus" which was supposed to keep unemployment from going above 8% not only failed ot do so, but resulted in uneployment rising to 15% by the U-6 measurment (or 11% using U-3), where is still stuck. The few places in the US where unemployment and economic growth are not flatlined do not practice Keynesian economics, but are noted for free markets, limited regulation and low taxes.

I'm sure in academic circles keeping eyes closed and not looking outside the windows allows people to indulge in magical thinking, but the real world is calling...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2011)

And a bit more history:

http://blog.american.com/2011/12/obamas-strange-revisionist-history-on-60-minutes/



> *Obama’s strange, revisionist history on ‘60 Minutes’*
> By James Pethokoukis
> December 12, 2011, 10:06 am
> 
> ...


----------



## ballz (12 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Its always interesting to see people making claims about economics by totally ignoring history. Saying "Tax cuts don't work" only makes sense if you pretend that the US GDP did not grow 33% during the Reagan administration or the Harris government did not collect $20 billion more in revenues at the end of their term in office, or Saskatchewan is not undergoing an economic boom that dates to the demise of the NDP government there, or the "Go Go 60's" did not start with the Kennedy tax cuts. Or do economic growth and revenue spring from the ground?
> 
> Of course countervailing evidence about the effectiveness of Keynesian economics goes down the memory hole as well; otherwise there would be a very spirited discussion about how the massive deficit spending initiated by the Democrat house and senate starting in 2006 failed to stop the economic recession from happening, but also how the "Stimulus" which was supposed to keep unemployment from going above 8% not only failed ot do so, but resulted in uneployment rising to 15% by the U-6 measurment (or 11% using U-3), where is still stuck. The few places in the US where unemployment and economic growth are not flatlined do not practice Keynesian economics, but are noted for free markets, limited regulation and low taxes.
> 
> I'm sure in academic circles keeping eyes closed and not looking outside the windows allows people to indulge in magical thinking, but the real world is calling...



Kennedy impacted the economy by hitting the demand side, not through the supply side. As this article points out "This distinction" is 
"taught in Economics 101..." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2004/01/tax_cuts_in_camelot.html Kennedy was not a supply-sider, Corporate America couldn't stand him....

As for rest of it, you continue to put the blinders on (and yet accuse everyone else of ignoring history). US debt as a percentage of it's GDP was being steadily reduced since the end of WW2, and then Reagan comes along and it's grown like cancer ever since, with the exception of Bill Clinton who also practiced demand-side policies (taxing the wealthiest and lowering taxes on the poor). Seen on this graph, although I doubt you'll even look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_1901-2010_.jpg

I've already explained the Mike Harris thing, I don't see the point in going over it again since you just bury your head further into the sand every time. And yes, Saskatchewan's booming economy did spring from the ground... it's called oil and gas. EDIT: I should add that I don't doubt for a second that high-taxation in Saskatchewan would be screwing their economy, and cutting taxes in an economy with the potential to produce would help it grow. Like I said, human behavioural motivation. Supply-side economics would be the appropriate choice in this scenario, much like it was for Harris.

But of course, applying a bit of logic and reasoning skills to an economic theory is apparently trying to convince people that touching a hot stove is a good idea. We should instead use a supply & demand graph, and ignore human behaviour's affect on those theories. Luckily, there are people in the world that recognize that no theory is perfect and will work in any and every situation since behavioural motivation affects them.

But hey, keep advocating the America continues to do the same thing it's been doing for 30 years... what's the definition of insanity again? Oh that's right, in your version of history it *has* been working.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Dec 2011)

You know, maybe the best thing any government can do is just admit it cannot run an economy, take it's paws off, and just let people make money.  Things will work out...


----------



## Nemo888 (13 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Its always interesting to see people making claims about economics by totally ignoring history. Saying "Tax cuts don't work" only makes sense if you pretend that the US GDP did not grow 33% during the Reagan administration or the Harris government did not collect $20 billion more in revenues at the end of their term in office, or Saskatchewan is not undergoing an economic boom that dates to the demise of the NDP government there, or the "Go Go 60's" did not start with the Kennedy tax cuts. Or do economic growth and revenue spring from the ground?
> 
> Of course countervailing evidence about the effectiveness of Keynesian economics goes down the memory hole as well; otherwise there would be a very spirited discussion about how the massive deficit spending initiated by the Democrat house and senate starting in 2006 failed to stop the economic recession from happening, but also how the "Stimulus" which was supposed to keep unemployment from going above 8% not only failed ot do so, but resulted in uneployment rising to 15% by the U-6 measurment (or 11% using U-3), where is still stuck. The few places in the US where unemployment and economic growth are not flatlined do not practice Keynesian economics, but are noted for free markets, limited regulation and low taxes.
> 
> I'm sure in academic circles keeping eyes closed and not looking outside the windows allows people to indulge in magical thinking, but the real world is calling...



Just me, the Financial Times and the OECD.  :
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fba05442-1f3e-11e1-ab49-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1gPsc3kqX

"Trickle-down theory is dead. The belief fostered by Ronald Reagan in the US and Margaret Thatcher in the UK in the 1980s, that if the rich got richer their income and wealth would trickle down the income scale so that a rising tide lifted all the boats, has had the last rites pronounced on it ."


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2011)

I notice that the facts about the huge GDP growth and astonishing revenue increases delivered by tax cuts and supply side economics *never* seem to be addressed. The current economic situation does not fit Keynesian models (in fact it is in direct contradiction of them, just like Stagflation in the late 1970's was impossible under the Keynesian model), but fits quite nicely with F. A. Hayek's models of credit bubbles creating misallocated resources (and the painful deleveraging process needed to clear the markets).

Politicians, bureaucrats and crony capitalists like Keynesian economics because they can "extract rents" from stimulus schemes and other manipulations, while the rest of us watch our prospects diminish (like the $800 billion "stimulus" which pushed U-3 unemployment to 11% and U-6 to 15%, while virtually flatlining US GDP growth for the last three years). Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) sums up the opposition to tested remedies in a simple formulation:

"No opportunity for graft"


----------



## Nemo888 (13 Dec 2011)

Most right wing economists do not agree with you. The Financial Times, The Economist, the OECD, our Prime Minister and even an older wiser Margret Thatcher consider your economic theories doctrinaire and naive. The vast majority of  RIGHT WING intellectuals think the Chicago School destroys the social fabric that creates the economic foundation for prosperity. Left wing thinkers think it is a scam to trick the proletariat into accepting being screwed over by a class of banker parasites. Your views on this are so extreme it is hard to take them seriously. Ayn Rand's objectivism is equally as fringe. Almost no one still tries to revive these Cold War relics. They were *reactionary* theories to combat the propaganda of an ideological enemy. Such things inevitably turn out to be useless when the enemy is gone and the light of reason dawns.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Dec 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You know, maybe the best thing any government can do is just admit it cannot run an economy, take it's paws off, and just let people make money.  Things will work out...



"Mission command" is to military success as the "invisible hand" is to economic prosperity - fortune favours the decentralizers.  But the technocrats (or elites, or intellectuals, or whatever else we should call people who know quite a bit more than most people but quite a bit less than the sum of knowledge of a complex system) will insist on continuing to play the role of the French High Command in 1940, believing that victory in the last war assures them of victory in this one; if they fail, it can only be because they were insufficiently dirigiste.


----------



## ballz (13 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I notice that the facts about the huge GDP growth and astonishing revenue increases delivered by tax cuts and supply side economics *never* seem to be addressed.



They are addressed every time. They're not evidence of success at all if you get yourself into a worse GDP/debt ratio (what has been happening) and can't afford to pay your creditors (what the US keeps coming closer and closer to). :brickwall: 

Would you take a job with a $10,000 pay raise if you were going to have to spend an extra $15,000 a year in travel expenses for it? Because that's essentially what Reagan signed the US up for. Any moron could increase tax revenues and GDP if they just spend like a drunken sailor.



			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Your views on this are so extreme it is hard to take them seriously.



Agreed


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2011)

Observation trumps theory:

The Reagan tax cuts increased GDP, job growth and every other measure of economic success (see also the UK and Ontario).

The spending part of the equation was undone by the US Congress and Senate, which went along with the tax cuts but treated the new wealth as their own and actively fought spending cuts in any area, with the understanding that in return, they would allow the Reagan Administration to fight the Cold War.

If the spending side of the house was also addressed (as it was in the 1990's Republican Congress under the "Contract with America"), then things begin to come into balance. Sadly, the Contract was allowed to lapse, but the real spending explosion was also demonstrably started in 2006 by the new Democrat majority House and Senate. They boosted the deficit and debt to record heights even before the Obama Administration came into office, and the increase of $4 billion in debt in the last three years dwarfs everything that came before, and without boosting economic growth or reducing unemployment. Just to refresh your memory, here are the claimed benefits of all this stimulus:

http://news.investors.com/Article/594554/201112121843/president-obama-extends-economy-blame-to-bill-clinton.htm



> On Feb. 2, 2009, Obama told the "Today Show" that "a year from now I think people are gonna see that we're starting to make some progress," and that "if I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."
> 
> On Feb. 12, 2009, he predicted that his $830 billion stimulus would "ignite spending by businesses and consumers" and unleash "a new wave of innovation, activity and construction ... all across America."
> 
> ...



We all know how that worked out

Shouting at the messenger or pretending not to hear the message might make you feel better, but the evidence is pretty clear: there is no Keynesian economic "Hockey Stick"...


----------



## ballz (14 Dec 2011)

So everything good that happened under Reagan is because of him, and everything bad that happened under him is someone else's fault... same goes for Bush... but for Obama, he gets to wear the bad stuff too. It all makes sense now.... 

Where did I say Obama was doing a great job handling the economy anyway? How did you ever drag him into this?

Your claim that Reagan tax cuts increased "every ... measure of economic success" is simply not true, and it's been pointed out to you more than enough. Reagan kick-started the fall of the US economy, and repeating over and over again that he was great for the US economy is not going to make it come true.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Observation trumps theory:



The irony of someone saying that who wants to apply the exact same economic theory to every single problem on the face of the planet, without putting a shred of reasoning behind it, is enough to choke on.

Your observations are either poor as you overlook GDP/Debt every single time (which is a much more important indicator of economic success than anything you've mentioned), or they are stupendously biased because you choose to ignore it to support your own view. Since you've had it pointed out to you numerous times, I can only conclude it's the latter. As Nemo said, your views is so extreme it can't be taken seriously.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Dec 2011)

> On Feb. 26, 2009, Obama's first budget projected that by 2011 the economy would be cooking ahead at 4% real GDP growth, with unemployment at 7.1% and falling fast.



Correct me if I am wrong Thucydides, but wasn't that the Obama Administrations first and last budget?


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong Thucydides, but wasn't that the Obama Administrations first and last budget?



Indeed. The Democrat Senate has failed to propose or pass a budget for over 900 days now (The Congress has passed the Ryan Budget, but without Senate approval, it is in limbo). One can only hope that after the 2012 election there will be a functional Senate and House again. The Ryan budget is a good starting point to get the US economy moving, but now there will have to be some pretty dramatic new spending cuts added to the mix to counter the additional debt and (hopefully) reverse the current economic trajectory. Restoring the "AAA" credit rating would also be beneficial....


----------



## 57Chevy (14 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> there will have to be some pretty dramatic new spending cuts added to the mix to counter the additional debt and (hopefully) reverse the current economic trajectory.



like a snowballs' chance in a fire pit. :

The trend is clear.
(US debt ceiling at the end of each year from 1981 to 2010)


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2011)

The people who actually create wealth are starting to speak more openly (which is a big improvement over the alternative action of "going Galt" in terms of political discourse):

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/12/job-creators-fight-back/2000096



> *Job creators fight back*
> By: John Stossel | 12/13/11 8:05 PM
> Some politicians claim that politicians create jobs.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 Dec 2011)

Fact check time. Most of these arguments have been replicated in Canada, using the examples of Ontario (Rae and McGuinty vs Mike Harris) and Saskatchewan (NDP vs Saskatchewan Party) to demonstrate the different results of economic policies in the same area. Even arguments about the role of oil and natual resources in Saskatchewan's current boom don't really wash; Saskatchewan's natural resource base existed in the 1980's but the NDP government's policies kept them in the ground; Saskatchewan never experienced the oil boom Alberta did in the 1980's. (Indeed, I was posted in Alberta in the early 1980's, and lots of people wondered back then why Saskatchewan wasn't getting in on the action).:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamas-policies-are-gutting-the-middle-class/?singlepage=true



> *Obama’s Policies Are Gutting the Middle Class*
> Posted By Tom Blumer On December 16, 2011 @ 12:05 am In Culture Bytes,economy,Money,US News | 69 Comments
> 
> It was more than a little disconcerting to watch President Barack Obama pretend to be a friend of the middle class in Kansas on December 6 [1], and to watch the press lap it up as if it was the gospel truth. The record shows that Obama’s and his party’s policies, plans, and proposals have done more harm to the middle class than any administration in my lifetime.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Dec 2011)

Part of the reason free market policy is harder to sell is because it takes time. Changing markets is like changing an ecosystem (or perhaps agriculture), while "Progressive" policy focus is more like dumping a pile of fertilizer on one spot. Anyone who has ever accidentally or purposefully dumped fertilizer on one spot in the garden or lawn will know the end result; a "burnt" spot of dead soil...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_democratic_partys_war_against_promotions.html



> *The Democratic Party's War against Promotions*
> By John F. Di Leo
> 
> The December 2011 battle in Washington, D.C. -- a battle over continuing a Social Security tax-cut for another year, or even another two months -- demonstrates the differences between the parties in stark detail, both in terms of campaign methods and economic ideology.
> ...


----------



## Redeye (23 Dec 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "Mission command" is to military success as the "invisible hand" is to economic prosperity - fortune favours the decentralizers.  But the technocrats (or elites, or intellectuals, or whatever else we should call people who know quite a bit more than most people but quite a bit less than the sum of knowledge of a complex system) will insist on continuing to play the role of the French High Command in 1940, believing that victory in the last war assures them of victory in this one; if they fail, it can only be because they were insufficiently dirigiste.



Except it's not - especially where continued prosperity depends on high levels of education, access to modern infrastructure, etc. A command economy of course fails, but so suggest that there's no role or need for an effective government is essentially nonsense. The invisible hand does much, perhaps, but not everything.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Dec 2011)

And who except fring #occupy members advocates for no government at all? (The rest of #occupy advocate for greatly expanded governent powers).

Certainly not the TEA party movement; they advocate for rolling back government spending. Libertarians? We advocate for government to stick to their responsibilities of protection of people and property, and the neutral arbitration of disputes. Objectivists? the same, only more so (or far more tightly defined).

As Brad points out, putting more and more hands into the mix simply slows down the system and muddles the signals. Going back to military analogies, the highly regimented British offensives in the first part of WWI either failed (Battle of the Somme) or achieved very limited objectives with a great deal of effort, while the Germans devolved command to lower and lower levels with "elastic defense" and culminating with Hutier tactics on the offense. On the tactical and operational levels the allies were badly outmatched, only overwhelming logistical superiority allowed the Allies to achieve victory in 1918. (It is very telling that the Allies considered their situation so bad they were making detailed plans for a Spring 1919 offensive).

We see this in todays economy; the incredible disparity between the rates of job creation between low tax and regulation "Red" and high tax and regulation "Blue" states, or the failure of State sponsored "Green" energy initiatives vs the entirely market driven boom in unconventional oil and natural gas production. Saskatchewan booms while Ontario withers. The invisible hand has indeed wrestled the grasping hand of the bureaucratic state to the ground.


----------



## Redeye (23 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Saskatchewan booms while Ontario withers. The invisible hand has indeed wrestled the grasping hand of the bureaucratic state to the ground.



Well, insofar as the invisble hand gave Saskatchewan mineral wealth that Ontario doesn't have. The argument breaks down basically immediately thereafter.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Well, insofar as the invisble hand gave Saskatchewan mineral wealth that Ontario doesn't have. The argument breaks down basically immediately thereafter.



.......and what would that be?

How about breaking down your mass generalization.

A particular mineral? One over the other? Who has more oil vs who has more gold? What?

Overall, who has more mineral wealth? Who has more marketable mineral wealth? Who is more capable of getting their minerals out of the ground, right now, and making profit on them?

You have to substantiate your statement(s).

Otherwise your just falling back on your regular old, run of the mill,  :blah:  :blah: :blah:.

All hyperboyle, no substance.


----------



## Redeye (23 Dec 2011)

I'm no particular fan of Dalton McGuinty, and I still wonder why John Tory blew his election chances with the stupidity of the religious schools issue. I think that torpedoed him, and if I understood what he was trying to do, basically co-opt religious schools with public money, it was more bad marketing, but when people wax poetic about the "Common Sense Revolution", I think they need to go back and read more about it. And FYI, remember the scandal about the Ontario PC Youth's booze buses? I was one of the kids on them. I was a card-carrying Tory until about 2004 or so.

Harris & Co. slashed taxes which was great, but they plugged budget holes by selling off Crown assets - not exactly a sustainable strategy. They also left a pretty substantial deficit on the books as I recall by the time the Liberals won. I'll give Dalton credit, too, for his campaign ads in the last election. It's refreshing to see a politician stand on his record instead of attacking someone else. He was self-deprecating in some ways, modest, and personable. I think that's what helped him stay in office, even if only in a minority government.

I wish it was as easy to simplify as mineral wealth versus non-mineral wealth. The two provinces have completely different resources, populations, and challenges to face. What works in one wouldn't work in the other, and their relative performances, as such, don't really effectively measure all that much.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> .......and what would that be?
> 
> How about breaking down your mass generalization.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm no particular fan of Dalton McGuinty, and I still wonder why John Tory blew his election chances with the stupidity of the religious schools issue. I think that torpedoed him, and if I understood what he was trying to do, basically co-opt religious schools with public money, it was more bad marketing, but when people wax poetic about the "Common Sense Revolution", I think they need to go back and read more about it. And FYI, remember the scandal about the Ontario PC Youth's booze buses? I was one of the kids on them. I was a card-carrying Tory until about 2004 or so.
> 
> Harris & Co. slashed taxes which was great, but they plugged budget holes by selling off Crown assets - not exactly a sustainable strategy. They also left a pretty substantial deficit on the books as I recall by the time the Liberals won. I'll give Dalton credit, too, for his campaign ads in the last election. It's refreshing to see a politician stand on his record instead of attacking someone else. He was self-deprecating in some ways, modest, and personable. I think that's what helped him stay in office, even if only in a minority government.
> 
> I wish it was as easy to simplify as mineral wealth versus non-mineral wealth. The two provinces have completely different resources, populations, and challenges to face. What works in one wouldn't work in the other, and their relative performances, as such, don't really effectively measure all that much.



Then why the straw man for trying to draw a parallel?


----------



## Redeye (23 Dec 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Then why the straw man for trying to draw a parallel?



Mea culpa. A quick, not exactly thought out response.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2011)

Saskatchewan has the same amount of mineral, oil and agricultural resources today as they did in the 1980's when I was posted in Alberta. Alberta was undergoing an oil boom, and everyone who I knew who had connections with the oil business wondered openly why Saskatchewan wasn't getting in the act. 

Answer: The Sakatchewan NDP party, whose tax and regulatory policies in government made it much simpler to cross the border and get rich in Alberta.

Today, the Saskatchewan party has enacted user friendly tax and regulatory policies, so the *same* resource base is now providing a vast explosion in wealth.

The argument is *strengthened* when plotting the economic history of Ontario; once again the basic resource base has never changed, but the economy dips when unfriendly governments (Peterson  Minority, Rae, McGuinty) are in power, while it boomed under a friendly tax and regulatory regime (Mike Harris). Mobile assets like capital, labour and industry flow to where the highest rate of return is available, under McGuinty they have been flowing out of Ontario...

Students of history can see the same effects going as far back as the Peloponnesian wars, where relatively free polities outperformed much larger ones which had far greater resources but far less freedom. Athens had a much smaller resource base compared to Sparta and her Allies coupled to Persian financial backing, yet could continue to fight for 27 years, including a decade after the flower of her army and fleet was destroyed in Syracuse. Elizabethan England had only a fraction of the manpower and resources of the Spanish Empire, but Elizabeth started with a bankrupt treasury and built England into a major power, while Phillip bankrupted his empire despite the river of silver coming in from the New World. (People who complain that the issue today is not enough revenue should consider that example very closely indeed). The _Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta_ was able to hold off the much larger Ottoman Empire for several centuries for many of the same reasons. The story of the Asian "Tiger" economies is much the same


----------



## Redeye (24 Dec 2011)

You won't get an argument from me on the idea that a punitive environment for business is generally a bad thing - but who's going to pick up the tab for the Reagan years? Or the Harris years? In particular, in Ontario, it seemed like people were under the impression that the PC government of Harris & Eves had been running a balanced budget, which of course wasn't the case. If they had stayed in power, what would have happened when there were no more crown assets to sell?



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Saskatchewan has the same amount of mineral, oil and agricultural resources today as they did in the 1980's when I was posted in Alberta. Alberta was undergoing an oil boom, and everyone who I knew who had connections with the oil business wondered openly why Saskatchewan wasn't getting in the act.
> 
> Answer: The Sakatchewan NDP party, whose tax and regulatory policies in government made it much simpler to cross the border and get rich in Alberta.
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Dec 2011)

McGuinity isn't picking up the tab for the Harris years, he's spending us into a have-not province at $16 Billion a year and rising. We're worse off with the Liberals in Ontario than when Bob Rae was running things here, and that's saying something.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Dec 2011)

Before declaring my own personal Christmas Truce I would like to draw one last tortured analogy:

If the world market of 7,000,000,000 rational bodies is construed as a flowing river - constantly changing course, eddying, flooding, under-cutting its banks, puddling.....

Then your choices open are:

Accept the river as is;
Attempt to control it

If you attempt to control it then your choices are:

Build Dams;
Build Weirs and Canals

Dams attempt to block the river and eventually fail.
Weirs and canals permit the water to flow but impede and direct it to advantage.  They tend to last longer than Dams.

Dirigisme builds Dams.
L(l)iberalism builds weirs and canals.

It is a matter of accepting realities and working with them as opposed to denying realities and working against them.


----------



## GAP (24 Dec 2011)

Oh....now I see....that's where "that D a m n McGuinity" saying comes from.......


----------



## a_majoor (26 Dec 2011)

Foundations:

http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm



> Thucydides taught us more than twenty-four hundred years ago … that all men’s behavior is guided by phobos, kerdos, and doxa, Fear, self-interest, and honor."
> 
> Responsible capitalism is self-interest mitigated with honor — in the sense of doing things right and considering also the rights and interests of others. Irresponsible capitalism is unmitigated self-interest – caveat emptor.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Dec 2011)

A very interesting pilot project. Reading carefully, we see that highly selective targetting is the key to making this program work, rather than simply spraying money out of a hose, which suggests that this sort of program would be best delivered by local community groups and charities such as churches, rather than central bureaucracies:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/guess-funds-biggest-project-ever-house-homeless-stephen-201033843.html



> *Guess who funds biggest project ever to house the homeless? Stephen Harper*
> The Canadian PressBy Heather Scoffield, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – Mon, 26 Dec, 2011
> 
> Email
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2012)

Jerry Pournelle on defining "conservatism". We have been subjected to lots of psudo conservative movements (neocons, compassionate conservatives, Big Government Conservatives, "crunchy conservatives" [sounds like a brand of ice cream  ;D] and so on), and various related groupings like Libertarians and Objectivists have been swept up in the net as well. This is a fairly clear way of looking at things:

http://jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=4536



> What do we mean by Big Government Conservative anyway? It is, after all, a contradiction in terms. It might fairly have been applied to some of the hare brained schemes – mostly compromises and reaching across the aisle to Democrats – from the post-Gingrich days of Republican majorities; to the Americans With Disabilities Act; to No Child Left Behind; indeed to any number of compromise schemes; but on examination it is difficult to find anything Conservative about those schemes.
> 
> In the United States, Conservative means a dedication to the original Constitution of 1787; States Rights; transparency and subsidiarity as discussed by Jane Jacobs but those terms have often been usurped; and the general notion that a free people don’t need a nanny state. It also implies conceding a certain degree of local power in social matters. It does not mean anarchy and weak government. No conservative I know favors weak government. We do favor limited government and restriction of the scope of government, but that is nowhere near the same thing. Weak government and anarchy are a curse, and a temptation to tyranny. Good government is a blessing.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jan 2012)

Here is an interesting "take" on the Libertarian/conservative darling Ron Paul, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynolds/the-dangerous-isolationism-of-ron-paul/article2302229/
my *emphasis* added


> The dangerous isolationism of Ron Paul
> 
> NEIL REYNOLDS
> 
> ...


*


There is, indeed, a logical "dark side" to American conservatism.
*


----------



## Redeye (16 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is an interesting "take" on the Libertarian/conservative darling Ron Paul, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynolds/the-dangerous-isolationism-of-ron-paul/article2302229/
> my *emphasis* added
> ...



While Ron Paul himself doesn't particularly disturb me (or surprise me, at least), the liberals who drift into his camp because a couple of things resonate with him and don't do their homework on him do indeed scare the shinola out of me a little.


----------



## RangerRay (16 Jan 2012)

Being a libertarian, I'm sure that many of Ron Paul's social and foreign policies appeal to many "liberal" voters.  I wonder if they would be so enamored with his strict constitutionalist policies with regards to the role of the state in the economy and regulating business.


----------



## Redeye (16 Jan 2012)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Being a libertarian, I'm sure that many of Ron Paul's social and foreign policies appeal to many "liberal" voters.  I wonder if they would be so enamored with his strict constitutionalist policies with regards to the role of the state in the economy and regulating business.



Actually, most "liberal" voters are pro-choice, so they wouldn't find his social policies particularly appealing. I don't think they'd find his opposition to things like the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act particularly heartwarming either. That's why I don't get his appeal to them, other than they really like the idea of no more wars and curbing of defence spending perhaps. His other more contentious views (like his views on Israel) I don't think have any sort of "universal" liberal POV so some might like them, others will not.


----------



## Sythen (29 Jan 2012)

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/01/20120129-113645.html



> Capitalism, in its current form, has no place in the world around us.
> 
> Those words are not mine. They’re a quote, from a fellow named Klaus Schwab.
> 
> ...



More on link.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jan 2012)

Capitalism works fine.  Crony capitalism, which is what all those politicians at Davos live and breathe, sucks ass.  I don't need a thief to tell me my way of life is wrong when the true problem is simply that his way of life happens to be thievery - his viewpoint is too distorted to render a useful evaluation.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jan 2012)

Governments "crowding out" communities is a long established trend. I think the real question now is two fold:

1. Can community based organizations recover fast enough to pick up the slack as governments are forced to withdraw due to financial pressure, and

2. Are people too habituated to the "Nanny State" to move to self help and local community organizations?

I remain hopeful that the Post Progressive future will see a flowering of communities again (even if they don't quite resemble those of the past i.e. communities of interest based on the Internet and social media), but time will tell:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/opinion/sunday/douthat-government-and-its-rivals.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share&src=tp&pagewanted=print



> *Government and Its Rivals*
> By ROSS DOUTHAT
> 
> WHEN liberals are in a philosophical mood, they like to cast debates over the role of government not as a clash between the individual and the state, but as a conflict between the individual and the community. Liberals are for cooperation and joint effort; conservatives are for self-interest and selfishness. Liberals build the Hoover Dam and the interstate highways; conservatives sit home and dog-ear copies of “The Fountainhead.” Liberals know that it takes a village; conservatives pretend that all it takes is John Wayne.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Feb 2012)

A very interesting defense of capitalism, from the most unlikely of sources:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit-archive/oldarchives/2002_02_24_instapundit_archive.html#10199471



> *PUNK ROCKERS FOR CAPITALISM*: Reader John Bowman sends this link to a piece from Popshot Magazine on why capitalism, rather than Naderism, is truly punk:
> 
> Ralph Nader and the Green Party have gained tremendous support from the punk rock/independent community. The most recent "anti-capitalist" material I read on the web was juxtaposed with a link to Nader's "Fair Trade" web page. . . .
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2012)

American blogger and conservative media entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart died very recently at age 43. Here is one look at his legacy. Expect to see many more people following in his footsteps and an explosion in the conservative/classical liberal/libertarian blogospheres in the years to come as thousands of people apply his principles and put them into action:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/immortality-andrew-breitbart’s-5-gifts-to-generation-y-conservatism/?print=1



> *Immortality: Andrew Breitbart’s 5 Gifts to Generation Y Conservatism*
> Posted By Dave Swindle On March 4, 2012 @ 9:34 am In Conservatism 2.0 | 23 Comments
> 
> Greg Gutfeld on his friend Andrew Breitbart: [1]
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Mar 2012)

An interesting reflection, with which I, broadly, agree, by Andrew Coyne, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

My *emphasis* added
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/10/andrew-coyne-question-isnt-where-conservatism-is-going-but-where-has-it-gone/


> Question isn’t where conservatism is going, but where has it gone
> 
> Andrew Coyne
> 
> ...




Yep ... Conservatism sure does need work, a lot of it.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Mar 2012)

Andrew Breitbart's media legacy is a celebration of conservative values, especially providing outlets for the voice of the individual rather than simply accepting the "narrative" of the legacy media. I expect that we wil see a flood of would be Breitbarts in the years to come. Canada had aggregators like "The Blogging Tories" and "Liblogs" so we have some place to start.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/10/how-andrew-breitbart-changed-the-news



> *How Andrew Breitbart Changed the News*
> Love him or hate him, he demonstrated how to build your own media outlet.
> 
> Nick Gillespie | March 10, 2012
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (12 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> An interesting reflection, with which I, broadly, agree, by Andrew Coyne, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:
> 
> My *emphasis* added
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/10/andrew-coyne-question-isnt-where-conservatism-is-going-but-where-has-it-gone/
> ...



The fact that BC premier Christy Clark was invited to speak at this event also suggests that conservatism sure does need A LOT of work.


----------



## RangerRay (13 Mar 2012)

Recently, there has been a lot of talk in the media in BC about how "conservative" Premier Christy Clark is.  From getting Tory staffers, the support of ex-Tory MP's, and her recent welcoming by Preston Manning at the Manning Institute meeting a few days ago, the press are calling her a "conservative".

However, below are many reasons why BC Premier Christy Clark, though leading the free-enterprise coalition BC Liberals (for now), is NOT a conservative.

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2012/03/13/christy-clark-was-not-ever-is-not-now-nor-will-ever-be-a-conservative-nevermind-what-the-presto-of-the-dunce-tank-thinks-clark-is-canadas-plastic-dodo-bird/



> *Christy Clark Was Not Ever, Is Not Now, Nor Will Ever Be a Conservative! Nevermind What the Presto! of the Dunce Tank Thinks, Clark is Canada’s Plastic Dodo Bird!!!*
> 
> 
> ‘Iron Snowbird’ my derriere. Let’s do a little Christy retrospective:
> ...



Conservatives are leaving the BC Liberals in droves.  Unless she leaves office, they are not coming back.


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Mar 2012)

No shidt Alloutte. 

The NDP leading in the polls? What next for BC?


----------



## RangerRay (13 Mar 2012)

In BC, the NDP seldom lead.  They lead only when the Liberal/Conservative coalition implodes.

And it's imploding.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2012)

Sounds like BC needs something like the Wildrose Alliance Party or the Saskatchewan Party to bring sanity and order to the province. (Ontario could also do with the PCPO either dropping the "P" or have Reform Ontario move from an idea to a reality). The growth of small "c" conservative parties may well be the next big thing in Canadian politics, and this could be a very big story if we see a flow of people moving from small "c" conservative parties into the Federal party.


----------



## RangerRay (14 Mar 2012)

My feeling is that the BC Conservative Party (not officially affiliated with the federal party, just as the BC Liberals are not officially affiliated with the federal Libs) will probably not form the next government in 2013, but will draw enough support away from the BC Liberals so that the NDP form government.  In BC, the NDP consistently get about 40% of the vote, win or lose.

In my opinion, 4 years of NDP would not be so bad.  The free-enterprise coalition is in desperate need of an enema to clean out the corruption and crony capitalists.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2012)

This could equally go in the US economy or Canadian economic superthread as well. I expect this may be the nex "frontier" for conservatives, classical liberals and libertarians looking to create a post progressive society:

http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/15/complex-societies-need-simple-laws



> *Complex Societies Need Simple Laws*
> We need to end the orgy of rule-making at once and embrace the simple rules that true liberals like America’s founders envisioned.
> 
> John Stossel | March 15, 2012
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Mar 2012)

Here is a link to an article in National Review Online which compares the state of conservatism in the US, Australia, Canada and the UK. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293378/conservative-models-john-osullivan?pg=1


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2012)

I liked the part about Kyoto and the fact that nobody really gives a s**t anymore.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Mar 2012)

This made me laugh:

"Canada’s postwar drift from lumberjack to cross-dresser, as in the Monty Python song, has begun to reverse."


----------



## ProudNewfoundlander (3 Apr 2012)

Im noticing that the conservative movement is becoming increasingly divided between younger Libertarian leaning people, and those adhering to a more traditional conservatism that is supportive of social conservatism and foreign intervention


----------



## a_majoor (24 Apr 2012)

Now one of the ideals of conservativeism is accountability. Imagine going this route:

http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2012/04/24/iceland-leads-the-way/



> *Iceland leads the way*
> April 24, 2012 - 10:23 am - by Roger Kimball
> 
> Fiduciary responsibility: remember that?  I didn’t think so. Nobody around here does either.  But Iceland does, and it has just provided the rest of us with a brisk reminder that the people we entrust to be public stewards have a responsibility to be, you know, public stewards.
> ...



Discounting the anti-Obama snark, it is a good idea to remind the elected officials (and their unelected minions) that they, in fact, work for us and are indeed accountable. This would require a great deal of work (there are plenty of perverse incentives to cover up or ignore corruption and irregularities), and the Police and Justice systems would have to be transformed as well (our police and criminal justice systems have yet to track down and prosecute the cast of characters involved in ADSCAM, for example). Still, the symbolic nature of the prosecution in Iceland is sending a message to the current crop of Icelandic pols, and I think Iceland will be a better place for it.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Apr 2012)

Now this could equally go in the  US Economy thread, or Making Canada Relevant Again economic superthread, but it really deals with the basic premise that people who are responsible and accountable to solve their own problems _always_ outcompete bureaucracies and centralized control. Anyone well read in history can also glean this lesson from periods as diverse as Classical Greece, the competition between the _Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta_ and the Ottoman Empire or even looking at the India's economic performance after the overthrow of the "Permit Raj" system in the 1980's. Another fact point to bolster arguments for the Classical Liberal/Libertarian/Conservative/conservative side:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577309220933715082.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



> *Tornado Recovery: How Joplin Is Beating Tuscaloosa*
> 
> by David T. Beito and Daniel J. Smith
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 May 2012)

I have thought from time to time that an economy or political system is more like an ecosystem than anything else. This is an amazing example putting that metaphor into action:

http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2005/02/cracking_poppin.html



> *Bloggers are "cracking, popping, drilling and peeling their victims open"*
> 
> A "snail link" -- an article from the NYT Science Times that caught our politico-philosopho-scientific eye ten years ago.  Not having the option of URL linking in those pioneering days, this protoblogger clipped the thing, underlined important passages, sent xeroxed copies to our small circle of interested parties and then carefully filed it away in a drawer, from which we were able to pull it this afternoon after all these years.
> 
> ...



The money quote is highlighted in yellow. Politics is defined in Organizational Theory as a means of distributing limited resources, which ties in nicely with the idea that all living things compete for locally limiting resources, and leads to the study of competition, cooperation, adaptation and feedback between people and organizations to get these resources.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Aug 2012)

People wondering why the Conservative movement has been getting stronger (or alternatively why the Progressive movement is becoming so incoherent) should take a moment to look at the intellectual foundations. An interesting note is modern conservatism is actually newer than Progressiveism (which was born in the late 1800's and can arguably be said to have reached political take off under President Wilson during the first World War). Canadian conservatism comes from similar roots, but is much more pragmatic in its approach (and there is also a large element of populism as well).

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/why-is-there-no-liberal-ayn-rand.php



> *Why Is There No Liberal Ayn Rand?*
> 
> That’s the question Beverly Gage poses on Slate.com yesterday, with the even more instructive subtitle: “American conservatives have a canon.  Why don’t American liberals?”  She comes to this question because of the fact that Paul Ryan cites Rand, along with Hayek and other conservative heroes, as inspirations for his thought.  Obama–he cites mostly . . . himself.  Most other modern liberals cite . . . no one.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2012)

This could go in several places, including our BC Election thread, but I'm putting it here because I think it talks about what is wrong with both political conservatism and (so called) liberalism: excessive, often mindless partisanship - which is, too often visible here in Army.ca, too. The article is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/former-liberal-insider-critiques-christy-clark-in-new-book/article4498917/


> Former Liberal insider critiques Christy Clark in new book
> 
> GARY MASON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I've just bought the book and will read it soon, but ...

There's nothing _wrong_ with conservatism, nor with liberalism, classical or the misnamed version of _statism_ which isn't _liberal_ at all; what's wrong with all political movements are the fanatics who, usually mindlessly, support each and every position, so long as it is opposed to the "others," regardless of its social, economic or strategic consequences. Most _conservative_ "commentators," especially in the 'blogosphere' are blissfully ignorant of _conservative_ principles (classical or neo-conservative) which puts them in the same league as most _liberal_ commentators (who are, usually, statists who would hate and fear real liberalism if they ever, accidentally, stumbled upon it).


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This could go in several places, including our BC Election thread, but I'm putting it here because I think it talks about what is wrong with both political conservatism and (so called) liberalism: excessive, often mindless partisanship - which is, too often visible here in Army.ca, too. The article is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/former-liberal-insider-critiques-christy-clark-in-new-book/article4498917/
> 
> ...




Same subject: it's not conservatism (or liberalism/statism)  that needs work, it's _conservatives_ and _statists_, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/25/robert-fulford-the-days-of-civilized-campaigning-are-long-gone/


> The days of civilized campaigning are long gone
> 
> Robert Fulford
> 
> ...




We see examples of this almost every day, here on Army.ca - we have _partisans_, who have no _special_ interest in US politics - they aren't residents or anything like that - parroting the most arrant nonsense in (always vain) efforts to prove that the "others" are wrong.

The Obama campaign has, thus far, been lowest of the low. The attack on Romney by the worker whose wife died was a bald faced lie. President Obama, dishonestly and disgracefully, hid behind the fiction that the Super PAC is not his campaign that's total, complete :bullshit: and everyone, even the most diehard Obama supporter know it. That President Obama did not, immediately, disassociate himself and his campaign from the ad simply illustrates that he is *morally unfit* for elected office. But, trust me, he's only got a temporary hold on lowest of the low: I am 100% confident that the Romney campaign will go even lower, followed by Obama who will go lower still, followed by Romney ... _ad infinitum_ or until 6 Nov 12, anyway.

Sadly who wins in America does matter, to Canada and the world, but we will get a second rate government: White House, Congress and State Houses because Americans will, in ever smaller numbers, vote AGAINST something, not FOR America.


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Aug 2012)

ERC, I believe that the Romney campaign, and the Republican SP, will not go even lower than President Obama and is supporters. I believe Romney will pull the SP back if they try. Possibly I am naive. 

ERC: 





> Sadly who wins in America does matter, to Canada and the world, but we will get a second rate government: White House, Congress and State Houses because Americans will, in ever smaller numbers, vote AGAINST something, not FOR America.



America voted FOR America last time and look where it got the country.

As a side note: Could you imagine Biden, or, for the two year time frame as the Speaker, Pelosi heading the US in any possible scenario?

I am not a citizen, cannot vote, but live in the USA for six months. There, we live and participate in the community, including for a significant time volunteering to assist wounded service personnel and their families.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ERC, I believe that the Romney campaign, and the Republican SP, will not go even lower than President Obama and is supporters. I believe Romney will pull the SP back if they try. Possibly I am naive.
> 
> ERC:
> America voted FOR America last time and look where it got the country.
> ...




I think America voted against "more of the same" in 2008, not, really, FOR change. I know it's a slight difference but I think the voting AGAINST thing started in the Bush(41)/Clinton election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ERC, I believe that the Romney campaign, and the Republican SP, will not go even lower than President Obama and is supporters. I believe Romney will pull the SP back if they try. Possibly I am naive.
> ...




You *should* be right; Romney and the GOP should be campaigning on the issues on which President Obama is most vulnerable: the sad state of the US economy, but - and this is the same tissue of lies behind which President Obama tries to hide - the SuperPACs can "go rogue" and e.g. run ads aimed at Obama's race or citizenship or religion, and another but is that "rogues" like Todd Akin may derail the best laid plans by changing the _narrative_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Reports are floating around that Prime Minister David Cameron will announce, today, a series of World War I commemorative events. My guess is that Canada will follow suit.




As part of Prime Minister Harper's plan to reshape Canadians' self image and sense of themselves I expect a major _awareness_ campaign to commemorate World War I. I expect 2017 to be the _keynote_, 150 years since Confederation and 100 years since Vimy Ridge. I just hope no pins/medals are involved but I cannot imagine that _they_, whoever they are, can resist a medal with enormous consequential angst re: who gets it.


----------



## GAP (11 Oct 2012)

> I cannot imagine that they, whoever they are, can resist a medal with enormous consequential angst re: who gets it.



Everyone who was there and is still alive.....


----------



## larry Strong (11 Oct 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Everyone who was there and is still alive.....



:goodpost:


----------



## Loachman (11 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I just hope no pins/medals are involved



That was my first thought - get rid of one cheap, crappy, made-in-China pin just in time for another.

Maybe it'll have two pins on the back so that it doesn't spin around, at least.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Everyone who was there and is still alive.....



Lessee:

ERC, Old Sweat and George then........

(Fleeing now).


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2012)

It's a rare day - like that moment, twice a day when a clock is right - because I think Lawrence Martin is right in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _iPolitics_:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/11/01/have-canadians-changed-trudeau-and-obama-suggest-otherwise/


> Have Canadians changed? Trudeau and Obama suggest otherwise
> 
> By Lawrence Martin
> 
> ...




His points:

+ Canadians support Obama over Romney by an *overwhelming* majority; and ✔

+ Trudeau is wildly popular; ✔

     ~ Therefore "the majority of the Canadian population is still, as it always has been, of a progressive persuasion," ✔

     ~ "The electoral success of the Reform-rooted Conservatives has been impressive, but it doesn’t mean the people have migrated rightward," and ✔

     ~ "The country [as a result of _policy_ changes] has a more conservative reputation. But reputation doesn’t always reflect the underlying reality." ✔

Further: "Trudeau’s numbers likely will fall back the more he is scrutinized. It may take just one silly statement or action for the media to change tack and go after him as a latter-day Stockwell Day." ✔

Finally:

+ "Harper has handled relations with Obama astutely, realizing it would be foolish to cross swords too often with him, given his stature here. In Justin Trudeau, Harper faces another popular progressive. He won’t hesitate to cross him, however;" and ✔

+ "The name Trudeau is anathema to Stephen Harper and always has been. If anything, it will give him more motivation to stay and fight more elections." ✔


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Nov 2012)

Funny how the "reality based community" of "data driven people" is like a bunch of cheerleaders around the captain of the football team over two empty suits in two different countries.

Every notable statesman must excel at two skills: campaigning, and statecraft.  Too many people confuse the former with the latter, or assume the latter must be present wherever the former is.  "Salesmen" or "campaigners" are common as dirt, and should be attributed approximately the same value until they demonstrate real achievement at something less critical than "executive".


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2013)

Walter Russell Mead on a possible vision of Post Progressive society. I'm not going to say that this is indeed the model that will emerge, and indeed history tells us the true danger during the chaotic transition periods is "The man on the white horse" who offers stability and safety. Still, it is worth thinking about what sort of society you want to live in , and what you want to pass on to your children:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/01/16/life-after-blue/



> *Life After Blue*
> Walter Russell Mead
> 
> In the last couple of years I’ve been writing about the death of the blue social model. By that I mean that the characteristic form of 20th century industrial democracy has come unglued, and that the advanced industrial democracies around the world must adjust to basic changes in the way the world works.
> ...



One clarification, it seems very clear that Mead's "Liberalism" is not Progressiveism", but rather an evolution of the precepts of Classical Liberalism.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2013)

More from Walter Russell Mead. The vision of Post Progressive society may not be the model that eventually arises, but the releasing of millions of people from "gatekeepers" via the Internet and the myriad of technologies that have evolved and sprung from it is a good thing overall. We see hickups all around (such as groups antithical to freedom, like the Muslim Brotherhoods, using social media like Facebook to promote their message of intolerance), and like most tools, there will always be people who use them in unproductive, malicious or evil ways, but there is still a solid cultural foundation for Western Civilization (just maybe not where our so called elites live and work), so *we* can still maintain the cultural advantages that allow us to use these tools to the greatest effect:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/01/28/another-road-the-blue-elites-are-wrong/



> *Another Road: The Blue Elites Are Wrong*
> 
> Walter Russell Mead
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2013)

While most of us know this implicitly, the argument against intrusive government is laid out in very clear language here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/02/26/shepherds_and_sheep_117152.html



> *Shepherds and Sheep*
> 
> By Thomas Sowell - February 26, 2013
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2013)

Preston Manning on where the limits of free speech might lie. (I, as a libertarian, am in favour of a much more expansive vision of free speech, but as Manning correctly suggests, enemies of free speech are not interested in debate or using "better speech", but using "Gotchas" to shut down or end debate)

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/09/preston-manning-on-the-conservative-movement-and-free-speech/



> *Preston Manning on the conservative movement and free speech*
> 
> Special to National Post | 13/03/09 | Last Updated: 13/03/09 5:35 PM ET
> More from Special to National Post
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2013)

George W Bush borrows from Alexis de Tocqueville (who noted America is a nation of associations) and the great Classical Liberal thinkers and distills their thinking in a small line in his dedication on the opening of his Presidential Library. The full meaning and impact of his words should be pondered by anyone thinking about how to articulate the Conservative point of View (or any of the other subsets of Classical Liberalism for that matter):

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/05/02/eleven-great-words-from-george-w-bush/



> *Eleven great words from George W. Bush*
> 
> William Watson | 13/05/02 2:35 PM ET
> More from William Watson
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (8 May 2013)

There was a recent Maclean's article about Kenney's role as the immigration minister, that hinted that Kenney may just be the next pick for PM, given his role in reaching out to immigrant communities and getting them to vote Conservative. The said article also stated that his outreach work was behind the Tories winning around seven majority immigrant ridings (some of which were traditional Liberal strongholds) in the past Federal election, if I can recall correctly. As an immigrant myself who came here in 2006 and was naturalized as a full Canadian citizen in 2011, I admire this outreach effort on the part of the Tories; one of our Tory MPs here in Richmond, BC, Alice Wong, is an immigrant herself. Still, from how I see it, the Conservatives have to continue to emphasize the pro-trade side and the fiscal side (less gov't.) of their platform if they want to continue to appeal to this growing immigrant base. This is because a growing number of these immigrants are in the business/investor class category who would identify more as being pro-business and thus more fiscally conservative, regardless of their country of origin.

Creating a continued awareness of the importance of Canadian history and duties as a citizen (e.g. following the law, helping or serving the community, getting a job and supporting one's family, or the importance of serving one's country such as through the CF...), as emphasized in the citizenship test and ceremonies, also has helped create a greater sense of an inclusive, Canadian identity for many in this group.

National Post



> *Young, suburban and mostly Asian: Canada’s immigrant population surges*
> 
> OTTAWA — The debut of Canada’s controversial census replacement survey shows there are more foreign-born people in the country than ever before, at a proportion not seen in almost a century.
> 
> ...



Mr. Campbell, if I can recall correctly from past posts, you continue to emphasize engagement with India and China not only because of the growing economic and political power of both, but the history of these two countries' diaspora groups in Canada. However, as the last part of this article shows, immigration from the Philippines has surpassed these two groups and continues to be the current top source of immigrants to Canada and this has been true since even before 2011. 

Since Filipinos come from a predominantly Catholic country, most are socially conservative, and thus would identify more with Tories when it comes to social issues such as opposition to abortion. Since they are also from a former US colony where English is an official language, they are able to integrate quickly into greater Canadian society and generally do not cluster into their own immigrant enclaves. 

Furthermore, if one looks at the Filipino diaspora in the United States, many tend to join the military in large numbers; this stems in part from the fact the Philippines was the only foreign country (other than American protectorates like the Mariana Islands) from which the US Navy recruited its enlisted sailors (only until 1991 when Subic Naval base in the Philippines was closed down).  Many of those in the Fil-American diaspora who join the US military today are usually the offspring of the thousands of those sailors who enlisted in the US Navy since 1946.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 May 2013)

My views (and prejudices) are informed,(uninformed many will say  ) by my experiences.

You are correct that a minor part of my push to _engage_ both China and India rests on the _diaspora_ populations of each that we have in Canada. I have seen "overseas Chinese" exploit their family connections to facilitate deal making in China. I'm guessing that India is about the same.

My limited experience in/with e.g. Malaysia and Philippines is that they are less culturally developed than China, India, Japan, Singapore, etc. I agree that the Conservatives - all parties, actually - should reach out to the Filipino-Canadian community, as they should to all ethnic minorities, and for all the good partisan political reasons. I am less enthusiastic about the prospects of successful business relationships with the Philippines - less enthusiastic about the prospects but still eager to try, I should say.

As to the military, it is my belief (I have no proof) that the military benefits for a rich diversity of people.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Sep 2013)

Although an American example, this piece by Governor Palin is a quite articulate look at the dangers that demagogues using emotion to whip up the polulation are to the body politic. (Of course you can read similar accounts in the "History of the Peloponnesian Wars", as demagogues whip up the Athenian jury to vote for various schemes):

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359114/freedom-destroys-itself-sarah-palin



> As Freedom Destroys Itself
> *Laws can’t protect a society that has lost its way.*
> By Sarah Palin
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2013)

I'm not sure this belongs here, but I'm even less sure about where else to put it, and I think that _conservatism_, by which I believe our friend Thucydides, the originator of the thread meant _classical liberalism_, is part of the cure for the _disease_ which historian and public intellectual Victor Davis Hanson describes in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Review Online_:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356805/american-satyricon-victor-davis-hanson


> An American Satyricon
> *Our elites would be right at home in Petronius’s world of debauchery and bored melodrama.*
> 
> By Victor Davis Hanson
> ...




It was the phrase _"nonchalant ignorance"_ that caught my eye because it seems to sum up the "state of play" in politics in America, especially, but also in Australia (as far as I was able to follow the recent election campaigns), Britain and Canada, too. Bromides have become accepted wisdom; deep (and effective) polling about everything from public safety to economic policy has replaced policy analysis as the basis for political manifestos; and we have, as Susan Delacourt explains, in a new book which I highly recommend, become political _consumers_ who are _informed_ by the same advertising that sells us cars and feminine hygiene products. In short, like Trimalchio and his dinner guests, we have lost touch with our _liberal_ political roots and we are now being manipulated by forces for whom _principles_ are unimportant but _power_ matters.

_Liberals_, of the small 'l' variety, need to take control of whichever of the (relatively) _liberal_ political parties seems most vulnerable and boot the _conservatives_ (as John Stuart Mill described them)* out, back to the "pop cultural," easy answer, _consumer_ universe in which they thrive. We need to find a way to persuade _liberals_ to agree, once again, to stand for office ~ I think our horrid fascination with the private lives of celebrities has infected politics and driven good men out and we need to remember and other quote, attributed to Edmund Burke.** The "triumph" is not of evil, _per se_, it is, as Victor Davis Hanson suggests, of "nonchalant ignorance" and we are all guilty of allowing it to prosper.  

We need a _liberal leader_; in my _opinion_, the last ones were Lester Pearson, John Diefenbaker (even though I disapproved of his brand of prairie populism) and, of course, Louis St Laurent. I _think_ that all leaders since Pearson - Trudeau, Stanfield, Clark, Turner, Mulroney, Campbell, Manning, Chrétien, Charest, Martin, Dion, Ignatieff and Harper (and, of course not forgetting Broadbent through Mulcair and Bouchard through Duceppe ) have been, more or less, both *a)* _conservative_, and *b)* retail politicians, driven to buy our votes based on modified market research rather than on _principles_.

_____
*   "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative."
       _John Stuart Mill_, in a parliamentary debate on 31 May 1866
** "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
       Attrbuted to Edmund Burke


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Nov 2013)

There are Conservatives and conservatives and _conservatives_ and this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Financial Times/i] compares and contrasts British, overly rational, Conservatives with American irrational, conservatives:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fbd50f34-55dd-11e3-96f5-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#axzz2lkBcybws







Cameron must reclaim his party from the rationalists
*The UK centre-right needs to relaunch to save conservatism from the Conservatives*

By Janan Ganesh

November 25, 2013

Critics of conservatism usually equate it with irrationality. They sense something of the counter-Enlightenment in the US Republican party’s religious fervour and no less faith-based approach to economics. But British conservatism is different. Its electoral agonies flow from too much rationality, not too little. Twenty-one years since the Tories last won an election, eight since they began to “modernise” under David Cameron’s leadership, the party still takes a view of politics that is best described as stupidly logical.

This view, which has spread from the rightwing to contaminate the leadership, runs as follows: parties must find out what people think about the issues of the day, align themselves with those opinions and watch the votes pile up. And so Tories cockily recite their polling advantage over the Labour opposition on welfare, immigration and Europe to the last percentage point. Call them rightwing and they brandish a chart showing their views are mainstream.

Theirs is a model of almost mathematical clarity – and childlike credulity. As a guide to how politics really works, nothing has bettered the research finding that sits halfway through Smell the Coffee, a psephological study of the Conservatives’ third consecutive election defeat in 2005. When a tough immigration policy is read out to voters, they approve. When they are told it is a Tory policy, they recoil. In other words, the party’s reputation is so foul that some people would rather shun an idea they like than endorse its Conservative authors. “Brand” is a shallow-sounding word for a very important thing. “Policy” is a serious-sounding word for something that politically matters much less.

This is why Mr Cameron opened his leadership with no great intellectual treatise but vivid and surprising gestures in favour of the environment, delinquent youths and anything else that would disrupt settled impressions of Conservatives. This is why the suspension of that good work when the recession came was a folly of existential consequence for his party. And this is why the continuing retreat from it in government is so unwise.

In the struggle for the Tory soul that predates and will outlast Mr Cameron’s leadership, the deepest faultline does not lie between right and left but between rationalists and those with a more impressionistic take on politics. Rationalists make a data-driven case for Mr Cameron’s tough noises on Europe, immigration and green taxes; issue-by-issue polling is on their side. But impressionists know the spectacle of a Tory leader saying predictably Tory things about classical Tory subjects keeps the party’s overall image in the same low place where it has festered for a generation.

Rationalists hold excruciating weekend conferences of the “101 policies to win the next election” variety. Impressionists search for spectacular gestures to remake the party’s reputation at a stroke. Rationalists lament the loss of Tory voters to the fringe UK Independence party. Impressionists are more worried about the 42 per cent of voters who refuse even to consider ever voting Conservative. Rationalists are literal and study detail. Impressionists are intuitive and see the big picture. Rationalists are from Mars, impressionists are from Venus.

Were both tribes vying for Mr Cameron’s ear, he could at least craft some kind of synthesis, what with his English taste for balance. But his best impressionists have gone: Steve Hilton, a roving strategist who left Downing Street in 2012, and Andrew Cooper, the first moderniser, who has just departed from an advisory role. The prime minister is left with a kitchen cabinet of clout, forensic intelligence but almost uniform rationality.

Modernisation is being jeered out of fashion, and out of existence, by cynics who say that eight years of it have failed to decontaminate the Conservative brand. Last week they shouted down Nick Boles, the planning minister and moderniser’s moderniser, for suggesting the Tories should set up a parallel National Liberal party and campaign alongside it.

In truth, there were only two years of modernisation, and they managed to lift the party to 50 per cent in the polls by 2008. The modish greenery, the smarmy talk of inclusiveness, the reticence on tax cuts: it all worked. And it worked because, when a party’s brand is hideous, creating a different impression – almost regardless of what that is – constitutes an improvement. The crash was not the time to suspend these efforts but to extend them to the heavier terrain of economic inequality, housebuilding and consumer rights. Mr Boles’s only mistake was not going far enough. Modernisers should ask whether the entity known as the Tory party is salvageable, or whether the centre-right must relaunch to save conservatism from the Conservatives.

The swing voter is not a brother of homo economicus, coldly appraising each party’s manifesto for compatibility with their own interests. They respond to the general aroma emitted by a party. That, modernisation’s central insight, is being forgotten. And so the Tory brand continues to reek, and a party in thrall to vulgar rationalism still strains to smell the coffee.
		
Click to expand...



But I think there is more than just two extremes. I doubt that US style conservatism - irrational and based on beliefs, as Mr Ganesh suggests - is exportable in its current form. Mr Ganesh gets one of the reasons right, right at the top. US conservatism has a strong religious component but the data suggests that the USA, in its strong religiosity, is sui generis is the modern, Euro-Asian world - only the Islamic Crescent and parts of Africa have similar levels of religious attachment.  

I would liken the different level of conservatism to art schools. I see Cameron's British Conservatives as something akin to the 15th century Northern European school ~ think e.g. Jan van Eyck





Van Eyck - the Arnolfini Portrait, 1434. Note the almost excruciatingly
realistic detail, down to the reflection in the mirror

On that basis American conservatives are more like 20th century cubists:





Picasso - Figure dans un Fauteuil, 1910. You can see the woman, but she is not, to the rational eye, nude, as Picasso suggested

There is, I think, a third way - an impressionistic way ...





Renoir - Le Moulin de la Galette, 1876. The "message" is not in the details, nor is it in beliefs, it is, rather, in the "feeling" which
the style adds to the image

I suspect that Australia and Canada are, already, in the impressionistic phase and that Britain wants, maybe needs to move there, too.

I also suspect that America has a way to go ...
_


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2013)

Culture plays a huge part here. American culture is firmly based on Protestant Dissenters who fled England during the late 1600's and the enlightenment thinkers (who provided the intellectual foundation of the Republic). This is not only a strong and deep foundation, but also was widely disseminated by schooling and popular culture even into the recent past, so it is still a living part of the American culture.

This may explain the strong reaction to attempts to displace it, and the visceral dislike for such things as "Progressiveism" or the "New Deal" and going forward, since the intellectual and cultural roots of such ideas are not at all related to Protestant Dissent _OR_ Enlightenment philosophy (the New Deal was explicitly modeled after Italian Fascism, for example, and Progressiveism seems to have roots in 19th century German philosophy). While the vast majority of people are not going to think of things this way, the roots of their cultural values reach back to these ideas. Understand the ideas and you will understand the people.

Samual Huntington's book "Who Are We" goes into this in great depth.

edit for spelling


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Nov 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Culture plays a huge part here. American culture is firmly based on Protestant Dissenters who fled England Great Britain and The Continent (Scotland, Cumbria, Northumbria, the Rhein Palatinate, Cevennes, Savoy, the Languedoc and the Low Countries) via Protestant England, during the late 1600's reign of the Sun King and his Grandson, and the enlightenment thinkers (who provided the intellectual foundation of the Republic). This is not only a strong a deep foundation, but also was widely disseminated by schooling and popular culture even into the recent past, so it is still a living part of the American culture.
> 
> This may explain the strong reaction to attempts to displace it, and the visceral dislike for such things as "Progressiveism" or the "New Deal" and going forward, since the intellectual and cultural roots of shuch ideas are not at all related to Protestant Dissent _OR_ Enlightenment philosophy (the New Deal was explicitly modeled after Italian Fascism, for example, and Progressiveism seems to have roots in 19th century German philosophy). While the vast majority of people are not going to think of things this way, the roots of their cultural values reach back to these ideas. Understand the ideas and you will understand the people.
> 
> Samual Huntington's book "Who Are We" goes into this in great depth.



A quibble.

The one thing that I continue to find interesting is how often the propaganda pamphlets of the wars of the Louis's made reference to Protestants rallying to bring down the forces of the Papists, even as the Papists were fighting it out between Louis's Bourbon Gallicans and the Hapsburg's Romans, and how seldom the propaganda referred to any nations at all.  For examples look at some of the plates in Montcalm and Wolfe by Francis Parkman.

The Union Jack and the Scarlet coat were merely the symbols around which the Protestants of Europe rallied to oppose Louis XIV and XV.  (And through which the protestant banks of Europe funneled their cash).

Yes England (and Lowland Scotland) were the champions of both Protestantism and the Enlightenment but their success was due in no small measure to how widely the message of individualism resonated.

By the way Rousseau, who the French claim, would not have been considered French in his day.  He was a Swiss Huguenot from Geneva.  He owes little to the salons of Paris and much to Calvin (and Knox).


----------



## CougarKing (29 Nov 2013)

What do the rest of you think of British Tory politician and London mayor Boris Johnson's comments below?

While I agree to an extent that achieving true economic equality is somewhat unrealistic as Johnson said, didn't Winston Churchill once say that in a war context, "...it costs nothing to be nice"?  ;D

National Post



> *Some people are too stupid to get ahead, Boris Johnson, London mayor, says, drawing cries of ‘unpleasant elitism’*
> 
> Economic equality will never be possible because some people are too stupid to get ahead in the modern world, said Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, in a speech that is igniting a wave of criticism.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Nov 2013)

Boris merely states a simple truism.  Sooner his honesty that Clegg's smarm any day.  Clegg believes that he is of the elite but refuses to utter the phrase.  Instead he (and his wife) "suffer" the indigent while never associating with them.

The leftists win by pretending that they can, and that they want to, make all right with the world, and deliver every street sweeper Buckingham Palace.

Boris wasn't being unpleasant.  He was being honest.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Yes England (and Lowland Scotland) were the champions of both Protestantism and the Enlightenment but their success was due in no small measure to how widely the message of individualism resonated.



I would suggest that once again we are dealing with cultural bias here. Japanese culture does not celebrate individualism, nor does it resonate. Russian and Islamic cultures do not either, which may have a lot to do with the outcomes of the "Fall of the Wall" (swapping a political oligarchy for a criminal one) or the ultimate failure of President George W Bush's ideal that everyone wanted liberty, and crushing a dictator like Saddam Hussein like a bug would unleash  a wave of freedom seekers in the Middle East. While he certainly destabilized the equilibrium of the region, I think we can all agree that the outcome both in Iraq and across the region (The Arab Spring) were not exactly resounding paeans to individual liberty.

I agree with Edward that the circumstances for individual liberty and the idea that people should live lives according to the dictates of their own conscious were the end results of centuries of evolution in Britian, going back (formally) to the Magna Carta, and perhaps informally for hundreds if not thousands of years before. How far back, and which threads lead to the present are interesting questions.

This also is in line with the idea that to create true liberal democratic nations it is not enough that people vote, there must be strong institutions that allow the will of the people to be exercised, and they must exist and function across time and throughout the polity. Institutions, institutional legitimacy and functionality do not spring full grown from the head of Zeus, they must be created and nurtured, and allowed to adapt and evolve as the society does as well.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Nov 2013)

I agree that individualism is not a universal trait.  Many societies do indeed hold the group in higher regard than the individual.

Equally I agree that there certainly was something "in the water" that allowed individualism to flourish in Britain (selected parts - one of which, and most importantly, was London).

But I am convincing myself, more and more, that some of the key elements in the development of the British culture are to be found in the Things and Witans of the northern cultures as well as in that common piratical/commercial culture of the Atlantic Coast and North Sea.  

Apparently the way to escape the man on the white horse is by running away to sea.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2013)

>The leftists win by pretending that they can, and that they want to, make all right with the world, and deliver every street sweeper Buckingham Palace.

George Orwell wrote some of the best arguments promoting Socialism (as he wrote it) that I have read; briefly, he thought Socialism had to lay claim to being _the_ doctrine for liberty and justice, to set it apart from Fascism in particular.  How can a reasonable person argue against a doctrine that states its aim as the delivery of liberty _and_ justice?

However, he gave inadequate weight to the problem that liberty and justice are - given human beings as currently constituted - incompatible.  To understand this, it may help to substitute "equality" for "justice".  There is a distinct and powerful tension between liberty and equality.  Where people are freer to do as they please, there will be less equality.  Conversely, more equality can be obtained only at the price of compulsion (less freedom).

With seventy-odd years of hindsight, it is easier to see that liberty is readily obtained - just remove constraints - and justice (equality) is difficult to obtain.  Orwell understood well enough how events did and would unfold ("Animal Farm"), but nevertheless expressed a view that smacks of wanting to have the cake while eating it (the purity of pursuing Socialist ideals with none of the taint of responsibility for the governments which actually result).  The pursuit of Socialist ideals promotes the conditions for the rise of the alternative of Fascism, among others.  (See Chavez, Hugo and Mussolini, Benito for how close socialism and fascism - stripped of imagined ideals and reduced to practical implementation - really are.)  We can change the bosses, but we can't remove them entirely.  So Socialism (and Communism) will never really be tried, yet their proponents will persist in trying to distance themselves from the other members of the family of statist/collectivist doctrines.

Conservativism addresses the pursuit of liberty and equality by a different path: place less emphasis on closing the relative gap, and more on raising the absolute thresholds ("wealthy" and "middle class" and "poor").  Conservativism has an image problem chiefly because of anti-liberal strains of social conservativism and the tendency of people to be more dissatisfied by the perception of how they stand in relation to others than by the perception of how they stand in relation to stark poverty.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Nov 2013)

Orwell also demonstrated in both Animal Farm and 1984 the eventual outcome of Socialism and similar ideologies. I would agree with your first contention of his writing, but after his experiences in the Spanish Civil War he dramatically changed his tune.


----------



## Nemo888 (1 Dec 2013)

Orwell was a socialist until the day he died. He separated totalitarianism from the capitalist/communist spectrum. You can have commie totalitarianism like Stalin or capitalist totalitarianism like Mussolini. The outcome is very similar. Orwell saw that liberty was more important than monetary policy.

Extremism towards either capitalism or communism leads to an unstable system that is unsustainable. Unrestrained capitalism leads to monopolies and plutocracy. Hybrid systems are in place in most developed countries and are much more efficient and stable. Things like healthcare, subsidized education, regulations on banks and breaking up monopolies are pure socialism. The most successful systems use the best ideas of both systems and make incremental changes towards the most efficient solutions to incredibly complex problems.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2013)

My problem with this whole discussion is that I suspect that few of us agree on what _conservatism_ means.

I do not believe that either Irving or William Kristol or William F Buckley were/are _conservatives_, not if that word is to have any useful meaning. George Washington was a conservative, ditto Lord Liverpool and, in more modern times, so were CS Lewis and, I think, John F Kennedy. They all shared more, much more, with Edmund Burke ~ the only really important conservative thinker since Confucius ~ than with John Stuart Mill, the last really important liberal thinker.

Conservatism is most emphatically not the opposite of liberalism. Burke saw very real limits to human reason. He believed that both Church and State draw their inspiration from the same divine source and are in a sense inseparable. He suggested that that government derives its authority from ancient innate principles of virtue, articulated in religion, tradition, myth, and folklore, not from any sort of "social contract." Mill and the liberals rejected all that, just as they reject Confucianism. So what is conservatism if not the opposite of Liberalism? It is a belief in the "order of things," as William Cecil, Lord Burghley, used that phrase. Today it is a belief in formal _constitutionalism_, think of the US Electoral College ~ a highly _conservative_ reaction to the idea of popular democracy. Conservatives are not, necessarily, _statists_, although most American _conservatives_ and warmongering libertarians like the Kristols, _père et fils_ and Buckley, are; some are, honestly and sincerely wary of the spread of government, recognizing that more and more government does not bring good order or good government. But even _principled conservatives_, like Lee Hsien Loong, of Singapore, son of Singapore's long serving prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, put great faith in the ability of the _government_ to protect the fundamental rights of the people. Of course principled conservatives believe in far, far fewer fundamental  rights than do most _liberals_. (I, personally, lean pretty far towards the _conservatives_ in that matter.) The opposite of _liberal_ is _illiberal_ which is, by far, the most common political philosophy in the world. Most continental European states, especially the _Roman_ ones - France, Italy, Spain etc - are highly _illiberal_.

_Liberalism_ is, broadly, a good thing; so is _principled conservatism_. Both are in short supply in the world. _Liberalism_ is still on top, albeit just barely, in America, Australia, Britain, Canada, Finland, Netherlands, Norway and a few others. _Principled conservatism_ is alive and well, but heavily influenced by _illiberalist_ programmes, in Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore.


----------



## pbi (2 Dec 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...This also is in line with the idea that to create true liberal democratic nations it is not enough that people vote, there must be strong institutions that allow the will of the people to be exercised, and they must exist and function across time and throughout the polity. Institutions, institutional legitimacy and functionality do not spring full grown from the head of Zeus, they must be created and nurtured, and allowed to adapt and evolve as the society does as well.



And, from time to time, defended against an unholy, insidious creep of the desire by governments (of all stripes...) to have "order" at the price of almost everything else. This "order" is often achieved by creating alternate sources of power away from the elected assemblies, or by demonizing those who question their policies and intentions, or by raising "threats" that are difficult to quantify but inevitably require citizens to surrender more and more liberty and privacy; things which are then difficult to recover.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...Conservativism addresses the pursuit of liberty and equality by a different path: place less emphasis on closing the relative gap, and more on raising the absolute thresholds ("wealthy" and "middle class" and "poor").  Conservativism has an image problem chiefly because of anti-liberal strains of social conservativism and the tendency of people to be more dissatisfied by the perception of how they stand in relation to others than by the perception of how they stand in relation to stark poverty.



This highlights what I think is an essential fallacy: the idea that we must rush about in a panic because the gap between the highest and lowest income groups has widened.

But, really, so what? To me the things that actually matter are:

-how big and secure is the middle class? If the society is "diamond shaped" (as opposed to "pyramid shaped"), I suggest that it will be a pretty stable and productive society. IMHO it doesn't really matter what the actual incomes are at the top and bottom points of the diamond; and

-what difference does the absolute size of the gap make, as long as the people at the bottom are kept out of the sort of dismal, abject hopeless poverty that becomes a warm pond for crime, gangs and unrest?


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2013)

While this article might also be appropriate for "Deconstructing Progressive Thought", many opponents of modern Conservatism see this as the end state of Conservative thought and action. Read carefully and you see nothing could be further from the truth:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/004073-the-revolt-against-urban-gentry



> *The Revolt Against Urban Gentry *
> by Joel Kotkin 11/30/2013
> 
> The imminent departure of New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and his replacement by leftist Bill DeBlasio, represents an urban uprising against the Bloombergian  “luxury city” and the growing income inequality it represents. Bloomberg epitomized an approach that sought to cater  to the rich—most prominently Wall Street—as a means to both finance development growth and collect enough shekels to pay for services needed by the poor.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Dec 2013)

What is _conservative_?

Look at this chart ...






Source: Business Insider

By my definition Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Macau-China, Shanghai and Singapore are all, more or less, _conservative_ societies. They are, mostly, above the OECD average in Math, Reading and Science with a few being clustered, consistently, at the top. Iceland, Israel, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States are all, more or less, _liberal_ societies and some of them manage to, again fairly consistently, fall below the OECD average. Now, to be fair, many of the best PhD candidates from Singapore, Shanghai and Hong Kong flock to Israel's world famous Technion as well as to Cambridge, CalTech and MIT for their doctoral and post doctoral work so _über liberal_ Israel, the UK and the USA are doing something right.

But, in at least some areas, _conservatism_ has done its work and it's _liberalsim_ that may need some reforming.

See, also, scholar/author/mom Amy Chua to find out how a real _conservative_ manages in a _liberal_ environment.


----------



## pbi (3 Dec 2013)

It obviously has lots to do with how we define "conservative". I could argue, for example, that Russia is a very "conservative country", both socially and politically, yet it hasn't even made the listings above (when other former communist countries such as Estonia, Poland, Hungary, Slovenia and the Czech Republic all have).

"Conservative", much like "Christian" (or, "elite" for that matter) has IMHO taken on alot of negative connotations because of the behaviours of some people and groups who claim membership at that point on the political continuum.

For example, I consider myself a practicing Christian (perhaps not a particularly good one, but then I'm an Anglican and we're not troubled by amateurism...). I resent the PC stupidity that stops us from publicly celebrating Christmas, or the unquestioned conventional "wisdom" that religion causes wars. And yet, I am completely repelled by many of the book-burning screamers, gay-baiters and God-botherers-in-general who parade about as "Christians". 

I see it much the same for conservatism. As I've noted elswhere, I do subscribe to a number of the virtues that Thucydides or ERC would identify as essential elements of "true" conservatism. But, at the same time, I find a  large part of the Right to be a gang of loud, frightening and somewhat sinister haters who make a fetish of ignorance, xenophobia and selfishness.

To me, the job is to show Canadians the virtues of small "c' conservatism, while retaining a reasonable measure of compassion, but also warding off the fringe elements who muddy the waters.


----------



## Jed (3 Dec 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> It obviously has lots to do with how we define "conservative". I could argue, for example, that Russia is a very "conservative country", both socially and politically, yet it hasn't even made the listings above (when other former communist countries such as Estonia, Poland, Hungary, Slovenia and the Czech Republic all have).
> 
> "Conservative", much like "Christian" (or, "elite" for that matter) has IMHO taken on alot of negative connotations because of the behaviours of some people and groups who claim membership at that point on the political continuum.
> 
> ...



A great post.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2013)

One of the strengths (or weakness) of liberal democracies is that the full spectrum of opinion is out in the open for everyone to see. While this may be quite annoying, since you are exposed to the ends of the Bell curve, it is also a source of strength, since you can examine all competing ideas and develop your own arguments to either support or counter them as you see fit.

The current trends of using misleading language to mask meanings, or Political Correctness to smother debate is extremely dangerous, since it prevents the examination of ideas and the ability to develop and articulate ideas of your own. (Why this is considered desirable in some circles is a topic in its own right).

So while you may find your "friends" in the Conservative movement more a hindrance than the enemies out in the Progressive side, you should be thanking them for forcing you to constantly examine your own premises and develop you arguments.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Dec 2013)

I recall a quote by someone that goes something like:

"Being a conservative means you can hold contrasting views in your head without having it explode."

I'm not sure who said it, but it sounds like something Churchill might have said.


----------



## Marchog (4 Dec 2013)

> I do subscribe to a number of the virtues that Thucydides or ERC would identify as essential elements of "true" conservatism.


I'm pretty sure this Thucydides person is a liberal (a classical liberal) so I'm kind of confused about this so-called "true conservatism" he espouses. Most people in this thread are simply arguing over (and trying to define) different forms of liberalism (classical vs. modern). The CPC and the Republican party are both neoliberal parties, conservatism isn't really entering into the equation at all. 

E.R. Campbell makes a good point in this regard, a few posts back. 

In terms of the_ literal _conservatism that involves preserving traditional societal institutions, strict rule of law, local communities (in opposition to nationalism and globalism) and a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality, most so-called "conservative" (IE neoliberal) parties including the CPC fail pretty hard on at least one count, usually more than one. As a vague sort of Tory who is generally opposed to identity politics and PC garbage, generally in favour of small business and charity, and generally skeptical towards ultracapitalist social darwinism, this thread is amusing since from my point of view the "Conservatism Needs Work" thread is up to the neck in liberalism. Conservatism needs work indeed... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_conservatism


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2013)

As that _Thucydides_ guy, I will step in and say that I think language is vitally important and that words have power, which is why I try to be precise with the use of language. I also understand that there are various conventions which have so much "weight of history" which makes changing people's perceptions, attitudes and beliefs very difficult.

What is happening in modern society is a very deliberate corruption of language, so that while words may still have their "emotional" connotations (Liberal, Progressive and so on sound like good things, and indeed, you can shut down a lot of arguments by asking if the arguer is "against progress"), their actual meaning in practice is quite different from what most people think. Progressiveism, as practiced, is close to the correctly political meaning of Fascism (and it is not a big surprise, since the roots of the Progressive movement spring from similar sources). This is most evident when watching the news and seeing some neo Fascist or Nazi group being described as "Right Wing" by the press and the chattering class; nothing could be further from the truth. Fascism, Naziism and Progressive Ideology are subsets of Socialism)

So one of the difficult uphill battles is to use language correctly, and of course pay homage to our roots in Classical Liberalism. It does pay dividends from time to time. I once attended a seminare by "The Institute for Liberal Studies" at U Windsor. During a break, a large group of young people came in and sat in on a panel discussion; it was obvious many were confused by what they heard. Afterwards many left, but one young man stayed, so I asked why he had come and what he expected. His answer was he had come with a group expecting to fing a meeting of the "Young Liberals". Evidently discussions of property rights did not fit in with the "Liberal (party)" definition of Liberalism, but our man was intrigued, and indeed he signed up afterwards, which resulted in a gain for "our" side.

As a practical matter, the closest and most practical means of articulating and implimenting a Classical Liberal political program in Canada today would have to be the CPC, and to a lesser extent the Progressive Conservative parties of the provinces (Alberta's Wild Rose Alliance is probably more Classicly Liberal than the PC party out there, and the definitions in Lotus land are quite confusing, I'm fairly certain that BC Liberals are Conservatives...or something). This is not to say they are entirely "Liberal" in the true sense of the word, but as "Transformative" parites their constitutions and philosophies are pointing in that direction. The Liberal Party is mearly a transactive party these days, which would actually make it "Conservative", since making deals and strengthening client relationships pretty much means supporting the status quo.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Dec 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Progressiveism, as practiced, is close to the correctly political meaning of Fascism (and it is not a big surprise, since the roots of the Progressive movement spring from similar sources). This is most evident when watching the news and seeing some neo Fascist or Nazi group being described as "Right Wing" by the press and the chattering class; nothing could be further from the truth. Fascism, Naziism and Progressive Ideology are subsets of Socialism)



That little tidbit comes to us curtsey of Joseph Stalin who was describing the NASDP in WWII. While it is correct to state that National Socialists are to the right of Communists, it's generous to call them right wing.


----------



## RangerRay (7 Jan 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...I'm fairly certain that BC Liberals are Conservatives...or something...



A better description of the BC Liberal Party since Gordon Campbell became leader would be very neoliberal with crony capitalist tendencies.

But I digress...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2014)

A Canadian provides a reply on Instapundit to a posting that makes for an argument stopping and winning answer to so many lines of attack:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/182312/?show-at-comment=443433#comment-443433



> Ed 2
> No.
> 
> Want to be compassionate to people? Get them jobs. That means hard-nosed Washington budget decisions, and tax cuts. Deep tax cuts.
> ...


----------



## pbi (13 Jan 2014)

> Leftie-mind-blowing conclusion? Tax cuts are the best public health measure. I've gotten wide-eyed silence from this several times, from dyed-in-the-wool Canadian socialists.
> 
> Compassionate conservatism misses all of this. Deep-six it.



Perhaps, if we can bring it about in a way that produces positive change in peoples' lives. Ideally, nobody should be on social assistance who is capable of productive work, and I agree with that as a goal. Social assistance, or UI, or relief, or whatever we want to call it, was always intended as a temporary measure. Unfortunately it has become a way of life with an attendant huge bureaucacy to administer it (and all of its second and third order effects).

I'm not at all convinced that bloody-minded slashing of taxes will achieve this, as ideologically satisfying as that might feel. There would certainly be more money in the pockets of people who already make more anyway (and thus pay more taxes), and eventually in the hands of businesses that would theoretically be encouraged to create more jobs. 

Unfortunately, the social assistance programs we are talking about are, as we all know, funded by these same high taxes. I think we would want to proceed carefully.

Whether it would have any other socially or economically useful effect on the "welfare population" in the short term is a good question. It would have to be a coherent, incremental approach to weaning people off what for some has been a generational thing. One of the big challenges would be changing the mentality involved (although I fully realize that not everybody on social assistance is a habitual leech--sudden plant closures can throw otherwise solid middle class families into complete disorder). People would need to want to work, to have the skills to do so, and perhaps more importantly believe that it is worthwhile to do so.

The approach that "they can work or they can starve" is also probably not very useful, although it sounds good in the Mess around a few beers. It assumes that a) there will be a sufficient number of jobs that these people could reasonably be employed to do, as opposed to "Workfare"; and b) that the desperation that might be created by this slash (ie: the "nothing to lose" effect) will translate into pro-social productive behaviour and not a further resort to crime or other antisocial things.

So: jobs, training and community leadership, combined with a gradual and intelligent hand on the cash-flow tap, are IMHO prerequisites before any slash and burn of taxes and the tax-funded social programs.

That said, IMHO a community of people who work, pay reasonable taxes for reasonable govt services, and own things like houses and small businesses is far more likely to be a stable "healthy" community than one based on living on the social assistance dole.

The question is how to get there.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jan 2014)

There are a couple of significant economic challenges.

One of them is perceptual: many people (most of them, probably) think, actually believe that "governments create jobs." Sadly even many people in government, including some at high levels, believe that. It is, sadly, again, simply not true. (Before some mentions it: Yes, governments can hire civl servants and soldiers, and those are jobs, but neither are _productive_ jobs, as Europe's experiences have proven.) What governments can do, but usually don't, is to set tax and tariff policies in ways that make it easier for business to create jobs. A good start would be unilaterally lowering, usually eliminating tariffs on a whole host of goods. A better start would be reducing "corporate taxes" to zero. Corporations don't pay "taxes" the way you and I do. They send money to governments, all right, just like you and I do, but then they put that in the expenses column and then they either raise prices or cut the shareholder's income (in effect stealing from the business owner - which is often you, if you have any sort of pension plan) until they have offset that "cost" of doing business. Corporate taxes are just like the HST/GST - you and I pay them in the end - but there is a long, convoluted, wasteful collection process that makes them silly. Most Canadians love corporate taxes ~ but they are silly, too.

Then second problem is structural: a large, too large share of our population in the age 16-60 age group is unfit to work. Too many people lack an elementary education ~ they have have a scrap of paper saying "High School Graduate" or even a university degree (or even two or three) but it is, too often, worthless ~ or they lack basic human skills (self discipline) like the ability to come to work on time, day after day after day. Our educations system fails a too large share of our population.

If, somehow - magically, we _enabled_ a great bust of "job creation" we would need to import workers. There is a desirable level of unemployment ~ 4% many economist say ~ which is an essential byproduct of and precondition for "creative destruction" (one industry dying and two or three new ones being born): there needs to be a pool of workers for the "new" enterprises to hire. But, my _guess_ is that now, in Canada, our desirable unemployment level is around 2%, only half what it should be. The other 5% is _structural_, the employment equivalent of a rubbish heap. Just as we toss what we can no longer use into the landfill, so do we toss people onto the "welfare" rolls. We have, correctly in my *opinion*, decided that we will not leave people to starve in the streets; at the very least it's unsanitary. So we pay them to live in something approaching decent conditions - and we pay generations to subsist in modest (very modest) comfort. (One person who is intimately familiar with the _business_ told me about four generations of women living under one roof, infant, mother, grandmother and great grandmother ~ and the great grandmother was not yet 60 years old! Children having children; babies having babies. Not one of the three mothers was married; no man paid any support ...)

The hardest jobs to create are the ones which the people on our welfare rolls need: low skill, decent paying jobs. Such jobs exist ... in Indonesia and the Philippines. We cannot have those jobs in Canada (or Australia, Britain and New Zealand) because a Canadian (or American) cannot live on the terribly low salaries that such jobs are 'worth," and no business could survive by overpaying, by an order of magnitude, for labour. The jobs we can create are the ones for which we already have too few workers: e.g. carpenters, electricians, front-end loader operators, robot technicians, accountants, software designers, mechanical engineers, physicians and mathematicians.

< /rant >


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2014)

Agree on most of the points by ERC and PBI, but there is always a "but"...

Many jobs like carpentry, plumbing, bricklaying and so on exist on several levels. There is the entry or "low skill" level, I am not terribly handy with tools but manage to do small house repairs up to tearing out drywall to get at plumbing, fixing it, putting in insulation and then putting up new drywall; basic constrution skills. Naturally a person or persons in the building trades could do it faster and the end result wold look a bit better, but I think everyone gets what I mean. Lower taxes and more money in your and my pocket would translate into more of those kinds of jobs as people looked to do updates, repairs and renovations of homes and business (one reason that I end up doing stuff like this myself is I really can't afford to hire a contractor; with more money in my pocket the equation changes). Lots of other basic "housekeeping" types of jobs exist in many industries, and of course we have the bizzare situation where we import workers from around the world to work in agriculture, fish canning plants and other basic jobs while millions of Canadians collect EI.

The other reason that ideas like deep tax cuts or other sharp changes are desirable is they upset the status quo. Ending old programs forces thousands or even millions of people out of their comfort zones to try new things, true a lot won't succeed but some will, these are the new business models and ideas that can absorb some of the unemployed. Deep tax cuts do the forcing of change, and provide the seed monies for millions of Canadians to save and invest to create these new industries and jobs, or buy their products. Don't forget the average Canadian family of 4 pays 40% or more of their income to the various levels of government in the form of taxes and fees, even getting that down to 30% would be a huge boost. While a gradual change as outlined above might be the "ideal", institutional inertia, resistance to changing the status quo and perverse incentives built into the "system" (all the second and third order effects) would probably result in some fiddling around the margins without any real, lasting changes.

Would such a regime make a lot of people uncomfortable? Yes. Will it help everyone? No. You have the same answers to the current system anyway, and a large block of failed outcomes (such as the 4 generationa welfare family), as well as the inevitable financial failure of the entire social model built on borrowed monies for current spending, so I say there is actully very little to lose by going that route.


----------



## pbi (14 Jan 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> and of course we have the bizzare situation where we import workers from around the world to work in agriculture, fish canning plants and other basic jobs while millions of Canadians collect EI...



This is the bit I have never understood. Granted, I lack the depth of understanding of economics of many of the posters here, but I can't grasp why we have this phenomenon, and in fact we've had it in Southern Ontario for nigh on 50 years now.

Is it that these jobs are so poorly paid that Canadians won't do them? Too hard? (Maybe..I picked apples once, very briefly...it was a lot harder than I thought)

But, never mind these low skilled jobs. Why are we importing foreign workers into other more skilled fields like IT, finance and clerical? Don't tell me we don't have thousands of Canadians qualified in these fields.

Don't mistake this for a rant against immigrants: it isn't. I married into a family of hard working immigrants, who took any job they could get when they got here in the 1960's, sometimes two jobs. They all "got up and got on" and most of them now live better than I do.

It's a more fundamental question than that: I doubt it can be answered by populist bumper-sticker level thinking. That said, is there some merit to restricting immigrant inflow?


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> This is the bit I have never understood. Granted, I lack the depth of understanding of economics of many of the posters here, but I can't grasp why we have this phenomenon, and in fact we've had it in Southern Ontario for nigh on 50 years now.
> 
> Is it that these jobs are so poorly paid that Canadians won't do them? Too hard? (Maybe..I picked apples once, very briefly...it was a lot harder than I thought)
> 
> ...




That's part of it ... a big part. Temporary foreign workers can be paid below (15% below, I think) minimum wage and they can be charged for room and board, often at inflated rates. The end result is that

     1. Employers get workers at the low economic _value_ of the job; and

     2. The foreign workers still gets more than (s)he can make in Indonesia, Philippines, Latin America or even parts of China.

We DON'T have thousands of qualified Canadians for those jobs ~ not at least who are willing to work for entry level wages, or more to take a job, or work in another official language. (There are good, French speaking IT and commerce graduates in Quebec, but the good jobs are in Toronto and Calgary and they require one to work in English.) 

White, Euro-Canadians, the children of the "settlers" of past centuries, don't like taking math in school ... it is quite probably that the children of recent Asian immigrants don't like math any better, but they DO take it and they work damned hard at it because "family values" ~ real family values, not the rubbish the religious right preaches ~ are strong in Asian communities and kids want to succeed, to make Mom and Dad and Grandma and Grandpa proud. That's why the maths, physics, chemistry and engineering departments in most North American universities are disproportionately full of Asian kids: they are working their little butts off to qualify themselves for the top jobs and they will relocate (maybe back to China!) to get those jobs.


----------



## Remius (14 Jan 2014)

@pbi:


  I'm guessing so take it for what it is worth.  I would think that some examples as to why some people are on EI when there are other jobs has to do (in part) with geography.  So yeah, one could pick apples in Ontario but that doesn't help the fisherman in Newfoundland.

  Companies are also bringing in foreign workers because it is likely cheaper, not because no one wants the jobs.  Look at the whole Royal Bank fiasco where they outsourced to some indian staffing company and wanted the staff they were going to fire train them.  These people HAD jobs with that organisation and clearly did not want to leave.

I can't see restricting immigration.  It would severely hamper our growth.  Immigrants already have to jump through hoops and provide proof of income skills etc etc.  Refugees and asylum seekers are another issue and in some instances have seen measures put in place.

But I will say this, most EI claimants I know or have known are born and bred Canadians.  In many cases reservists on Class B or annuitants.  Where my cottage is located, it is WASP territory and almost all of the people that live there year round are EI or welfare types.  Most of the immigrants I have known (I was married into an immigrant family as well) either worked crap jobs and crap hours or banded as families to make thing work with little or no government aid.  Most because of where they came from and that's how they learned to cope and deal with life's hardship.


----------



## pbi (14 Jan 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> @pbi:
> But I will say this, most EI claimants I know or have known are born and bred Canadians.  In many cases reservists on Class B or annuitants.  Where my cottage is located, it is WASP territory and almost all of the people that live there year round are EI or welfare types.  Most of the immigrants I have known (I was married into an immigrant family as well) either worked crap jobs and crap hours or banded as families to make thing work with little or no government aid.  Most because of where they came from and that's how they learned to cope and deal with life's hardship.



I have to say, based on living in a few different spots in this country, that this is probably true. I think that it is a stereotype that the welfare rolls are filled with "lazy" immigrants, although in certain specific locations they might be over-represented (but I'm open to correction on that).

My impression (reinforced very strongly by where I live right now in Kingston) is that the great majority of our hard core, generational welfare folks are not "visible minority" types at all, but more likely to be of  British/Franco descent, or as ERC calls them "settlers".  Rural communities and smaller former manufacturing cities seem to be full of them. On several occasions during my military career, I've lived in neighborhoods populated by these types. They are usually marked by an enduring anti-everything bitterness and what is sometimes called the "blame/entitlement mentality".

If you have the energy and drive to pull up stakes, travel half way around the world and try to start life in a strange and different place, chances are you probably have enough humility and moxy to take whatever you can get, and stay off social assistance.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jan 2014)

WRT the "pulling up stakes" argument, I recall that the Mayor of Windsor once suggested that planes be chartered to bring workers back and forth to Alberta. Workers could continue to own relatively affordable houses in Windsor, and money would continue to flow in the local Windsor economy as wages were remitted to families back home. While I'm not sure whatever happened to that particular idea, flying people to areas where there are labour shortages (perhaps with the gaining companies picking up some of the slack for housing) might be an expediant solution for some areas.

Who pays for the flights is probably going to be a sticking point (If companies want workers so badly, they should be willing to pay), but if cities like Windsor want to gain the benefits of workers and families with a good cash flow, maybe they should chip in as well. A government run airlift (paid for out of EI funds) would probably be about as efficient as Canada Post and as fun to ride as Air Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2014)

Remember that every job has a real, measurable, economic _value_. If the cost of a worker exceeds his value then the employer will, sooner or later, either *a)* go broke, or *b)* find a cheaper way to get the job done ~ perhaps through automation (which creates new jobs for the people who design, build, install and maintain the automated systems - creative destruction, again) or by using cheaper labour (having governments allow temporary foreign worker programmes which allow employers to pay the correct _value_ for the work rather than what, say, trade unions or politicians (who write minimum wage laws) demand).


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jan 2014)

>Is it that these jobs are so poorly paid that Canadians won't do them? Too hard?

It is that the consequences of not working are not severe enough.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jan 2014)

Don Johnston was both a lawyer of some renown and a minister in both the Trudeau and (short lived) Turner cabinets in the 1980s but he split with the Liberal Party over both Meech Lake (he opposed it) and Free Trade with the USA (he supported it). As you can probably guess I agreed with him on both counts. Prime Minister Mulroney nominated him to be the first even non-European to head the OECD. He was elected and reelected for a second mandate. In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Star_ he, a pretty conservative/capitalist sort of chap,* warns that one of the bastions of _conservatism_ ~ however one brands it ~ is under attack and is doing a poor job of defending itself:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/01/16/for_capitalism_the_enemy_is_us.html


> For capitalism, the enemy is us
> *A former head of the OECD says free market capitalism is heading towards self-destruction if reforms are not undertaken quickly.*
> 
> By: Donald J. Johnston
> ...



It is interesting that Mr Johnston mentioned _JP Morgan_ because, as far as I am concerned, the enemy who is "us" is exemplified by Jamie Dimon, _JP Morgan's_ buccaneering CEO. Dimon is why we have Dodd-Frank, which is a horrid, shambling wreck of legislation that will do real, measurable, harm to the _global_ economy because it was drafted by a pair of nitwits (think of Smoot–Hawley, named for two other idiotic US legislators which also did _global_ damage ~ Dodd-Frank is just as bad.). We cannot undo Dodd-Frank, but we can prevent re-occurances by cleaning up Wall Street, and _The City_ and Bay Street, too, so that buffoons like Senator Chris Dodd and Representative Barney Frank don't have an excuse to inflict their lunacy on an unsuspecting world. 


_____
* There were a couple of level headed conservative/capitalists in Trudeau's government: Johnston and Donald (Thumper) Macdonald, the latter was, in many respects, the author of Mulroney's Free Trade deal thanks to a voluminous report he (Macdonald) prepared for Pierre Trudeau ... irony of ironies.






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Donald Johnston           Donald Macdonald


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jan 2014)

As if it were coordinated, the _New York Times_ publishes a review, reproduced, below, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that journal, on a new book which looks at the issue from a broad, US, perspective:

(I haven't read the book yet, it's on order ~ therefore I will not comment further.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/books/the-unwinding-by-george-packer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=3&


> A Nation, Its Seams Fraying
> ‘The Unwinding,’ by George Packer
> 
> By DWIGHT GARNER
> ...



(No comment until I've read the book.)


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jan 2014)

The part of capitalism that needs to unwind is crony capitalism.

The only way to unwind crony capitalism is to reduce the power of government to foster crony capitalism.

There is no path to "equality" through bigger government.  The bigger the government, the more privileged and deeply rooted the governing class.  It doesn't matter whether they are called robber baron fatcats or nomenklatura.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2014)

Although I occasionally detect a hint of skepticism about the TEA Party movement in these fora  , it is interesting to see how they deploy the tools of modern communications media to bring their causes to the forefront, and of course to achieve electoral success (63 seats in the 2010 mid terms and 30 Governorships and State Legislatures).

Canadian Conservatives, Classical Liberals and Libertarians are well advised to learn the use of these tools simply because they are operating at a much greater disadvantage in terms of numbers (ERC reminds us that the 60/40 split of voters is NOT in our favour), as well as against the entrenched organs of the Progressive project in our society and the various classes of people who benefit from the current situation and will fight to the last taxpayer to resist change. While this example is education, you can susbstitute any other motivating cause:

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/01/20/how-parents-are-winning-the-common-core-debate/?singlepage=true



> *How Parents Are Winning the Common Core Debate*
> George Will: A burgeoning movement is responding: "No. Period."
> 
> by
> ...



And of course the takeaway is people are far more energized by what they correctly see as the dishonesty of the political class, and will take action to fight against it. Sometimes they align with the Rob Fords of the world because they don't see any other viable alternative, but they do mostly get it right so long as they stay focused on the particular issue. One reason for the success of the TEA Party movement is it is very focused on a small number of issues (generally small vs big government, low taxes and spending and, following Constitutional laws and precidents being the most obvious ones). Paring down the Conservative movement to focus on liberty, property rights and the Rule of Law (and how the Big Three are the foundation that affects and informs everything else) may well be one way to go.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Mar 2014)

At last! Some rational thinking/commentary about Canadian _conservatism_ (from Jeffrey Simpson, of all people) in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/margaret-thatchers-children-have-their-hands-full/article17158629/#dashboard/follows/


> Margaret Thatcher’s children have their hands full
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> Melbourne — The Globe and Mail
> ...




First, a quibble: Mr Simpson is not talking about _conservatism_. Mrs Thatcher was not a _conservative_ (a *C*onservative, yes, a conservative, no). So let's call it _Thatcherism_ because the word _conservative_ was co-opted by a bunch of terminally stupid and illiterate Americans led by e.g. Russel Kirk and William F Buckley Jr. They appropriated the good word, _liberal_ as a pejorative for the _soft, semi-socialism_ of the 1950s North-East, and adopted the word _conservative_ for something it never meant.

But Jeffrey Simpson gets the basics right. Prime Ministers Abbott, Cameron, Harper and Key, he suggests, believe that:
[o] the state more is an impediment to growth and social progress than an asset;
[o] tax rates are too high; and
[o]the private sector can run most things most efficiently.
I share all those beliefs. As I have said before, I want a smaller, less intrusive, into fundamental rights,* more efficient (cost effective) and better focused government.

Look at this list. Can anyone suggest that all these departments and agencies are actually doing useful, productive work for Canada? I suggest that at least ⅓ of them could be scrubbed ~ every last person fired ~ and the Government of Canada would function better. But I recognize that each department and agency has a cheering section and I accept that politicians are, generally, cowards: unable and unwilling to offend any of those constituencies (cheering sections).

We need a strong, professional, vigorous public sector. But it should be well focused on the (relatively) few things that governments must do or can do better than the private sector (economies of scale, usually).

_____
*Those fundamental rights are: *life*, *liberty* and *property*, as defined by John Locke, and *privacy* as defined by Brandeis and Warren in the USA over 100 years ago.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Oct 2014)

If striking while the iron is hot can induce people to look outside their bubbles, then now is the time to evangelicize the Conservative/Classical Liberal/Libertarian viewpoints. (It worked for me. Listening to the economics teacher discussing how we could "trade Inflation for employment" when we had just gone trough a period of Stagflation and witnessing the start of the Reagan Revolution, both events which were considered and even taught to be impossible using the economic tools of Keynesian Economics demonstrated the disconnect between theory and practice, and steered me away from Progressivism in all its forms).

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/teachable-moment_808496.html?nopager=1#



> *A Teachable Moment*
> 
> Oct 13, 2014, Vol. 20, No. 05• By WILLIAM KRISTOL
> 
> ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Look at this list. Can anyone suggest that all these departments and agencies are actually doing useful, productive work for Canada? I suggest that at least ⅓ of them could be scrubbed ~ every last person fired ~ and the Government of Canada would function better. But I recognize that each department and agency has a cheering section and I accept that politicians are, generally, cowards: unable and unwilling to offend any of those constituencies (cheering sections).



Challenge accepted. Note that I nuked the entire Canadian Forces and DND, along with all the other ineffective government agencies and departments. By the word "ineffective" I mean either not really necessary, or not up to the task, or just simply stupid in principle [if there was really a demand for museums, someone will set them up and operate them privately]. The vacuum created by vacating many federal government functions of today would be assumed by the private sector if the services are really that much in demand but not completely essential to what is required for today and tomorrow. I realize deleting the CAF is contentious, but the fact is for the 20 billion cost, we remain essentially undefended, apparently our international contributions are now marginal at best, and in any case, we are defended by a 3rd party.    

What is left is government that is organized around managing, extracting, trading and importing natural resources, protecting intellectual property and the business that surround it, collecting taxes, keeping a financial system in place, keeping a safe transportation system in place, enforcing the criminal code, plus some odds and sods.        


EDIT: Fixed quote box


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2014)

Drinking buttermilk through the week, Whiskey on a Sunday 

op:


----------



## thehare (18 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But Jeffrey Simpson gets the basics right. Prime Ministers Abbott, Cameron, Harper and Key, he suggests, believe that:
> [o] the state more is an impediment to growth and social progress than an asset;
> [o] tax rates are too high; and
> [o]the private sector can run most things most efficiently.
> I share all those beliefs. As I have said before, I want a smaller, less intrusive, into fundamental rights,* more efficient (cost effective) and better focused government.



I'll be honest, I only really agree with one of these points. The private sector, if anything, is the epitome of efficiency. If there is a profit to be made, they will find a way to do it, and do it well. I do not believe that the private sector should be completely free from government intervention though, and it is actually because of this quality to be so efficient at finding profit. Time and time again the private sector has shown that they will take advantage of the average citizen in order to further these profits -one just has to look at the US 2008 economic crash, and the unregulated sub-prime mortgages the investment bankers were getting lenders to give out to individuals who really couldn't pay the mortgages they received*, which in short led to their financial system crashing. On the other hand, the more regulated banks in Canada performed much better than their unregulated American counterparts** during this period in time***.

I am not saying that everything and anything needs some sort of regulation, nor am I saying all regulations are effective but I think it is wishful thinking that if the private sector was left to its own accord it would be only good news for Canadians, and as such I would make the assertion that government can be more than just an "impediment to growth and social progress"

To note, I do not agree with the second point you make either as I recognize that with more regulation, comes a larger government, hence more taxes are needed to pay for said government. It would be foolish to say I wanted regulation, but wanted lower tax rates at the same time (despite the fact lower taxes does sound nice at times  ;D )

* This can also be interpreted as individuals living beyond their means, and I cede that point. Though one cannot ignore the fact human beings aren't always the most intelligent in their decision making processes, and in order to compensate for this a government standard of who actually qualified for such a mortgage would have solved this issue.

** I realize I'm creating a bit of a false dichotomy here, as the banking system and the housing industry is much different here than the American one, and simply applying similar regulations in the US that we have here would be largely ineffective, but I felt that I should bring this point up nonetheless as it does show that more regulations doesn't always equal unwelcome results.

*** Sadly, as I write this I am reading that it seems our own housing industry is actually on the verge of having it's little bubble burst, though I personally believe that this could very well be caused by the unregulated housing market itself (I will be honest though and state I am not on the up and up about this area of the economy, be free to correct me if I am wrong).

Numerous edits due to grammatical errors, and a few amendments to my points.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Oct 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Challenge accepted. Note that I nuked the entire Canadian Forces and DND, along with all the other ineffective government agencies and departments. By the word "ineffective" I mean either not really necessary, or not up to the task, or just simply stupid in principle [if there was really a demand for museums, someone will set them up and operate them privately]. The vacuum created by vacating many federal government functions of today would be assumed by the private sector if the services are really that much in demand but not completely essential to what is required for today and tomorrow. I realize deleting the CAF is contentious, but the fact is for the 20 billion cost, we remain essentially undefended, apparently our international contributions are now marginal at best, and in any case, we are defended by a 3rd party.
> 
> What is left is government that is organized around managing, extracting, trading and importing natural resources, protecting intellectual property and the business that surround it, collecting taxes, keeping a financial system in place, keeping a safe transportation system in place, enforcing the criminal code, plus some odds and sods.
> 
> ...




MOVED THE DISBANDING OF THE CAF CONVERSATION  HERE


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Oct 2014)

The private sector operates within the rules as written (mostly), and does need rules.

If you don't want bankers to lend money to risky borrowers, don't let them hide the risk behind the whitewash of corrupt/incompetent ratings agencies, and certainly don't frig around with social engineering designed to promote home ownership by forcing lenders to lend to risky borrowers, and especially don't let them think their risky ventures will be bailed out.

See the common problem behind all of these factors?  Arrogant political meddlers with big social ideas and no common sense.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Nov 2014)

Ontario Liberals seduced by privatization schemes
Ontario's plan to encourage private health clinics has proved a disaster. Now Premier Kathleen Wynne has her eyes on Hydro One.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/04/ontario_liberals_seduced_by_privatization_schemes_walkom.html
By: Thomas Walkom National Affairs,  Published on Tue Nov 04 2014 

Ontario’s Liberal government never learns. In spite of fiascos like the ORNGE air ambulance saga, it sees quasi-privatization as the best way to deliver public services.
It is undeterred by evidence.
Right now, Premier Kathleen Wynne’s government is trying to extricate itself from one privatization disaster, even as it sets itself up for another.

The current disaster is its handling of private surgical clinics. Ontarians may recall that the government’s decision to expand the scope of private clinics, announced with much fanfare by then health minister Deb Matthews in 2012, was supposed to provide the citizens of the province with better care at lower cost.
It was also supposed to favour non-profit clinics over their profit-making counterparts. As the labour union UNIFOR noted in a submission to government last year, this rhetorical commitment to not-for-profit medicine tended to disappear once Queen’s Park got around to writing the regulations that govern the reality of health care.


Now, thanks to the work of my Star colleague Theresa Boyle we find that many private clinics are providing substandard care.
Of the 330 inspected over the last three years, 44 — or about 13 per cent — didn’t make the grade.
Some of the clinic horror stories were truly stark — including one in which a woman contracted a crippling infection after receiving an injection from a licensed private pain clinic.

To make matters worse, the regulatory body that allegedly oversees clinics — the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario — chose not to share its findings with the public.
The government, as always, responded only when the issue hit the newspapers. Health Minister Eric Hoskins promised to have regulators make the results of their clinic inspections public.


The real problem — the fact that too many private clinics offer substandard care — was never addressed.
The potential privatization disaster involves Hydro One, the provincially-owned electricity transmission and distribution giant.
A blue-ribbon panel appointed by Wynne wants the province to “reduce government ownership” of the utility by privatizing chunks of it.
The panel, headed by former TD Bank head Ed Clark, is careful to say that it’s not calling for a full-scale sell-off. Given the panel’s composition, that’s not surprising.


Clark, known as “Red Ed” in his younger days, was the architect of Pierre Trudeau’s interventionist 1980 National Energy Program. One panel member, Frances Lankin, was a senior minister in Bob Rae’s New Democratic Party government. Another, Janet Ecker, was a Red Tory finance minister.
None is a privatization ideologue. Yet when all the disclaimers are cleared away, privatization is what they are proposing.
In this case, they want the province to sell off a majority stake in Hydro One’s rural, northern and Brampton distribution businesses to private investors.
Wynne has lauded the proposal. And no wonder. It promises to net her government hundreds of millions of dollars.
Still, she should take care. Quasi-privatization of what are essentially government monopolies has landed the Liberals in hot water before.

ORNGE is the most spectacular example. Here, the government semiprivatized its air ambulance service, supposedly to gain efficiencies.
What it got instead was a monopoly over which it chose to exercise no day-to-day control, yet which was able to use public funds to maximize private profits.

Wynne may also want to remember that the entire gas plant fiasco could have been avoided if the Liberal government of the day hadn’t been intent on privatizing big chunks of the electricity generation sector.
Had the government initially contracted with Crown corporation Ontario Power Generation to build power plants in Oakville and Mississauga, its politically-inspired decision to cancel those schemes would have cost taxpayers considerably less than $1 billion.


When essential public services are involved, privatization carries costs. In health care, the human cost of shifting to private clinics is becoming obvious.
In the case of Hydro One, we don’t yet know what would result from the privatization of local electricity distribution monopolies. The panel predicts electricity consumers will save money. New Democratic Party energy critic Peter Tabuns predicts they will pay more.
Economic theory is on the panel’s side. History suggests that Tabuns will be proven right. The precedents should make any government wary


----------



## pbi (5 Nov 2014)

But, but...does it mean that privatization is inherently bad, or does it mean that stupid, incompetently done privatization is bad?

To me, it seems that we can and probably should encourage effective "real" privatization where it makes sense to do so, but we must also protect the public interest by keeping an equally effective regulatory regime with really sharp teeth.  It really isn't the job of business to protect the public interest: IMHO that's not what most shareholders and boards are worried about. Protection of the public interest is the job of the supposedly great agent of the public: the government.

If history has shown us nothing else, it is that if the profit motive is left utterly to itself, a greater or lesser percentage of business operators will be tempted to indulge in some violation of the public trust. This could range from dangerous or oppressive working conditions to shoddy or dangerous products to shady financial practices. To say that these violations will somehow be corrected by "market forces" is IMHO fatuous nonsense.

Toothless regulators are useless. The problem, IMHO, is that the political masters of these regulators are too often susceptible to pressure from the people who bankroll their election campaigns. Some of whom, it might be, were the same ones committing the violations I referred to above.

By the same token, a stinking, smothering pile of EU-style regulations and the nasty bureaucracy that goes with it probably aren't what we want, either. Much better to have fewer, clearer regulations, well enforced.

I don't think we should abandon a judicious, well-considered course of privatization.


----------



## Jed (5 Nov 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> But, but...does it mean that privatization is inherently bad, or does it mean that stupid, incompetently done privatization is bad?
> 
> To me, it seems that we can and probably should encourage effective "real" privatization where it makes sense to do so, but we must also protect the public interest by keeping an equally effective regulatory regime with really sharp teeth.  It really isn't the job of business to protect the public interest: IMHO that's not what most shareholders and boards are worried about. Protection of the public interest is the job of the supposedly great agent of the public: the government.
> 
> ...



Well said, I am in total agreement.


----------

