# Have we become a conservative country?



## toyotatundra (1 Jul 2011)

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1017664--tim-harper-have-we-become-a-conservative-country



> Tim Harper: Have we become a conservative country?
> Published On Thu Jun 30 2011
> 
> We are in the midst of the year of the exploding political myth.
> ...



I have three problems with the article as a whole.

First, the article quotes extensively from pollster Frank Graves. Mr. Graves failed spectacularly at assessing the actual election outcome. He is not a credible source at this time for poll analysis. 

Second, Tim Harper notes that non-voters were more left-wing than voters. Therefore Canada is still a left of centre country.  However, if a person consistently can't bother to even vote, they should be characterized more as apolitical rather than left of centre.

Third, Tim Harper suggests that the long term picture for the Conservatives is perilous, because of this rising left-wing generation. That suggestion is problematic because it neglects how people change over long periods of time. Sure, the biggest issues for a 20 year old may be legal weed and free university tuition. However, vote preferences may change substantially as they shift from Party Kid to Taxpaying Dad. 

Conservative calls for low taxes have a lot more appeal once you actually pay some.


----------



## Robert0288 (1 Jul 2011)

I have to agree on your first point, that EKOS hasn't had the best track record as of late.  However the biggest problem with polling, especially in Canada is the Quebec throws everything off.  Its hard to predict the land slide NDP victory in Quebec, when nationally that it would equate to only a 1 or 2 point boost in popularity.  Granted I missed a lot of the election commentary because I was busy staring at the storm clouds above meaford, but I could see how that mistake could be made.

The politically active students have always voted, for the left or the right.  Which leaves us with the remaining group in the middle who may have leanings toward one party or another but are generally too apathetic to go out and vote anyways.  Regardless of their leaning, ultimately it is irrelevant as they don't have an impact on elections.

In all the article was more geared toward the left leaning loyal, saying that they need to get youth more politically engaged and that there is a distant hope of some sort of "saviour" (I need to find a puking smiley) to come in and save us from the terrible right.  Meh, pretty much what I come to expect from the red star.  How I yearn for a day when the media could at least try to cover more than one perspective.


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Jul 2011)

The following story from Yahoo.ca is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act. The author, unfortunately, has managed to follow in the foot steps of a certain MND and substitute Vichy for Vimy.

Stephen Harper changing Canada by stealth, not necessarily majority rule

By Tim Naumetz 

It was said many times over the past five years that Stephen Harper did not need a majority to change the face of Canada, as he successfully manoeuvred a landscape of legislation through the opposition, primarily because the Liberals were most often in no shape to force an election.

And, we see now, it was true, he didn't need a majority. Maybe that's why he seems to be going slowly and cautiously with the one he has.

Canada has changed incrementally under Harper, a nudge here, a push there, and next thing you know we're sitting by the crab apple tree over in the corner of the yard instead of the front porch.

Well, that's a bit dramatic. He hasn't moved us physically, but it appears Canadians, more and more of them, may be looking at the world the way he does.

It came out, maybe, during that crazy Canada Day celebration in Ottawa when apparently, according to police and government officials, 300,000 people turned up near and on Parliament Hill to see the Duke and the Duchess of Cambridge, aka Prince William and Kate.

It is difficult to imagine the figure to be accurate, since Parliament Hill even in normal times does not have space for that many people and nearly half the Canada Day lawn was fenced off for the stage and the royal venue to the side. You can't even imagine that many people even if you stretch them out over the nearby streets, Sparks, Wellington, even to slightly distant Albert and Queen, royal sounding as they are.

It would be literally like taking the entire population of the city of Gatineau, across the river in Quebec, and plunking it down in the streets and precincts around Parliament Hill. It would be a crush.

But it was wild, watching and listening through various media from a safe distance as people camped overnight, lined up for hours, screamed like a rock audience and thrust their hands and flowers forward to get a touch.

Harper himself lit the crowd-estimate fireworks during his noontime Canada Day oratory. "What a great crowd," he said. "I thought we had a big crowd last year, but I think this is the biggest yet."

Queen Elizabeth, the prince's grandmother, was there last year, same day, same time, but Harper was either suggesting this was the biggest in history, or the biggest he's seen since he took over.

So, though we'll see how it goes through the rest of the royal honeymoon, Canada seems to have reverted back in some ways to days past, back beyond the sixties, when royal tours weren't taken for granted, with grainy family photos showing people lined up even at little whistle-stops on the lonely Prairies, as the Queen and Prince Philip, roles in reverse from William and Kate, made their way across the country on a train.

It's eery in a sense. Harper was born in 1959, he was 10 years old when the peace movement was at its height in the U.S., really still nascent in Canada, where it crested in the very early 1970s.

That is well after first memory for Harper, he would have been watching it all, along with his father, from all appearances a conservative minded family man who spent his days as an Imperial Oil executive, also viewing the social upheaval.

That's about the time the government of Pierre Trudeau began slashing the military, shrinking it further and further as the doves flew and Canada set out on its peacekeeping journey, as far from Vietnam as it could go.

Which brings us to another way in which we see the way Harper has subtly, incrementally begun to change Canada. It is the way the country views itself in the world, more now as a nation of warriors again, after 10 years in Afghanistan, many soldiers having given up their lives in the fight against post-9/11 terrorists.

Now, in a smaller way, Libya, where even the NDP barely blinked as it unanimously voted to extend Canadian participation in the NATO bombing campaign against Moammar Gadhaffi.

That came out on Canada Day, too, as both Harper and William devoted many of their words to the military. William's first stop in Ottawa was the National War Memorial. Canada has an "unbeatable" spirit, said Harper, calling it the spirit that led Canada out of the recession and "the spirit of the Canadian Armed Forces in Afghanistan, Libya, all around the world, the men and women of the Forces who so inspire us as Canadians."

True, Canada honours the bravery and professionalism its soldiers are famous for among other armed forces, and the sacrifices they have made over the past decade, but the theme of the military, and Canada's participations in past battles and wars, has been a constant undertone of the Harper government since it first won power in 2006, even earlier actually, when the Conservatives adopted their Stand Up For Canada slogan for the Conservative campaign in that election.

*The Harper government singlehandedly made Vichy a household name in Canada.*

 And there's more on the way. The government used the Throne Speech last month to flag bicentennial celebrations it is planning for the War of 1812, when Canadian militia, first nations and farmers helped the British army stave off a U.S. invasion.

The Throne Speech, long ago it seems now, also pointed out the government will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Selkirk Settlement, "which marks the founding of Manitoba and the early days of the modern West."

An earlier section of the speech made brief reference to the scars that remain from that settlement, more critically what happened afterward, saying "Canada's aboriginal peoples will be important to our future economic prosperity."

Aside from the crime bills, which themselves are a throwback to days past, the end of the long form census, the multi-billion-dollar injection into the military, a court battle even to close Vancouver's safe drug-injection clinic, there are many other ways Harper has been slowly changing Canada's face, as well as the views of its citizens.

And he hasn't really had need of a majority, so far.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Jul 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> By Tim Naumetz
> 
> He hasn't moved us physically, but it appears Canadians, more and more of them, may be looking at the world the way he does.


So the apparent reality that Canadians are increasingly seeking more conservative policies (greater fiscal prudence, less molly-coddling of those who don't contribute to society, etc) -- that is somehow Harper's evil doing? 

Advancing the will of the majority voters, rather than the whining of op-ed gluebags, is subterfuge? 

What a tool.  :


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jul 2011)

Its Harper's fault that the NDP voted to extend the Libya mission? Maybe its because was so much the right thing to do that the traditionally anti-military intervention NDP voted for it? Wow.


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Jul 2011)

I must admit I posted this as a wtf example. After hinting that the crowd numbers on Parliament Hill were inflated, the author leads us down memory lane to the days of Trudutopia, which he seems to miss. It apparently did not occur to him that perhaps the people were moving away from the era of big spending, big government, big crises and Harper and the CPC benefited from that, as well as from a hideously incompetent Liberal Party. Could the author be trying to contribute to the Stop Harper movement, and by the way what happened to the ex-page anyway?


----------



## GeorgeD (3 Jul 2011)

Maybe her 15 minutes are up?


----------



## buck13 (4 Jul 2011)

I think that this the entire article is fairly hyperbolic. In the grand scheme of things Canada is a left of centre country. Even the Conservative Party, which is right wing within our system, is fairly centrist compared to the rest of the world. Can you imagine the Republicans in the United States being elected with a majority and allowing socialized medicine to continue? The author is clearly just trying to play off some of the more ridiculous fears about 'what Harper might do if he got a majority.' With no hidden agenda to be found, he is looking elsewhere for 'evidence' to fuel his fear mongering. Very little has actually changed, we just have a slightly right of centre majority government as opposed to a slightly right of centre minority government we had before.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (5 Jul 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It's eery in a sense. Harper was born in 1959, he was 10 years old when the peace movement was at its height in the U.S., really still nascent in Canada, where it crested in the very early 1970s.


What is eery about being born in 1959?


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Jul 2011)

The following interview with the Prime Minister from the Macleans site is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. There are some interesting responses re foreign policy and the use of the CF as an instrument on Canadian interests.

In conversation: Stephen Harper


The PM on how he sees Canada’s role in the world and where he wants to take the country

by Kenneth Whyte on Tuesday, July 5, 2011 8:30am 

Q: Let’s start with election night. Was it fun?

A: It’s always fun when you win.

Q: Did you take a moment to enjoy it?

A: Yeah. Look, as I think you know, we were pretty confident we were going to win, frankly, from the outset—the question was the margin—and we were feeling pretty good in the days leading up to it. I suppose, yeah, it was exciting that night. But you’re also coming off the end of a long, gruelling campaign, so there’s also a sense of relief and a sense of exhaustion all wrapped up together.

Q: If you’re not going to stop and enjoy that one, what are you going to stop for?

A: I did enjoy it. We have to enjoy things. These guys—my staff—probably enjoyed it more than I did. I’m always thinking. The next task is almost immediately on my mind.

Q: I saw you give an interview after the election in which you alluded to the next task: you want to establish the Conservatives as the natural governing party of Canada. What does that entail?

A: What I want to do, of course, is really entrench, over time, a Conservative-majority coalition in the country. I probably—the more I’ve thought about it—I should probably stay away from the natural governing party terminology, because I think as soon as a party believes it’s the natural governing party it’s in a great deal of trouble. Since coming to office, we’ve grown steadily. We’ve grown from our base out. We haven’t tried to re-engineer the Conservative movement, we’ve built on it by bringing more people into it. We still have more work to do to be as representative of people as we’d like to be, but all the elements are there in terms of the coalition. I think, obviously, it has to be backed up with an agenda, and the agenda has to be successfully implemented, and the country has to buy into it and be happy with the results. So that’s the big thing we have to do, but I think in the end—given the outcomes of the election—we’re greatly helped not just by our own result but by the relative incoherence of the opposition as an alternative for government.

Q: This is a fundamentally different mission from when you started off in politics. The Reform Party, by virtue of its name, was about changing the political landscape, changing the political structure in Canada. When you’re trying to become the natural governing party you want to be where Canadians are, you have to be where Canadians are, so it’s more about managing a consensus than being a catalyst for change.

A: Well, first of all I think you have to remember, I began my serious political involvement in the Progressive Conservative Party way back, so my involvement has always been about conservatism. I began in the traditional Conservative Party and then became involved in the Reform Party, and—I think as you know probably better than anyone—my involvement in the Reform Party was really to re-invigorate conservative principles in Canadian politics. And I think with the eventual merger of the Reform Alliance and Progressive Conservatives, we’ve achieved an organization that embodies conservative principles but is also pragmatic and trying to reach a sufficient number of Canadians to form a government. But it’s also about, in the success of advancing conservative principles, of moving the country toward the values that you represent and that you demonstrate through the policies and the programs you deliver. And I think that both those things are happening. I also think the party and the government have been moving the country toward conservative principles. I think there’s an increasing number of people who vote for us not just because they think we’re the best choice but because they actually believe we [have] the values that are closest to their long-term values. And we’re starting to see in our own polling that at the federal level more people identify themselves as Conservatives and as voting Conservatives than any other party, and that is a huge change, and that never happened even during previous Conservative governments. So I’m optimistic that we’re moving in the right direction, but we have a lot of challenges.

Q: You’ve been running for something for nine years now, and you have had no real job security, you haven’t known from year to year where you’re going to be.

A: Yeah, in nine years I’ve run four national election campaigns, two leadership campaigns, a party referendum merger, and a couple of other convention processes. And of course by-elections. You know, I’ve been elected five times in my riding in nine years. I’ve been literally running non-stop.

Q: In addition to that, you’ve had all the false alarms about elections.

A: Yeah, every three months. Look, it’s been exhausting. I wouldn’t say as much for me as for my senior staff and for, frankly, senior public servants. Every three months we’ve had the plan for the government and every three months we’ve had the plan for the election. The great irony is that only once did I threaten an election, then I actually called it—that was in 2008—but every single three months in between we’ve had a threat of an election, and we’ve always taken it seriously. One of the reasons we won is in spite of the fact the other guys made the threats, we were always the best prepared. But yeah, it’s been two tracks, and it’s been exhausting to everyone involved in it. So it’s very different now planning for a four-year period.

Q: Over that nine years you develop habits of mind. I would imagine that you’re making short-term calculations all the time about how this is going to play, how that’s going to play. You try and look long-term but you have to be constantly aware that you may be going to the polls soon. Now that you’re in this longer-term mandate, how do you stop thinking that way?

A: Well, I’m not sure you completely do. There are some good disciplines this teaches you. Even when we were thinking short-term, you don’t ignore what could be the long-term or mid-term consequences of your actions. I would always point that out to staff: something may be great today, you know—we got a great headline today—and six months later everybody goes, “What were you thinking?” You’ve got a big problem, especially in a minority context. So it does heighten your political instincts, but I think that’s good. The party has to—and the government has to—move the country with it. Now, does that mean the country has to agree with you on every single issue? No, but even in a minority I never took the view that the opposition parties or even the country at large had to agree with every single thing we were doing, but they had to agree with the direction we were taking and that will remain the case. It’s just that we’re less under the gun from day to day.

Q: At the Conservative convention on June 10, you made quite a remarkable speech. The first thing I noticed was how much time you spent thanking people who worked in the parties, and thanking your MPs, your ministers, your staff, in great detail and with great specificity. And having watched you deliver speeches over more than 20 years now, I don’t think I ever recall an occasion where you went so far out of your way to express personal gratitude. Was that deliberate?

A: Well, I’m not sure it is that different. I think I’ve done similar things, maybe not at quite the same length, but on similar occasions. The party convention is unique in that you have, literally in one room, almost every single person who is responsible for whatever success the organization has had, and they also happen to be in the room at the moment where the organization has its greatest success, and so that’s obviously the appropriate thing to do. I’m the first to say, you look over the past nine, 10 years, we’re today a majority government not because we have the best leader but because we have the best team, and we have the best team on every level—and they actually work together as a team far more than any of the other guys.

Q: You don’t think that you operate differently at a human level than you would have 10 or 20 years ago?

A: Well, I think as you spend more time at any occupation you get better at everything you do—I hope—and so I think I’m better at a lot of things than I was 10 years ago. But do I think there’s a sudden change at the convention this year? No, no, no.

Q: Another striking thing, to me, was some of the language around foreign affairs, and you said that, essentially, Canada needs to redefine its national purpose, and that its national purpose is no longer just to go along with everyone else’s agendas. How would you describe Canada’s definition of its national interest in the past?

A: Well, I’m not going to belabour analyzing previous governments, I’ll just say this: since coming to office—in fact since becoming prime minister—the thing that’s probably struck me the most in terms of my previous expectations—I don’t even know what my expectations were—is not just how important foreign affairs/foreign relations is, but in fact that it’s become almost everything. There’s hardly anything today of any significance that doesn’t have a huge international dimension to it, beginning first and foremost with the economy. Yeah, we have a strong economy, but really we have a stronger Canadian economy within a world economy. When we had a world recession it didn’t matter that there wasn’t a single thing that had caused the recession anywhere else that was present in Canada, we were still in a recession, and we didn’t go down as far as the others, and now that it’s recovering, we’re recovering ahead of the others. But nevertheless, we’re just a piece of the global economy. That’s the first thing, and whether you go to security matters or pandemics, it’s all international. I’m not saying it is not necessary to have good relations with a lot of people; in fact, having good relations, first and foremost, with our most critical ally, the United States, is essential to Canada’s well-being, as are our good relations or good dimensions of relations with a large number of other players. But it isn’t enough, in this day and age, to say we get along with people. We have to have a clear sense of where we want to be and where we would like our partners to go in the various challenges that are in front of them. Whether they’re economic challenges or security challenges or anything else, we better know what we’re trying to get out of this and where we’re going to align ourselves, and it’s not just good enough to say, “everybody likes us.” That is not a sufficient way to protect your interests when your interests are so deeply enmeshed with everybody else’s.

Q: So what do we do differently?

A: First and foremost I think you see the differences in this government in terms of how we approach foreign relations. First of all, we take pretty clear stands. We take stands that we think reflect our own interests but our own interests in a way that reflects the interests of the wider community of nations, or particularly the wider interests of those nations with whom we share values and interests. Whether it’s taking strong and clear positions, for instance, at the G20 on something like a global financial regulation and a banking tax, we don’t just say, “Well, a consensus is developing for that. We’ll go along with it.” It was not in our interest. It actually happens to be bad policy as well. So we worked to oppose that particular agenda. I won’t get into specifics, but in some issues of foreign affairs or conflicts, what are the Canadian values or interests at stake? We think it’s pretty important that our long-run interests are tied somewhat to our trade, but that they’re more fundamentally tied to the kind of values we have in the world: freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law. We see over time—it’s not an ironclad rule—but those societies that promote those values tend to share our interests, and those that do not tend to, on occasion, if not frequently, become threats to us. We also make sure as well—and this is important—that we have the capacities. I know we’ve received some criticism for re-investing in our military, but when you’re in a dangerous world and countries are from time to time called upon to do things to deal with those dangers, if you don’t have the capacity to act you are not taken seriously. Nobody takes your views seriously unless you can contribute to solutions, and it’s very difficult to contribute to solutions unless you can contribute across the range of capabilities, up to and including military capabilities. I think if you look back—I think Hugh Segal’s written quite eloquently on this recently—Canada’s been at its most influential when it’s actually had a range of capabilities, so we’ve made sure we have capabilities.

Q: And when it’s actually been using them.

A: And when it’s been using them. If capabilities are just in the freezer all the time then they’re not really capabilities, right?

Q: You think Canadians are prepared?

A: We’re trying to make our foreign aid more effective. We don’t fund talk shops anymore, we fund aid that actually makes a difference. On the economy, if there’s a banking crisis and a debate over banking we make sure we’ve got a good record on that, but we also make sure we have good people who understand the subject matter who are able to be at the table and drive discussion. So that’s what we do across a range of issues. I say it’s a very different shift from simply every country likes us and would raise its glass to us at a cocktail party. That’s not the issue.

Q: It’s one thing to say you want a strong-in-principle foreign policy, and another thing to carry through. I admired a lot of things the government initially said on China and human rights violations, but when we had a negative response from China on the trade front, your government’s line shifted. We’ve also seen different policies with regard to Afghanistan, some based on principle, some buffeted by what our allies would want, or the public wants.

A: I think on China we’ve been clear from the beginning that we’re anxious to have good relations and to pursue vigorous economic relations, but we are going to continue to speak out on democracy and human rights issues, and we have. I think it took the Chinese government some time to get used to the fact we had shifted the approach from one of utter silence on those issues, but the shift was made and I think it’s a productive relationship. On Afghanistan, look, the issue is complex and obviously the government’s been trying to decide as it goes forward each step of the way what’s the next best thing to do. I’ve said from the beginning we’ve needed to be engaged there on all levels to try and affect outcomes, but that the goal cannot be the permanent military occupation and kind of de facto governance of the country. This is a position not only that we’re pursuing but that I’ve argued with our allies. I think if you look at what’s happened, the positions we’ve been arguing have, over the past two or three years, become the positions of our allies, after we’d already been clear which direction we were going.

Q: Do you think you can wield the same influence on Israel? You’ve been a strong supporter of Israel for some time, but you’re now more or less isolated in the G8.

A: The Middle East question is more difficult in terms of the opinion of others. I wouldn’t go so far as to say isolated, but it is a difficult position. That said, in my mind, the stakes are very clear, the issue is very clear and the stakes are very important. We all recognize there has to be a two-state solution, but we have in Israel essentially a Western democratic country that is an ally of ours, who’s the only state in the United Nations whose very existence is significantly questioned internationally and opposed by many, including by the other side of that particular conflict—still, to a large degree—and when I look around the world at those who most oppose the existence of Israel and seek its extinction, they are the very people who, in a security sense, are immediate—long-term but also immediate—threats to our own country. So I think that’s a very clear choice. That doesn’t mean there aren’t individual issues that become quite complicated and nuanced, but I think it is important and I will continue to be very clear with other leaders the way I think we should see this problem.

Q: You’re confident that Canadians are prepared to accept a more muscular foreign policy? I noticed that when you talked at the convention about Canada’s founding principles, you mentioned first the phrase “courageous warrior.”

A: I think you have to take the triumvirate: the courageous warrior, compassionate neighbour, confident partner.

Q: Yes, but you didn’t choose to say a nation of peacekeepers, nation of immigrants, or hewers of wood or drawers of water, you said a courageous warrior, and that is not a way that Canadians are really accustomed to thinking of themselves.

A: Well, not recently, but in fact Canada has a proud military history, beginning with the War of 1812 that essentially began to establish our sense of national identity. That was really the genesis of the geographically wide and culturally diverse nation we have today. We’ve been consistently involved on the right side of important conflicts that have shaped the world in which we live, that are largely responsible for moving the world in the overall positive direction in which it is moving. Look, let me give you the two big threats of the 20th century. First, fascism. Canada, next to its big-three allies, played one of the largest roles in the world in the defeat of fascism, which purged the world of one evil, and obviously the most robust military engagement anyone’s ever been involved in. And then through a different kind of engagement, the long, sustained state of alert of the Cold War against Communism, the other great threat to the world and to our civilization. In spite of, quite frankly, the ambivalence of some Liberal governments toward that, Canada, in fact, remained engaged in that from the beginning to the very end. I’m not dismissing peacekeeping, and I’m not dismissing foreign aid—they’re all important things that we need to do, and in some cases do better—but the real defining moments for the country and for the world are those big conflicts where everything’s at stake and where you take a side and show you can contribute to the right side.

Q: You suggest that we are in one great conflict, or that we’re heading to one that we need to be prepared for.

A: I think we always are.

Q: What is the nature of that present threat?

A: Well, I think it’s more difficult to define now. We know there are challenges to us. The most obvious is terrorism, Islamic extremist terrorism. We know that’s a big one globally. We also know, though, the world is becoming more complex, and the ability of our most important allies, and most importantly the United States, to single-handedly shape outcomes and protect our interests, has been diminishing, and so I’m saying we have to be prepared to contribute more, and that is what this government’s been doing.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jul 2011)

Mark Steyn has now added some comments to the Vichy/Vimy fray. You could also link through smalldeadanimals.com.

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/4237/26/


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Jul 2011)

The best line of the entire piece:



> A culture with no past is unlikely to have any kind of future.


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Jul 2011)

Lawrence Martin, whose dislike for Prime Minister Harper and his policies is well known, has posted a piece decrying our "new found militarism" [my words] on iPolitics.ca. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.


LAWRENCE MARTIN: 
The new hawks of the Western world

 Posted on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, 9:17 am by Lawrence Martin 


Behold the new Canadian militarism. It’s everywhere.

Hardly a week goes by without the government gushing about our troops, or bowing to a DND wish. It has become politically incorrect, practically unpatriotic, to question the military. Our government’s Afghanistan propaganda makes it sound like it was mission accomplished. And everyone is expected to be gung-ho on the war in Libya.

The government is moving ahead on the purchase of the zillion-dollar F-35 super jets which yet another study has just criticized, saying they’re unsuitable unless we’re trying to build a Pentagon-styled war machine. We now take a harder line in the Middle East than virtually any other country. We’re seldom heard on the disarmament front. We’ve lost our traditional honest broker standing at the United Nations.

The first thing on the itinerary of Prince William when he arrived was a visit to the tomb of the unknown soldier. Our smallish foreign aid output is increasingly tied to military adventures – war projects as opposed to long-term development. The military is for the first time starting to take part in our citizenship ceremonies. Our foreign policy is now, arguably for the first time, to the right of the United States.

For a country that has long prided itself on a reputation as a peacemaker, it’s a remarkable turn. Hawks of the western world? Who would have thunk it?

It’s a play to our baser instincts, instincts that are more primitive than progressive. The Conservatives’s lock-‘em-up law-and-order policy is one example of this. The glorification of the military is another.

Prime Minister Harper said recently he sees Canada’s role as that of “courageous warrior.” When interviewer Ken Whyte of Maclean’s suggested that with their post-WWII bridge-building history Canadians aren’t used to that kind of thing, the PM countered by reciting the country’s role in earlier times, beginning with the war of 1812.

Canada’s older military history was a proud one, the PM noted, and it’s something he’s bent on reviving. Of all the policy changes he has brought to Canada, the new militarism may well be the most profound.

Paul Robinson, a University of Ottawa professor who served as an officer in both the British and Canadian armies, wrote in the Ottawa Citizen this week that the government is elevating the military into a moral elite of super-citizens. This helps, he said, legitimize war and militarize foreign policy. It has become “near impossible to criticize any aspect of military operations without incurring shrieks of ‘support the troops.’” War in this country used to be something to avoid. Now, said Robinson, it’s becoming “almost the option of first resort.”

Whether Canadians accept the new militancy remains to be seen. But losing our collective reputation as peace-seekers doesn’t seem to be bothering them too much so far. Though the opposition parties campaigned in the recent election against the new fighter jets and other hard-line aspects of Tory foreign policy, their efforts – foreign policy is seldom a major factor in the country’s political calculation – didn’t register strongly with voters. One reason might be that, despite the tough noises, the Tories are ceasing the fighting role in Afghanistan.

In the broader context, Harper’s glorification of the armed services appears to fit his goal of stirring a new Canadian patriotism. Canada Day was an example as crowds of unprecedented size, displaying hero worship for non-heroes, turned out to cheer on the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. As Harper beamed, Prince William spoke in superlatives about the work of the Canadian forces in Afghanistan.

The turnaround from the Liberal years is striking. Canadians supported Jean Chretien as he cut the military budget, maintained strong civilian control over the military and kept the country out of war in Iraq. In the mid-1990s, owing to a massive deficit, most every department took a big cut in spending. Defence was no exception. The Cold War had ended and that was a further justification for the cuts.

But there was more to it than that. For Canadians, defence spending was not a top of line priority. They appeared to be proud of their post-war tradition of urging restraint on super powers, whether it was with respect to the Suez Crisis, or Vietnam, or the Cold War, or arms-stockpiling, or Iraq. The country’s reputation abroad was that of a do-gooder. American Defence Secretary Cap Weinberger once quipped that you could put the entire Canadian military on a football field and still have room for the game.

Under the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, there was a closer alignment with American foreign policy. But at home budgetary deficits prevented big defence outlays and in Joe Clark the Tories had a foreign minister who was cut from the Pearsonian tradition. Clark now takes a dim view of the loss of the Canadian middle role.

Despite today’s large deficit the Defence Department is not expected to face cuts to its $21-billion budget. Lt. Gen. Andrew Leslie is looking at the bloated military command structure for possible savings but is meeting heavy resistance.

Stephen Harper’s father and grandfather were military buffs and the prime minister is no different. He has a genuine passion for matters military, as do many red-meat conservatives.

To those who complain that he isn’t far enough to the right, he can point to his foreign policy. This new militancy is a far cry from the Canada we have known for the last 60 years.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jul 2011)

Some liberals just can't seem to believe they lost the election, nor have they any compunction to move on. Their shrillness and petty pecking proves why they were decimated in the last election. 

That is alright though, if they can't get on with it, I will personally be glad to see them spend another four years after the next election bumbling around in the wilderness looking for a saviour. With friends like Martin.......... :


----------



## Kalatzi (8 Jul 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Lawrence Martin, whose dislike for Prime Minister Harper and his policies is well known, has posted a piece decrying our "new found militarism" [my words] on iPolitics.ca. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.
> 
> Despite today’s large deficit the Defence Department is not expected to face cuts to its $21-billion budget. *Lt. Gen. Andrew Leslie is looking at the bloated military command structure for possible savings but is meeting heavy resistance.*



Time to call in the Air strike? >


----------



## toyotatundra (10 Jul 2011)

Harper says the Liberal era is over...



> In his first major speech in Calgary since election night, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared Saturday the “long Liberal era” of Canada has faded like disco balls and bell-bottom pants, as the country turns more conservative in its outlook.
> 
> Speaking to almost 900 staunch Tory supporters at his annual riding association Stampede barbecue, Harper said the party earned the trust of Canadian voters and was rewarded by capturing 166 seats during the May 2 federal election. The Liberal party’s long grip on Canada’s political culture has weakened, and voters are more aligned with the values of the Conservative party, he said.



Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Harper%2Bdeclares%2Blong%2BLiberal%2Bover%2Bduring%2BStampede%2Bspeech/5079289/story.html#ixzz1Rk3XOOXv



http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Harper%2Bdeclares%2Blong%2BLiberal%2Bover%2Bduring%2BStampede%2Bspeech/5079289/story.html


----------



## ArmyNerd (13 Jul 2011)

Having read Mr Martin book Harperland and then reading this, I see it as more a lefty fear mongering, the man is unfair. In regards to "becoming" a conservative county, I think its more rebalancing of moral fibre and spine growth and the ablilty to put Quebec in its place.

my  :2c:


----------



## toyotatundra (13 Jul 2011)

ArmyNerd said:
			
		

> Having read Mr Martin book Harperland and then reading this, I see it as more a lefty fear mongering, the man is unfair. In regards to "becoming" a conservative county, I think its more rebalancing of moral fibre and spine growth and the ablilty to put Quebec in its place.
> 
> my  :2c:



Welcome to the site ArmyNerd!

Can you explain what you mean by rebalancing of moral fibre and spine?


----------



## ArmyNerd (14 Jul 2011)

I don't mean for it to sound pejorative, but I just don't think its fair that Quebec's "social just state" be paid for by the rest of the country. Holding the country hostage with a referendum evertime you want private industry, to bail you out of the fiscal cluster doo doo, that short sighted economic plans and pandering to special intrests within Quebec (QPP,Bill 101,SDI to name a few) than drove the province into the ground.

Rentseeking spreads like wildfire, and becomes a way to monoplize the labour movement by special intrests and it did. Any attack on labour is seen as an attack on the people and which polarizes the left into a critical mass that runs rampant disregarding reality. Which gives way to articles like these, every time labour doesn't get what they want, its time to demonize a conservitive.  The moral fibre and spine i'm referring to is stand up to pulbic services that while may provide employment, isn't really worth the cost, I'd rather walk to the public mail box instead of having them walk to my door. I just don't think it fair to damand something that isn't economically stable. 

Having said that I don't think its the only factor. The Canadian people are getting old! No offence to the relics of the site, but the Boomers and their offspring are getting on in years. It makes sense to me given that democracy reflects the majority.

and thank you for the welcome 

ArmyNerd's :2c:


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jul 2011)

In what Conservative jurisdiction do taxpayers foot the bill for this?

http://canadianconservatives.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/congratulations-to-the-left-poverty-now-equals-fun/



> *Congratulations to the left: Poverty now equals fun*
> Posted: July 23, 2011 by ferrethouse in Uncategorized
> 
> Why work hard when you can get all of this courtesy of generous taxpayers…
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Jul 2011)

And now the secret is out. This column is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Dwight Duncan, Sun secret agent 3  

By Lorrie Goldstein ,Toronto Sun 

First posted: Saturday, July 23, 2011 12:51:45 EDT PM | Updated: Saturday, July 23, 2011 12:58:05 EDT PM 
  

TORONTO - Granted, you know him only as Dwight Duncan, Ontario’s always calm, affable and intelligent Liberal finance minister.

But here at Sun Media Mission Control (aka rightwingbatcrazy.ca) we know his real identity.

And now, the truth can finally be told.

Dwight Duncan, aka Agent X, is in fact the most successful right-wing double agent we have ever planted inside the Ontario Liberal Party.

Yes, he’s our Pillsbury Go-To Boy.

And last Wednesday he launched the most diabolical attack on the Ontario Liberals from within ever conceived by one of our operatives.

What to all outward appearances looked like just another petulant meltdown by a frustrated Liberal politician, blaming the “right-wing media” for lying about the Liberals’ economic record as his party heads towards an inevitable reckoning with voters on Oct. 6, was in fact a brilliant double cross of the Liberals, orchestrated by Duncan himself.

Just think about it logically.

If you’re a Liberal, what’s the last thing you want voters thinking about as this fall’s election approaches, when it comes to Premier Dalton “I won’t raise your taxes” McGuinty?

That’s right — you don’t want them thinking about people who are “completely dishonest” or “intellectually dishonest” or “factually dishonest” or who have practised “intellectual dishonesty”.

And you sure as hell don’t want them thinking about people “who don’t tell the truth,” all terms Duncan ostensibly used to describe “right-wing” media outlets like the Toronto Sun and National Post, while his real intent was to subconsciously remind voters of McGuinty’s “fiberal” record.

Admittedly, Duncan almost went too far when he described the National Post as right wing, since the Post hasn’t really been conservative ever since Conrad Black left, although it is nice they still allow him to run their Florida state prison bureau.

But I digress.

We always knew Duncan was in for great things going back to his early years at our secret, super-duper, right-wing training facility buried 10-storeys beneath Mike Harris’ golf course in North Bay, aka the Conservabunker.

There, Duncan became our only Liberal double agent ever to actually find Stephen Harper’s hidden agenda, strategically located at the end of a 100-km maze guarded by two giant Tory dinosaurs, fed on a steady diet of welfare recipients, phony refugee claimants and single mothers.

Being the good soldier that he is, Duncan promptly ate Harper’s hidden agenda after cleverly putting the Tory dinosaurs to sleep by reading them one of his budget speeches.

Paul Martin, Stephane Dion, Michael Ignatieff and now Bob Rae have been searching for it ever since and, as you may have noticed, failing to find Harper’s hidden agenda eventually causes all Liberal leaders to start talking gibberish, just before they self-destruct.

And we owe it all to Duncan.

Finally, here at Sun Media Mission Control, we know what you’re thinking.

You’re thinking, why, if Duncan has been such a great double agent for us all these years, are we blowing his cover now, less than three months before the next Ontario election?

Sadly, this decision proved to be necessary to divert attention away from the activities of one of our other super-secret, right-wing double agents, who has managed to advance even further up the Ontario Liberal party hierarchy than Duncan.

Of course, if we told you who he is, we’d have to kill you.

All we can say is his cover story is he was born in 1955, grew up in a large family, attended a faith-based school while later attacking such schools as segregationist in the 2007 Ontario election, that he resides in Ottawa and that his initials are “DM.”

At least that’s what you’ve been led to believe up to now.

Actually, we cloned him as our Centennial Project in 1967 by combining DNA collected from Pierre Trudeau’s hairbrush with a wind turbine.

His code name is, “the tax man.”

Shhh! Mum’s the word.


----------



## cupper (23 Jul 2011)

I guess I can throw my two cents in here:

Having moved south of the border just after 9-11, over the last 10 years I've come to realize that conservative is a relative term. Most conservatives in Canada would at most be considered center or just right of center in the US political spectrum. The conservative right in the US is an almost foreign concept for most Canadians.

Remember, Obama is said to have a socialist / communist agenda for wanting to bring in a health care system that doesn't even come close to what Canada has, and what most Europeans would scoff at.

So has Canada become conservative? No. Much in the same way that the US under Obama is nowhere close to moving into the socialist realm.


----------

