Conservatism needs work

[a_majoor]

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.

Our would-be Martin Luther is Christopher DeMuth, president of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), who would be a long overdue candidate for People's "Smartest Man Alive" cover if they did that sort of thing. In the January-February issue of The American Enterprise, DeMuth asks, "What ever happened to small government?" (Full disclosure: I once worked at AEI, and was once the American Enterprise's media critic. Also, I sometimes wear sweat socks two days in a row.)

In fairness this is not a new question on the Right. Many of us have been asking it with the same frequency and urgency of a man very late for work who asks, "Where did I put my car keys?" But several things are notable about DeMuth's essay.

First, it offers a brilliant argument that large government itself is unconstitutional. Jefferson believed that "no man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session," so he wisely insisted that the capital be built in malarial swampland. Consequently, the seat of the government remained empty for nearly half the year. Today, thanks in part to the unintended consequences of air-conditioning, we have permanent government of career politicians, a thing the Founders never intended and which sees no natural boundary to its authority.

One thing the Founders sought to limit was the power of taxation, which, they understood, was the most powerful and most politically divisive tool at government's disposal, short of war. That's why the Constitution insists that revenue increases originate in the House of Representatives so as to ensure the most political legitimacy possible. (A point DeMuth doesn't mention is that the Founders intended the House to be vastly more representative, numerically speaking, than it is today. George Washington spoke up only once at the Constitutional Convention - to insist that size of congressional districts be dropped from 40,000 to 30,000, to make them more representative.)

Today, some taxation involves no representation at all. Agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission simply decide how much money they need and then tax to get it. For example, the FCC taxes long-distance phone calls and spends the money on library and school computers, spreading the Internet to rural communities, and other nice things. Nice is nice, but nice doesn't trump constitutional responsibilities.

But abdication of constitutional responsibilities is the order of the day. State attorneys general, led by New York's Elliot Spitzer, form unconstitutional compacts between the states without the required consent of Congress. Congress passes laws without a moment's concern about their constitutionality, on the novel but deeply held popular conviction that if the Supreme Court doesn't object, it must be O.K. Once upon a time, whole bills were thrown out because some senator or congressmen objected that the proposed legislation, however well-intentioned, simply exceeded constitutional authority. Today we legislate by curveball, write whatever laws we like in the hope that the squinty-eyed umpires of the Court don't call a strike.

Presidents have been just as bad, including George W. Bush. He campaigned against the proposed McCain-Feingold campaign-finance "reform" in the 2000 election. At the time Bush argued, rightly, that the legislation violated numerous constitutional principles. When the bill wound up his desk, however, in a more egregious form than the earlier versions, Bush signed it. If his erstwhile "serious constitutional concerns" had been justified, the president explained, then, heck, "the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions." But when the law went before the Supreme Court, Bush's Justice Department defended it and the justices in turn upheld it, out of deference to the "government." It's all so tawdry.

There's a great deal more worth reading in DeMuth's blessedly nonpartisan primer on unlimited government, including the observation that today's heated partisanship probably has a lot to do with the fact that the government tries to do everything. This creates the sense that all that's wrong in the country is due to the other side's obstruction, and it makes both sides feel like the stakes in every election are enormous - which, increasingly, is true.

But the importance of DeMuth's message for conservatives cannot be overlooked. In recent years AEI has garnered the reputation as the president's brain trust. In conservative circles these days, that's not an unmitigated compliment. Too many in the GOP have felt the rush that comes with giving out other people's money, and as a result the party has become "worldly," as Martin Luther might put it, selling favors like indulgences of yore. We have confused "low taxes" - which we all like - with limited government, which we don't have. We expect Democrats to want the government to do everything, but at least they have the consistency to raise taxes in order to pay for it. Republicans lack similar convictions. Which is why they need to be born again.

- (c) 2005 Tribune Media Services
 
  http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200512140816.asp

       

 

[Cliff]

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]

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.

    * The authoritarian quasi-capitalism of China (which could morph into something either better, or far worse) and Asia is another option, one that will present a rising challenge both geopolitically and ideologically. Can material prosperity be insulated from political freedom? For how long? If so, there are many places where such a model will be attractive - and a resource-hungry colonialism that depends on its export is hardly out of the question.

    * There is, of course, the Islamist alternative, which may acquire an ability to destroy that far surapsses their fallen civilization's utter inability to create. It has blended with the detrius of the 20th centry's failed totalitarian experiments, and that truth is now being observed in affiliation and action as well as in theory. In the end, what remains of Islamic civilization will either learn to love the kuffar [unbeliever] as its brother, or its own internal logic will lead to its death - at another's hands, or at its own. The Fascist death-impulse is strong, and intrinsic, but they rarely die alone. It is time for the decent people to choose, and make a stand.

    * And don't forget the Anarchy alternative of warring tribes, artificial failed states, and the shadowy criminal organizations that both feed on and depend on them. for the foreseeable future they, too, will be with us. There are a number of plausible scenarios in which al-Qaeda is just the first challenge of its type, the early wave of a trend rather than the last wave of a long civilizational death-spiral.

Against all of these, there is another tradition. One of civic society organized of individuals, and characterized by accountability, flexibility, and the rule of law. It is not a tradition bound by ethnicity, geography, or past historical status - though it has many of its origins in the historical experiences of the British people and blends deeper Graeco-Roman and Judeo-Christian origins. James C. Bennett and The Anglosphere Institute call it The Anglosphere, and to the extent that Western civilization and its ideals retain a fighting chance in this world, this is where they reside most firmly.

It's a model that has proven its sustainability, and now it is learning the balance between respect for others, duty to others, and its own self-preservation. It is imperfect. It is also, I believe, the best hope for a world that represents a better future for ALL humankind.

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]

>both sides feel like the stakes in every election are enormous 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]

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

RE: NY TRANSIT STRIKE [John Derbyshire]
Jonah: Right on. And the NY transit strike is just the opening battle in a war that will engage more and more of our attention in the years to come -- the war between the government people with their gold-plated benefits packages and retirement plans, and the rising resentment of us private-sector saps, who have to pay for it all with our taxes. Look at the letters columns of the local press. People know what's going on. Quotes from NY commuters printed in America's Newspaper of Record this morning (but not online):

"I'm going to have to work till I'm 80 so some 20-year-old can retire at 55? I don't think so."

"I would love to have a job that would give me a 3 percent raise every year, benefits for life, both medical and dental, and retirement at 62 [sic] with a full pension. If any openings occur, let me know."

"I heard a transit worker complain to a reporter about how the MTA wants more productivity from its workers without an increase in pay. Welcome to the real world."

Etc., etc. Did you know that "Overall, 90 percent of public employees enjoy a defined-benefit pension, compared with only 20 percent (and falling) of the private work force"? (Quote from Time magazine, 10/31/05 issue, "Where pensions are golden".)

When you are in your seventies, you will still be schlepping to work every day, so your taxes can fund the Caribbean cruise of some cop, subway motorman, or schoolteacher who retired at 55. How will you feel about that? Mad as hell, that's how. Inevitably, your mad-as-hell-ness will translate into politics sooner or later. Government people--enjoy it while you've got it. It won't last much longer.

Public sector labor unions are an abomination. There is even a case--I have made it somewhere, but can't find the reference--for disenfranchising people who make their living from public funds. You'll be hearing much, much more about all this in the years to come.
Posted at 10:02 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]

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.

Size Matters fits squarely in this genre. Joel Miller makes the pragmatic case for smaller government, and basing it on two principles. First, it's fundamentally unfair and undemocratic to expect citizens to live by laws they can't understand and had no hand in making.

Secondly, it's extremely expensive, in both the direct and opportunity costs of compliance. Remember that every dollar spent on compliance represents a dollar inefficiently allocated. Yet while the burdern of proof should lie on the regulators, I can personally testify that in Washington, the burnder on proof inevitably lies on the regulated. And since small business suffers disproportionately from regulation, the effect of that regulation falls disproportionately on the innovators and entrepreneurs.

The problem is that these costs are usually hidden, meaning that while there's a constituency for every program, there's rarely a constituency against it. It's easy to justify their diffuse costs in light of their noble goals, and the marginal savings from any one program seems trivial. Part of the service of the book is to aggregate the costs, and then break them down again on a per-family basis, to see the cumulative effects. For too long, the cost-benefit analysis of new programs has ignored many of costs, and any honest public debate on the issue requires a fair accounting.

And the effects are staggering. Thousands of dollars per year per family. Thousands added to the cost of a car. Tens of thousands added to the cost of a house. And some of the proof is at the state level. If the states are the laboratories of democracy, then people (and capital) are fleeing the Frankenstein monsters of the northeast and California. (Interpolation by me: In Canada the direct cost of taxation at all levels is the single largest household expense, greater than food, shelter or transportation.)

Miller notes that the growth of lobbying mirrors the growth of government largess. While the book was written before the current Abramoff scandals, many have pointed out since that a (not "the") root cause of those scandals isn't the right to petition, but the centrality of government in redistributing wealth. We've seen this here in Colorado on a somewhat smaller scale. This year's large tax increase has led to more intense lobbying for those funds.

This dynamic sets up self-reinforcing cycles: few politicians will vote to make themselves less important. Moreover, new programs not only fail to deliver, but introduce market distortions that, according to inexorable logic, requite more market interference. The result may not be the old Soviet Union. but right now, even the European Social Model isn't looking too good, either, especially to the non-parents option not to bring children into it.

It's a pragmatic case, but grounded in theory, and Miller does a nice job of tying the two together. He makes a somewhat familiar, intellectually coherent case that government restrictions and higher taxes fail, and beget calls for more of the same. By using specific examples of how regulation and restrictions increase costs, he makes the subject easier to grasp. At the same time, he throws in enough theory to show how these costs and the activities that spawn them flow from a flawed conception of government's role.

Size Matters perhaps relies too heavily on studies. Now, they are all publicly available and footnoted. And yet, as Miller points out, because so many effects are local - because there are so many jurisdictions at work - aggregating the effect on your mortgage is harder than it looks. If Miller's goal is to get the average citizen to see hidden regulatory costs as he goes through his day, more specific examples would have helped.

To his credit, Miller resists the temptation to spend time on the Constitutional issues involved here. The Commerce Clause makes an appearance, but Miller never loses sight of his main theme: how regulation wastes money degrades our standard of living.

Miller winds up with a realistic conclusion: things are going to change slowly, if at all. He bases his short-term pessimism on the fact that while there's always a constituency for continuing a program, there's almost never a constituency for ending one. But in the long run, there's some evidence that the success of 401(k)s, combined with the failure of mini welfare-state corporations such as the car makers and airlines are affecting our expectations for the grandaddy of entitlements, Social Security. (Interpolation by me: Canada's record of Crown Corporations and companies like Bombardier which survive on taxpayer handouts is equally dismal. Destruction of taxpayer wealth on that scale should have triggered a revolution long ago...)

Size Matters is by no means the last word on the subject. Policy journals will be debating these issues for a long time to come. The book is more likely to appeal to conservatives and libertarians looking for ammunition than to open-minded liberals. But it may also help free-marketeers-by-instinct, who've never given much thought to the underlying principles. By outlining the case and giving it a structure, Miller is helping to build support from the ground up.

 

[a_majoor]

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.

Republicans at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue last year tied their own shoelaces together while tackling big ideas. Despite President Bush's valiant efforts, his attempt to modernize Social Security stalled amid Democratic intransigence and GOP cowardice. Meanwhile, greater presidential boldness might have yielded a dramatic reform of the tax code. Instead, a blue-ribbon panel offered an uninspiring mish-mash that quickly lulled the nation to sleep. And in Congress, wholesale attempts to reign in runaway spending floundered as the Republican appetite for pork proved strong enough to ignite a thousand barbecue pits.

While America still needs personal retirement accounts, a low-rate flat tax, and massive reductions in federal outlays, perhaps Republicans this year should pass measures that would be slight in size but significant in restoring the party's shattered image as the purveyors of limited government and free markets.

Here are four proposals that should help the GOP get its groove back.

First, Congress should adopt a rule requiring constitutional justification for all the legislation it considers. Every bill should begin, "Pursuant to U.S. Constitution Article X Clause, Y, Congress hereby enacts . . ." Senators and House members may fall back upon the "General Welfare" clause, but at least doing so would remind legislators that America still has a constitution that is supposed to guide and restrain federal action. As Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank, likes to say: "The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now."

Second, before the next mid-term election, Congress should approve grants to states to finance free photo identification cards for poor voters who otherwise lack ID. In exchange, states should require citizens to show photo IDs in federal elections.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court last October blocked a Georgia law that required photo ID at polling stations, saying the card's $35 cost was just too much to ask of the poor and elderly. So why not let low-income and older people cash checks and board 747s without photo ID? If mandating picture ID at every precinct on November 7 requires Washington to reimburse states for giving free IDs to the handful of voters who lack them and cannot afford them, Republicans should propose that tradeoff.

Elections free of phantom and repeat voters should be expected in the world's leading democratic republic. Such an anti-vote-fraud measure likely would benefit the GOP, which too often suffers at the hands of union-controlled, big-city political machines. If congressional Democrats balk at such a deal, make them stand up and explain why they oppose free photo IDs for voters who need them.

Third, the Senate and House should adopt a rule barring federal funding for new projects that bear the names of living and, even worse, sitting politicians. One must die before appearing on a U.S. postage stamp. Why, then, does California boast the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport, named after America's still-breathing Transportation Secretary? One of Alaska's notorious "bridges to nowhere" would be dubbed "Don Young's Way" after the GOP House Transportation chairman who champions it. Naming public works after politicians who are alive and even in office reeks of Pyongyang.

This shady practice gives incumbents an unfair advantage over their challengers. While his potential opponents for the U.S. Senate struggle to boost their name identification, former Klansman Robert C. Byrd (D., W. V.) enjoys taxpayer-funded advertising every time voters see the Robert C. Byrd Federal Courthouse or travel the Robert C. Byrd Expressway. These monuments to vanity are unbecoming and deserve no further federal support. If GOP legislators can gather a pound of principle among themselves, they should apply the postage-stamp rules to bridges and highways.

Fourth, Congress should bar federal business and farm subsidies to any American who earns more than $1 million. "No welfare for millionaires" is an idea that will help Republicans show some sorely needed fiscal restraint. If Democrats disagree, let them explain why rich people deserve free stuff.

If Washington Republicans can steady themselves, they should think big. Barring that, it might help them in this election year to think wisely, but also to think small.

— Deroy Murdock is a New York-based columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Arlington, Va.

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

       

 

[a_majoor]

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:

    The inference that is most commonly drawn from correlations that show a rise in support for the liberal-left in high population density areas, is that somehow, when you have many people living together in close quarters, they become more tolerant and "progressive" in their societal views. […]

    [But] there is another correlation that exists in communities of high population density - and that is the inverse ratio in home ownership. By and large, those who dwell in urban, high-rise zoning don't collect much more than furniture. Many aren't even responsible for basic chores involving maintainance and upkeep - they just call someone.

    […] When one moves into the suburbs and rural areas, however, the reverse is true - the average voter is more likely to own their own home and/or business. They gain first hand experience with the actual costs and consequences of intrusive "tax and spend" nannystate government policies so popular with the urban left. Home owners feel the direct impact in rising property taxes, and dimished private sector investment.

Renters, especially in inner cities, are traditional clients of the state for the provision of space outside their own apartments — and repay those parties that promise to continue or expand that provision with their votes. Bonus: SDA links to an old Thomas Sowell article as illustration.

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]

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]

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]

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:

    The inference that is most commonly drawn from correlations that show a rise in support for the liberal-left in high population density areas, is that somehow, when you have many people living together in close quarters, they become more tolerant and "progressive" in their societal views. […]

    [But] there is another correlation that exists in communities of high population density - and that is the inverse ratio in home ownership. By and large, those who dwell in urban, high-rise zoning don't collect much more than furniture. Many aren't even responsible for basic chores involving maintainance and upkeep - they just call someone.

    […] When one moves into the suburbs and rural areas, however, the reverse is true - the average voter is more likely to own their own home and/or business. They gain first hand experience with the actual costs and consequences of intrusive "tax and spend" nannystate government policies so popular with the urban left. Home owners feel the direct impact in rising property taxes, and dimished private sector investment.

Renters, especially in inner cities, are traditional clients of the state for the provision of space outside their own apartments — and repay those parties that promise to continue or expand that provision with their votes. Bonus: SDA links to an old Thomas Sowell article as illustration.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 Conservative 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]

Some of the work the new Canadian Conservative 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

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

 

[RangerRay]

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]

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.