Sneaky Conservatism

[myata]

So far there's been two major flavours of Conservatism in this country: Progressive (old PC) and Social (old Reform Party). While there were some distinct traits and some commonalities between the two, position of both parties on important issues were quite clear and consistent.

Now Harper possibly inspired by Blair, appears to be inventing the "third way". The new brand can be most easily identified by it's creative approach to communicating its position on diverse issues. Unlike earlier groups that used to say, and do, more or less what they think, Harpers cons took up the motto "talk as Progressive, act as social (con)". This distinct fingerprint can be seen all over the place, take the environment agenda, where sneaky cons efforts were focused mainly on muddling the issues and diminishing Canada's international stance; "openness" and "transparency" through secrecy and control; death penalty policy changes, and such.

Sneaky cons also exhibit so far unexplained dislike and mistrust of free media, open dispute and democratic process, showing clear preference for the US style attack adds, controlled statements conconted in the depth of the PM office, spin in the best traditions of T.Blair, debate (when they have to, as it appears to be their last choice) on the level of junior pre-kindergarten, and back door policy changes.

Despite (or maybe, in their view at least?, by merits) of these, shall we say, peculiarities of character, sneaky cons harbour great aspirations to gain access to full power mode (aka majority government) one day, when they would be able to influence, modify and reopen the only thing that's been keeping them in check so far, i.e the law of the land. No doubt the preferred instruments in this quest will be further enhanced attack ads, even more controlled statements, and greatly superior masking of the gap between talk and act.

[no queenslave]

So far there's been two major flavours of Conservatism in this country: Progressive (old PC) and Social (old Reform Party). While there were some distinct traits and some commonalities between the two, position of both parties on important issues were quite clear and consistent.

Now Harper possibly inspired by Blair, appears to be inventing the "third way". The new brand can be most easily identified by it's creative approach to communicating its position on diverse issues. Unlike earlier groups that used to say, and do, more or less what they think, Harpers cons took up the motto "talk as Progressive, act as social (con)". This distinct fingerprint can be seen all over the place, take the environment agenda, where sneaky cons efforts were focused mainly on muddling the issues and diminishing Canada's international stance; "openness" and "transparency" through secrecy and control; death penalty policy changes, and such.

Sneaky cons also exhibit so far unexplained dislike and mistrust of free media, open dispute and democratic process, showing clear preference for the US style attack adds, controlled statements conconted in the depth of the PM office, spin in the best traditions of T.Blair, debate (when they have to, as it appears to be their last choice) on the level of junior pre-kindergarten, and back door policy changes.

.

Despite (or maybe, in their view at least?, by merits) of these, shall we say, peculiarities of character, sneaky cons harbour great aspirations to gain access to full power mode (aka majority government) one day, when they would be able to influence, modify and reopen the only thing that's been keeping them in check so far, i.e the law of the land. No doubt the preferred instruments in this quest will be further enhanced attack ads, even more controlled statements, and greatly superior masking of the gap between talk and act.

and who acted on the Molroney affair?

Their is no law of the land; just appointed corrupt judges doing what they are told to do.

Edited November 30, 2007 by no queenslave

[margrace]

and who acted on the Molroney affair?

Their is no law of the land; just appointed corrupt judges doing what they are told to do.

Ah but wasn't Harper implicated as a friend of Mulroneys

[no queenslave]

Ah but wasn't Harper implicated as a friend of Mulroneys

and who is your frend?

[JerrySeinfeld]

So far there's been two major flavours of Conservatism in this country: Progressive (old PC) and Social (old Reform Party). While there were some distinct traits and some commonalities between the two, position of both parties on important issues were quite clear and consistent.

Now Harper possibly inspired by Blair, appears to be inventing the "third way". The new brand can be most easily identified by it's creative approach to communicating its position on diverse issues. Unlike earlier groups that used to say, and do, more or less what they think, Harpers cons took up the motto "talk as Progressive, act as social (con)". This distinct fingerprint can be seen all over the place, take the environment agenda, where sneaky cons efforts were focused mainly on muddling the issues and diminishing Canada's international stance; "openness" and "transparency" through secrecy and control; death penalty policy changes, and such.

Sneaky cons also exhibit so far unexplained dislike and mistrust of free media, open dispute and democratic process, showing clear preference for the US style attack adds, controlled statements conconted in the depth of the PM office, spin in the best traditions of T.Blair, debate (when they have to, as it appears to be their last choice) on the level of junior pre-kindergarten, and back door policy changes.

Despite (or maybe, in their view at least?, by merits) of these, shall we say, peculiarities of character, sneaky cons harbour great aspirations to gain access to full power mode (aka majority government) one day, when they would be able to influence, modify and reopen the only thing that's been keeping them in check so far, i.e the law of the land. No doubt the preferred instruments in this quest will be further enhanced attack ads, even more controlled statements, and greatly superior masking of the gap between talk and act.

Are you sure you're not talking about the federal liberals?

All I've seen so far is a government that has done exactly what it said it would do...

On the GST - DONE

On abiding by a free vote in parlaiment re: Gay Marriage: DONE

On opting out of Kyoto: DONE

On reforming the senate: DOING

[Slavik44]

Wasn't it the Liberal strategy to campaign from the left and govern from the right? To borrow your words "this distinct fingerprint can be seen all over the place, take the environment agenda" God bless the Liberals for signing Kyoto (words) and allowing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to rise to unparalleled heights (actions).

Isn't it politics as usual to say one thing and do the other? Certainly I don't trust Stephen Harper, but I am not willing to give him so much credit as to assume he invented this new political strategy. After all it is not really a new political strategy it's about as old as politics itself.

I think this applies to your other point as well that "sneaky cons harbour great aspirations to gain access to full power mode (aka majority government)." Basically what your telling us is that a political party, in Canada, wants to be in a majority government status. I feel like that needs to be followed up by a voice saying "A political party in Canada, with a majority government, in our Canada, I'm not making this up" Which I suppose segways nicely into political attack adds...they are not distinctly conservative, they are distinctly political.

Basically in 307 words you told us two things, one thing that is correct. That the conservative party of Canada is a political party and one thing that is incorrect that the conservative party of Canada is the only political party in Canada that acts like a political party.

Edited November 30, 2007 by Slavik44

[ScottSA]

So far there's been two major flavours of Conservatism in this country: Progressive (old PC) and Social (old Reform Party). While there were some distinct traits and some commonalities between the two, position of both parties on important issues were quite clear and consistent.

Now Harper possibly inspired by Blair, appears to be inventing the "third way". The new brand can be most easily identified by it's creative approach to communicating its position on diverse issues. Unlike earlier groups that used to say, and do, more or less what they think, Harpers cons took up the motto "talk as Progressive, act as social (con)". This distinct fingerprint can be seen all over the place, take the environment agenda, where sneaky cons efforts were focused mainly on muddling the issues and diminishing Canada's international stance; "openness" and "transparency" through secrecy and control; death penalty policy changes, and such.

Sneaky cons also exhibit so far unexplained dislike and mistrust of free media, open dispute and democratic process, showing clear preference for the US style attack adds, controlled statements conconted in the depth of the PM office, spin in the best traditions of T.Blair, debate (when they have to, as it appears to be their last choice) on the level of junior pre-kindergarten, and back door policy changes.

Despite (or maybe, in their view at least?, by merits) of these, shall we say, peculiarities of character, sneaky cons harbour great aspirations to gain access to full power mode (aka majority government) one day, when they would be able to influence, modify and reopen the only thing that's been keeping them in check so far, i.e the law of the land. No doubt the preferred instruments in this quest will be further enhanced attack ads, even more controlled statements, and greatly superior masking of the gap between talk and act.

Just wait till we sneakily get a majority. Say hello to soldiers in the streets, churches doors you'll be herded into, gallows for swarthy immigrants in every town, destitute old ladies begging in abject misery on every street corner. Clouds of angry billowing conservative CO2 pumping into the pristine liberal air, oncoming global inferno welcomed with open arms by the fiendish Nazi hellspawn in Centre Block. Women's gains wiped out in a flash, herded like beasts into kitchens across the land, abortion gone, chastity belts forced around the unwilling pudenda of women. Uncaring corporate cultists cooking up schemes to make your lives a living hell, because that's the conservative way. Woe be upon you, for we are coming!

[JerrySeinfeld]

Just wait till we sneakily get a majority. Say hello to soldiers in the streets, churches doors you'll be herded into, gallows for swarthy immigrants in every town, destitute old ladies begging in abject misery on every street corner. Clouds of angry billowing conservative CO2 pumping into the pristine liberal air, oncoming global inferno welcomed with open arms by the fiendish Nazi hellspawn in Centre Block. Women's gains wiped out in a flash, herded like beasts into kitchens across the land, abortion gone, chastity belts forced around the unwilling pudenda of women. Uncaring corporate cultists cooking up schemes to make your lives a living hell, because that's the conservative way. Woe be upon you, for we are coming!

Quietly, Scott, your posts are becoming some of the best out there. What better way to counter the ridulousness of liberal parochialism than with pure sarcasm

Great job.

[Topaz]

Friday's question period it was brought out by the oppsition that Harper gov't has been communicating with Mulroney because an business in Chile, connects Murloney as a director of the company and is an unregister lobbyist to Harper. I'm sorry I didn't get the whole thing but is didn't make the Cons happy about the info. Also, I think when the ethnic committee comes back on Tuesday, Schrieber will bring a letter from the PMO.

[Fortunata]

Just wait till we sneakily get a majority. Say hello to soldiers in the streets, churches doors you'll be herded into, gallows for swarthy immigrants in every town, destitute old ladies begging in abject misery on every street corner. Clouds of angry billowing conservative CO2 pumping into the pristine liberal air, oncoming global inferno welcomed with open arms by the fiendish Nazi hellspawn in Centre Block. Women's gains wiped out in a flash, herded like beasts into kitchens across the land, abortion gone, chastity belts forced around the unwilling pudenda of women. Uncaring corporate cultists cooking up schemes to make your lives a living hell, because that's the conservative way. Woe be upon you, for we are coming!

A perfect example of why there is no reasonable debate here. Someone expresses legitimate concerns and we get this overblown claptrap. The concerns only get more deeply ingrained with the ridiculous responses.

[raz395]

Just wait till we sneakily get a majority. Say hello to soldiers in the streets, churches doors you'll be herded into, gallows for swarthy immigrants in every town, destitute old ladies begging in abject misery on every street corner. Clouds of angry billowing conservative CO2 pumping into the pristine liberal air, oncoming global inferno welcomed with open arms by the fiendish Nazi hellspawn in Centre Block. Women's gains wiped out in a flash, herded like beasts into kitchens across the land, abortion gone, chastity belts forced around the unwilling pudenda of women. Uncaring corporate cultists cooking up schemes to make your lives a living hell, because that's the conservative way. Woe be upon you, for we are coming!

And that is something to be proud of? I disagree.

[JerrySeinfeld]

A perfect example of why there is no reasonable debate here. Someone expresses legitimate concerns and we get this overblown claptrap. The concerns only get more deeply ingrained with the ridiculous responses.

That you consider these concer5ns legitimate is evidence of your ridiculousness.

[capricorn]

Now Harper possibly inspired by Blair, appears to be inventing the "third way". The new brand can be most easily identified by it's creative approach to communicating its position on diverse issues

Speaking of being inspired by Blair, Dion modeled his anti-poverty plan after the UK former PM's plan.

"Liberal Leader Stephane Dion will tear a page out of former British prime minister Tony Blair's book with a "bold initiative" that would set measurable targets for reducing poverty in Canada, an official in his office says."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...10b&k=36300

Hey, if some of Blair's ideas are good for Dion then some may be good for Harper.

For your purposes, it may be better to stick with the GWB comparison.

[Fortunata]

That you consider these concer5ns legitimate is evidence of your ridiculousness.

Get a grip. Any legitimate concerns are met with this rightard foolishness.

[ScottSA]

And that is something to be proud of? I disagree.

Do you? Why?What exactly do you have against such things as old women forced to beg on streetcorners, pollution running rampant, and enforced chastity belts on women? It more or less describes the average Islamic nation. Do you hate Islam? Shame on you!

[Michael Bluth]

Get a grip. Any legitimate concerns are met with this rightard foolishness.

Are you saying that everything in the original post can be classified as 'legitimate concerns'?

Take this part of the post for example:

The new brand can be most easily identified by it's creative approach to communicating its position on diverse issues. Unlike earlier groups that used to say, and do, more or less what they think, Harpers cons took up the motto "talk as Progressive, act as social (con)".

Where is the 'progressive' talk with matching 'social' actions?

They said SSM would be brought to a free vote and if it failed the issue would die. It was brought to a free vote, the issue failed and it has died.

The Government campaigned on the choice in childcare program and it has delivered.

The Government campaigned on cutting the GST to 5% and has done so.

Are my questions foolishness?

What exactly is rightard anyways?

If you want honest reasonable debate, don't label an unsubstantiated diatriabe as reasonable.

[Lazarus]

Let me say the up front so there is no misunderstanding, I am an old school Conservative, in other words a Progressive. And neither like or trust Steven Harper and the majority of the current crop of MP's sitting in Ottawa under the Conservative banner. But then again I also believe that Lyin' Brian not only betrayed Canada for his own personal gain, but also betrayed the Progressive Conservative party causing its downfall and leaving the door open a neocon/socon alliance to take over. The so-called Conservative Party is Conservative in name only, much like the Liberal Party of BC is Liberal in name only. However, I digress.

One thing I have noticed, is that there is a strange silence from Harpers Social Conservative base, i.e. Conservative Christians or the Religious Right. Harper adopted their agenda as his own and with their help was able to gain the reins of power, abet in minority position. Since then, he has done little to nothing to further their agenda politically. Abortions still hasn't been banned, homosexuality is still protected as is the right of gays and lesbians to marry, the so-called free vote not withstanding, Canada is still multi-cultural, Christianity has not been made the official State Religion. All prayers are banned from our schools, apart from the allowed prayers of the various religious clubs some public schools have.

So why I have to ask myself are these Socon's keeping quiet? After all it seems on the face of things that Harper has reneged on his promises to them as well he has toned down his rhetoric supporting their POV. Why are they so quiet? Should they not in fact be more vocal in their dissatisfaction with Harper maintaining the Status Quo? Should they not be loudly voicing their anger at his apparent betrayal of their trust? Or could it be they know something that we don't know.

The fact of the matter is that the Harper Government is in a minority position and thus is limited to the amount of social engineering it can pull off. Also, when it comes social engineering, be it Liberal or Conservative, the majority of the Canadian people will have no truck or trade with it. Any Party that openly advocates or pushes a radical social engineering policy is liable to not only thrown out of Government, but also they would be lose any chance to even form the Official Opposition and be relegated to the furthest back benches of Parliament.

This is something that both Steven Harper and his Socon base learned the hard way during the '04 elections and actually toned down their rhetoric for the '06 elections. This is why I believe that the Socon's are being quiet. They are bidding their times, waiting for the day when their man Harper actually wins a majority. The rank and file of the Socon movement are kept in check by their leaders, told to maintain a low profile, don't rock the boat, stay under the political radar and bid their time. By not drawing attention to their agenda, they can allow the Canadian voter to focus on past wrongs and mistakes of the former Liberal Government and thus improve their odds of winning the needed majority in Parliament.

As an old school Conservative, I can give grudging respect to Pierre Trudeau when he said that the state had no business in peoples bedrooms, that and his handling of the FLQ crisis. However, I cannot trust nor respect Harper and his people, there is something oily and slimy about them that gets my back up. And I sure as hell do not want even a watered down version of Cristian Conservative movement having access to our Parliament as they do to the US Oval Office. Come the next election, I will be happy to see another minority Government, either Liberal or Conservative. Actually from a tactical POV, I'd prefer to see a Liberal minority, for it may give us old school Conservatives a chance to clean house.

[Fortunata]

Are you saying that everything in the original post can be classified as 'legitimate concerns'?

Take this part of the post for example:

Where is the 'progressive' talk with matching 'social' actions?

They said SSM would be brought to a free vote and if it failed the issue would die. It was brought to a free vote, the issue failed and it has died.

The Government campaigned on the choice in childcare program and it has delivered.

The Government campaigned on cutting the GST to 5% and has done so.

Are my questions foolishness?

What exactly is rightard anyways?

A rightard is the opposite of the Moxie's leftard.

And your questions aren't foolishness and neither are the questions the other sides ask, although they are treated as such. You may trust Steve and his merry band but others do not. There are legitimate concerns expressed that are replied to with stupid posts like the one I pointed to, and your scary, scary, scary. This government speaks out of both sides of their mouth as in saying one thing doing the opposite which, to me, means you can't count on them. They do not do as they say they are.

If you want honest reasonable debate, don't label an unsubstantiated diatriabe as reasonable.

I pointed out an unreasonable diatribe posted by ScottSA, that's all I did.

[myata]

Isn't it politics as usual to say one thing and do the other? Certainly I don't trust Stephen Harper, but I am not willing to give him so much credit as to assume he invented this new political strategy. After all it is not really a new political strategy it's about as old as politics itself.

Slowly and carefully ... in case you can't take in more that 306 words at a time ... what I'm saying is that Harper cons deliberately avoid all open discussions of their agenda. Thats my main worry. I don't care if socially conservative bunch a la Reform Party came up with a vote on abortion or referendum on gay marriage. As long as they state that that's what they want, in public. Harper cons are saying one thing, but quetly through backdoor policies do 100% opposite. Take Kyoto; take death penalty policy; take transparency; need more examples?

Edited November 30, 2007 by myata

[Michael Bluth]

Take Kyoto; take death penalty policy; take transparency; need more examples?

Kyoto? They campaigned against the accord. Doing exactly what they campaigned on.

Transparency? They campaigned on the Accountability act and it is now law.

Death penalty policy? Don't recall it being brought up in the campaign. They have made no moves to re-introduce the death penalty in Canada.

How about any actual example based in fact?

[Wild Bill]

Let me say the up front so there is no misunderstanding, I am an old school Conservative, in other words a Progressive. And neither like or trust Steven Harper and the majority of the current crop of MP's sitting in Ottawa under the Conservative banner. But then again I also believe that Lyin' Brian not only betrayed Canada for his own personal gain, but also betrayed the Progressive Conservative party causing its downfall and leaving the door open a neocon/socon alliance to take over. The so-called Conservative Party is Conservative in name only, much like the Liberal Party of BC is Liberal in name only. However, I digress.

Most interesting! I had a post in another thread stating how I am an old Reformer and think completely the opposite. The new CP seems to be a clone of the old Mulroney/Campell party, the one I bailed on nearly 20 years ago!

I completely disagree that Harper is a fundamentalist religious conservative. I still remember how in the early days of the Reform party Harper gave a speech telling all the bible thumpers that if they thought they could mix their fundamentalist views on gays and abortion with the platforms of the party they would take it down to a disastrous electoral defeat!

Stockwell Day should have listened to him and then Warren Kinsella wouldn't have been able to stop his campaign dead in its tracts with the "Barney the Dinosaur" joke!

So I can't agree with you on this one.

It's Harper's rigid party solidarity and total abandonment of grassroots populism that makes me think the old PC rump is now in control.

As I've said before, I'll vote for the new CP for lack of an alternative but if another Manning ever comes out of the wilderness I'll be gone like a shot!

[myata]

Kyoto? They campaigned against the accord. Doing exactly what they campaigned on.

Memory doesn't serve you well on this;

Transparency? They campaigned on the Accountability act and it is now law.

We're talking about openness and transparency in the government; obviously, one act is not a replacement for it. Harper's government is as closed and inaccessible, as a government can be.

Death penalty policy? Don't recall it being brought up in the campaign. They have made no moves to re-introduce the death penalty in Canada.

They did reintroduced it for Canadians in other countries. And, you're quite right, without any mentioning of any such plan in the campaign, or any other public forum.

How about any actual example based in fact?

Still need more?

[Michael Bluth]

Memory doesn't serve you well on this;

You are saying nothing about Kyoto. Prove my memory false.

We're talking about openness and transparency in the government; obviously, one act is not a replacement for it. Harper's government is as closed and inaccessible, as a government can be.

How? Provide some semblance of proof to back up your assertion. A well-disciplined caucus and cabinet does not mean the goverment is closed and inaccessible. Again, you are providing nothing but empty rhetoric.

They did reintroduced it for Canadians in other countries. And, you're quite right, without any mentioning of any such plan in the campaign, or any other public forum.

All they are doing is respecting the laws of another democracy. Trying to spin that as a 'socon' agenda is as weak as the "Guns in our streets" ads.

Still need more?

Start with one.

Edited November 30, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Slavik44]

Slowly and carefully ... in case you can't take in more that 306 words at a time

Thats completely unnecessary

what I'm saying is that Harper cons deliberately avoid all open discussions of their agenda. Thats my main worry. I don't care if socially conservative bunch a la Reform Party came up with a vote on abortion or referendum on gay marriage. As long as they state that that's what they want, in public. Harper cons are saying one thing, but quetly through backdoor policies do 100% opposite. Take Kyoto; take death penalty policy; take transparency; need more examples?

No I don't need more examples, if you would go back and read my post I stated "I don't trust Stephen Harper" so giving me more examples of why not to trust Stephen Harper is a bit like preaching to the choir.

What I am saying is that this is not a new brand of conservatism...its just an old brand of politics as usual, and it is a brand I am sick and tired of...unfortunately it is the only brand on

the shelves. You may as well have made a thread explaining the dangers of using H₂O and temperatures below 273 degrees kelvin to make ice cubes instead of pure water and temperatures below 0 degrees Celsius.

Please tell me you are not so naive as to believe that the conservatives are the only ones who have a gap between words and actions, that the conservatives are the only ones to employ "attack adds," that the conservatives are the only ones who want majority government status.

I believe this is true of all political parties and somehow for believing this I am the ignorant one who cannot take in 306 words? Whatever happened to common sense?

[Michael Bluth]

A rightard is the opposite of the Moxie's leftard.

Both phrases are wrong and shouldn't be used here on the board.

I pointed out an unreasonable diatribe posted by ScottSA, that's all I did.

You said that ScottSA's post was a response to legitimate concerns. They weren't.