Progressive Conservatism.

[Oleg Bach]

The idea of conservatives becoming progressive gave liberals a run for their money. Liberalism has always been dangerous in the fact that it is always based on the theoretical and experimental. It is as was - "Lets try this and see what happens" - There was always a recklessness to liberation or liberalness- To free something and give it the reign of free will does not always have the expected results...liberalism leaves to much room for error.

Conservatism is in my mind based not so much on new ideas but ideas that are time tried and have though the process of time proven to be real and viable concepts with proven positive results... But of course over institutionalization can result as conservatives grew to comfortable in there long established success...so in came the PROGRESSIVES - The took the time tried conservative values as a solid base and decided to proceed further in an intelligent and careful effort to add to the quailty of conservatism and make it even better. Its like getting off to a good start and listening to a wise parent - heeding and honouring their advice.

The movement was meant to bring new life and a new begining to the continuation and propogation of fine values without becoming liberal in the destructive sense of the word. The Progressives would search out any liberal value that had merit and toss the values away that did not have value. Where as the progressive or recessive liberal was in a constant state of self annointment - smearing good oil on his head and rancid - not caring about what was pure and what was of the rot...the anything that feels good attitude ---- unbridled sensuality and debachery...Now it seems that conservatives have given up the idea of searching further and revitalizing themselves - seems all we have now are blue liberals and no real conservatives - just warish neo-cons - with progress at a stand still in our ideology.

[Progressive Tory]

Where as the progressive or recessive liberal was in a constant state of self annointment - smearing good oil on his head and rancid - not caring about what was pure and what was of the rot...the anything that feels good attitude ---- unbridled sensuality and debachery...Now it seems that conservatives have given up the idea of searching further and revitalizing themselves - seems all we have now are blue liberals and no real conservatives - just warish neo-cons - with progress at a stand still in our ideology.

Where did that come from? Unbridled sensuality and debauchery? If I'd know that I might have become Liberal sooner.

I grew up in a Liberal, Roman Catholic household, and we weren't even allowed to say 'pregnant'. Pearson was an Evangelist and a Liberal who won a Noble Prize for creating the 'Peacekeepers'. 'Tolerance for' does not mean 'promotion of', and the misconception that all Conservatives are pure and good and Liberals are wanton and bad, is ridiculous.

The problem with the Conservative movement was that it was hi-jacked by the Christian radicals and morphed into something barely recognizable by any long term Conservative. As a former PC supporter, I now see the Party as being made up of two main groups: the extreme Right and the extreme corrupt; which makes a very bad combination. The same thing happened to the Republicans in the U.S., who hit bottom with Sarah Palin, and are now in the process of rebuilding.

Fiscally Conservative now only means dropping programs not accepted by the Christian Right. It clearly does not mean what it used to mean.

[Oleg Bach]

Where did that come from? Unbridled sensuality and debauchery? If I'd know that I might have become Liberal sooner.

I grew up in a Liberal, Roman Catholic household, and we weren't even allowed to say 'pregnant'. Pearson was an Evangelist and a Liberal who won a Noble Prize for creating the 'Peacekeepers'. 'Tolerance for' does not mean 'promotion of', and the misconception that all Conservatives are pure and good and Liberals are wanton and bad, is ridiculous.

The problem with the Conservative movement was that it was hi-jacked by the Christian radicals and morphed into something barely recognizable by any long term Conservative. As a former PC supporter, I now see the Party as being made up of two main groups: the extreme Right and the extreme corrupt; which makes a very bad combination. The same thing happened to the Republicans in the U.S., who hit bottom with Sarah Palin, and are now in the process of rebuilding.

Fiscally Conservative now only means dropping programs not accepted by the Christian Right. It clearly does not mean what it used to mean.

Holy smokes...I knew you would get in on this one - In fact this thread was created specifcally for you. Those Christian rightist are actually a from of fundamentalism...most and I would say nearly all who are nominal rightist Christians do not have a clue about what the old original Christian movement was about - all are Paulists and Darwinists to a great degree. You mention the extreme right and extreme corrupt...you nailed that one accurately. Except for one thing.... the extreme right are corrupt and they rationalize their positions and actions with the fact that most are old school establishment...and they have no detractors or critics. Hence they have no bounds of control or reprimand - they own the town so to speak - they answer to no one.

The corrupt ones are those lower on the food chain who were not usually born into old conservative money..so they are more materially abitious and vulnerable because of material weakness...plus they unknowingly take the heat and the fall for the higher ups they don't even know. Look how low the liberals got with that prop of a man Dion - Look how low the conservatives have fallen that they would install a person only with the approval of their American buisness partners and masters. I truely believe that from what I observed in the last 30 years - viewing through my soul elite contact from the past.

The term new conservative or "neo-con" is very interesting. Some wrongly assume that they are extreme rightist...They are not - they are opportunist with great drive for power - who really do not heed the left and right spectum that is the political theatre - they play all sides...and quietly laugh at the use of partisanism that devides and conquers the fools...while they gather up the money and rule..it's actually a form of facism..the cleaner gentler version.

[Progressive Tory]

The term new conservative or "neo-con" is very interesting. Some wrongly assume that they are extreme rightist...They are not - they are opportunist with great drive for power - who really do not heed the left and right spectum that is the political theatre - they play all sides...and quietly laugh at the use of partisanism that devides and conquers the fools...while they gather up the money and rule..it's actually a form of facism..the cleaner gentler version.

It's definitely a Party for the rich. They wear their fundraising like a badge of honour, which only convinces Canadians even more that there is good money in Evangelism, if you can hit the right note. Like the Republicans, the Conservative Party of Canada knew that if they could tap into this Religous Right money stream, they'd have something. Fanatical voters who believe that their Party platform came straight from God himself, and donations will reep rewards in Heaven.

It presents a problem, when not all CP MPs share the same beliefs and don't want to be aligned with intolerance. John Baird is gay, which might not be a problem, except that he's also a strong supporter of same-sex marriage. He was actually behind Ontario's equal marriage law and fought members of his own Party who opposed the initiative. Jim Flaherty belongs to the "what will I get out of it?" wing and Tom Lukiwski is a throwback from the old Saskatchewan Conservatives of Grant Devine.

What do they have in common, except a desire for power?

We don't have a Conservative Party in Canada, not in the true nature of conservatism. I've accepted that the PC's are no more, so support Ignatieff, whose political views are to the centre. The handful of Conservatives that I still respect, like Chuck Strahl, Jim Prentice and Rhona Ambrose have no hope of steering the Party back if it implodes.

It's too bad, because I really think the Reform Party had something. A few of the original MPs were quite outspoken against Homosexuality and Abortion, but they would have mellowed in time I think, when they realized that not all Canadians shared their views. Preston Manning believed in sustainable social programs and just good old common sense. But somehow, it went very wrong.

Someone who has followed the Party longer might know where. Was it bringing in so many from Mike Harris' corrupt regime? Aligning themselves with George Bush? I honestly don't know, I just know that they did go terribly wrong and I don't think I'll be voting Conservative again in my lifetime.

[Oleg Bach]

All I realized from my youth regarding conservatives - having been a live in lover of a conservative senators daughter and watching them operate from the inside....was one fact...Power - for powers sake. The justification behind this cold approach was one of elitism born ........... out of a pile of money that got to big to even count - they have one rule - take and give nothing back.....and say to yourself they are inferiours and we are meant to rule.

[Progressive Tory]

All I realized from my youth regarding conservatives - having been a live in lover of a conservative senators daughter and watching them operate from the inside....was one fact...Power - for powers sake. The justification behind this cold approach was one of elitism born ........... out of a pile of money that got to big to even count - they have one rule - take and give nothing back.....and say to yourself they are inferiours and we are meant to rule.

During the last election, one commentator noting the poor voter turnout, said that it could work in favour of the Cons because they were generally older and richer. They certainly do have entitlement issues.

The current Conservative movement is certainly anti-conservative in their agenda, with often very radical views. This empowers many groups who believe they now have a voice for their homophobic, whites only, male dominated belief systems. Some of it is pretty scarey.

[WIP]

The problem with the Conservative movement was that it was hi-jacked by the Christian radicals and morphed into something barely recognizable by any long term Conservative. As a former PC supporter, I now see the Party as being made up of two main groups: the extreme Right and the extreme corrupt; which makes a very bad combination. The same thing happened to the Republicans in the U.S., who hit bottom with Sarah Palin, and are now in the process of rebuilding.

Fiscally Conservative now only means dropping programs not accepted by the Christian Right. It clearly does not mean what it used to mean.

In the old days, there wasn't a whole lot to distinguish PC's from Liberals, except on constitutional issues -- ever since Laurier, the Liberals consistently push for a stronger federal government, at the expense of the provinces, while even the reddest of Red Tories favoured a more decentralized federation that gives more rights to the provinces.......other than that, it was a little confusing, since both parties had their left and right wings that frequently overlapped.

I know your not a Mike Harris fan, and I certainly wouldn't try to defend everything that he did during his two terms as Premier of Ontario, but I still feel the need to point out that his move to a more ideologically driven conservatism, did not include the social agenda that Stephen Harper has tried to push in his imitation of Republicans south of the border. Harris kept a laser-like focus on cutting taxes and government spending, which were necessary to keep Ontario from becoming a have-not province after the economy stagnated under the pressure of continual spending and tax increases during the David Peterson and Bob Rae governments.

Harris has to get credit for turning the economy around and balancing the provincial budget. On other fronts, his ambitions were a disaster -- especially his dream of eliminating regional government. The promised reduced costs and increased efficiencies of amalgamation never happened in Hamilton or Toronto. His reforms to education and health care were mixed at best -- but he did resist the pleading of advisers, to go after social issues like abortion and same-sex benefits. Those kind of issues would not have brought in a lot of extra votes, but many Conservative strategists back then wanted to cultivate a base of "values voters" as campaign workers.

The Republicanization of the Conservative Party of Canada has likely gone as far as it can go, now that Republican economics have left the U.S. trapped under trillions of dollars of debt -- it is no longer any kind of shining example of how to manage the economy -- and Conservatives up here are going to have to plot a more moderate course.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The Republicanization of the Conservative Party of Canada has likely gone as far as it can go, now that Republican economics have left the U.S. trapped under trillions of dollars of debt -- it is no longer any kind of shining example of how to manage the economy -- and Conservatives up here are going to have to plot a more moderate course.

But's it still a fine example for the US Democratic party....taking on still more trillions in debt right now. They don't really care what the Grits or Tories do in Canada.

[Oleg Bach]

But's it still a fine example for the US Democratic party....taking on still more trillions in debt right now. They don't really care what the Grits or Tories do in Canada.

What are you talking about - Obama is up here as we speak and is kissing ass of Canadain Tory bankers...and asking ----- Jezzz how do you guys do it? For not caring he sure seems to care.

[WIP]

But's it still a fine example for the US Democratic party....taking on still more trillions in debt right now. They don't really care what the Grits or Tories do in Canada.

After all of the years of accumulating Republican debt, it's a disingenuous scheme to try to paint Democrats as big spenders now. Who took a balanced budget and blew a hole through it in the first place?

Republican economics, especially since the Bush Years, has been revealed to be a total fraud since there was no real economic growth since the year 2000, as Paul Krugman points out, the higher GDP numbers were a reflection of depleted savings and increasing debts throughout the U.S. economy - at all levels of government, business and right down to the consumer.

Many people had a nagging feeling that they really weren't getting richer, since they were taking on overtime to try to keep up, and using rising property values to take equity out of their homes for major purchases and vacations. Krugman makes a good analogy with the Madoff ponzi scheme investments that gave a false sense of rising prosperity, all to come crashing down - in this case, when real estate values fell back to Earth.

[bush_cheney2004]

After all of the years of accumulating Republican debt, it's a disingenuous scheme to try to paint Democrats as big spenders now. Who took a balanced budget and blew a hole through it in the first place?

President Clinton...especially the "blew a hole" part....as in USS Cole.

Republican economics, especially since the Bush Years, has been revealed to be a total fraud since there was no real economic growth since the year 2000, as Paul Krugman points out, the higher GDP numbers were a reflection of depleted savings and increasing debts throughout the U.S. economy - at all levels of government, business and right down to the consumer.

Not to mention the devalued dollar......so what?

Many people had a nagging feeling that they really weren't getting richer, since they were taking on overtime to try to keep up, and using rising property values to take equity out of their homes for major purchases and vacations. Krugman makes a good analogy with the Madoff ponzi scheme investments that gave a false sense of rising prosperity, all to come crashing down - in this case, when real estate values fell back to Earth.

Many people have herpes too...but not everybody. Such hindsight is just slightly more useless than watching it all from across the border and wondering how it will affect the price of Timmy's doughnuts.

[Canadian Blue]

During the last election, one commentator noting the poor voter turnout, said that it could work in favour of the Cons because they were generally older and richer. They certainly do have entitlement issues.

Maybe it was because fewer idiots were coming out to vote, you know, the people who vote based on which candidate has the best hair or mustache.

The current Conservative movement is certainly anti-conservative in their agenda, with often very radical views.

Really, how so? Is it because they support putting repeat offenders in jail longer?

What exactly is so radical in the conservative movement that is anti-conservative? Do you even know?

This empowers many groups who believe they now have a voice for their homophobic, whites only, male dominated belief systems. Some of it is pretty scarey.

How are you a Tory? No offence but you sound like one of those egotistical politically correct snobs who thinks the Nazis will come if we don't print off diversity panthelets as fast as possible.

I don't really see what you're trying to conserve, that is unless you want to conserve Trudeau's Canada. In which case you should call yourself a liberal or a socialist.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Canadian Blue]

It's definitely a Party for the rich. They wear their fundraising like a badge of honour, which only convinces Canadians even more that there is good money in Evangelism, if you can hit the right note. Like the Republicans, the Conservative Party of Canada knew that if they could tap into this Religous Right money stream, they'd have something. Fanatical voters who believe that their Party platform came straight from God himself, and donations will reep rewards in Heaven.

Nice, I like how you automatically assume all Christians who happen to support the Conservatives are doing it based purely on "evangelism." Has it ever occurred to you that maybe some people think they can raise their kids and live their lives better than some government bureaucrat in Ottawa. But it's interesting that people like Progressive [Tory in name only] seem to think that christianity is some odd idea that has only appeared in the last 50 years or so on the right. I myself have never been threatened by tamborine playing Baptists, but perhaps Progessive Tory had a bad experience when he witnessed Evangelicals operating soup kitchens and being charitable with their own money which likely made him recoil in horror.

What do they have in common, except a desire for power?

Yes Progressive, because no other politicians have a desire for power. Great insight.

We don't have a Conservative Party in Canada, not in the true nature of conservatism.

I agree, we don't have a party that champions the Monarchy, traditional Christianity, and noblesse oblige. By the way if you must know George Grant, the arch Red Tory in Canada argued for retaining traditional Chrisitianity in Canada and didn't think much of multiculturalism or secularism. Not to mention George Grants support for the pro-life cause.

That is unless you think George Grant is an extreme right winger in the mould or Sarah Palin, or simply corrupt.

You don't know the true nature of conservatism, it's likely just a watered down version of Trudeaupia.

It's too bad, because I really think the Reform Party had something. A few of the original MPs were quite outspoken against Homosexuality and Abortion, but they would have mellowed in time I think, when they realized that not all Canadians shared their views. Preston Manning believed in sustainable social programs and just good old common sense. But somehow, it went very wrong.

It usually does when the media has a left wing bias and automatically assumes the odd wingnut is representative of the entire party.

"I honestly don't know, I just know that they did go terribly wrong and I don't think I'll be voting Conservative again in my lifetime."

Well theirs always room in the Liberal Party where they shy away from any real debate and lead based on what the polls say. Another great thing is that you won't have to ever think about issues which are deemed controversial.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Canadian Blue]

The problem with the Conservative movement was that it was hi-jacked by the Christian radicals and morphed into something barely recognizable by any long term Conservative. As a former PC supporter, I now see the Party as being made up of two main groups: the extreme Right and the extreme corrupt; which makes a very bad combination.

Yeah, good luck proving that one. Face it, all you're arguing is that people who have a conviction that a fetus could possibly be a human life should have no voice in politics.

You practice the politics of cowardice, not principle. You prefer living in a politically correct bubble where you will never be exposed nor have to think about the controversial issues of the day for fear you might offend people. But please go on about how conservatism has nothing to do with religion, the family, or traditionalism.

Can you even define conservatism?

By the way Progressive Tory it's a shame that you weren't around in the 1800's, you could have nipped this Christian radical in the bud before he destroyed conservatism and politics, thus ushering in an era of darkness.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figu...e_william.shtml

Out of curiosity, is anyone else tiring of people who claim to be "conservative" yet seem to be far more inclined towards the Jacobins than Edmund Burke?

Stop bastardizing conservatism!!!

Edited March 4, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Oleg Bach]

Yeah, good luck proving that one. Face it, all you're arguing is that people who have a conviction that a fetus could possibly be a human life should have no voice in politics.

You practice the politics of cowardice, not principle. You prefer living in a politically correct bubble where you will never be exposed nor have to think about the controversial issues of the day for fear you might offend people. But please go on about how conservatism has nothing to do with religion, the family, or traditionalism.

Can you even define conservatism?

Let me offend someone - let me at em! You hit the nail on the head, they are governed by fear and the very idea that they may cause a confrontation puts them into a state of paralazis. The Christian right highjacking notion does not hold water. You could be a atheist biologist and you might come to a scientific conclution that abortion is not wise and that a fetus is alive...and you could hold those views and be considered a conservative - Even if Conservatives were as some think - religious Christian fanatics - it's stange if this is the case - they are the richest in the land - and they most stable of families..they must being doing something right! RIGHT?

[Moonlight Graham]

Progressive Conservatism is an oxymoron, and is therefore doomed to fail based on its impossibility.

zing!