Stephen Harper and the problems of conservatism

[August1991]

even if we ignore the undeniable demonstrations of past Liberal fiscal conservatism, if fiscal conservatism really is your determining vote factor...

why, oh why would you continue to support the Harper Con-machine that lacks any semblance of fiscal conservatism?

Trudeau was a spendthrift. Chretien/Martin only controlled spending because they had an easy time: they were PM/Finance minister when GDP (and tax revenues) were growing. To their credit, they didn't spend this largesse.

Nevertheless, under Chretien/Martin (and Mulroney or Trudeau or Pearson), governments got larger. As others have pointed out, even under Harper, government is larger.

Now, we face an economic crisis - and teh solution? More government spending.

In the 1930s, when government took or taxed about 10% of economic actiivity, I can understand Keynes' argument. But in the 2000s, when governments take 50% of what we earn, I don't understand Krugman's argument.

How big should this government be? Where does it stop? More fundamentally, does government really stabilize anything?

[Visionseeker]

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...nservatism.aspx

I guess we will continue to see Harper attack the courts and civil service until he appoints all Tory ideologues to the job.

Meanwhile, he attacks big government while not acknowledging he was the biggest spender of them all.

It was said once before:

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have

no more religion than my horse; gold [power] is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience

for [votes] bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

In the name of God, go!

[WIP]

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...nservatism.aspx

I guess we will continue to see Harper attack the courts and civil service until he appoints all Tory ideologues to the job.

Meanwhile, he attacks big government while not acknowledging he was the biggest spender of them all.

And what a pile of bullshit this steaming heap was! I guess Harper is getting a few more Republican consultants now that they've crashed and burned in their homeland; there was an article a few weeks ago that noted that Bush appointees are struggling to find new jobs! Maybe they would have better luck if they took it off their resumes!

What bothers me most about Harper, is not his hypocrisy -- trying to wear a fiscal conservative mantle, while building up a 95 billion dollar deficit -- no, what I find the most ominous are the implications that he is going to play the religion card and use "faith" to secure a base that will work for him even if he's a total disaster like George W:

Harper told the group that his version of conservatism is summed up "in three Fs:freedom, family and faith."

I suppose he'll promise the 3 F's and then give us the 4 F's once he's got a majority government!

He said individual freedom is vital but it must be tempered by family and faith.

In Mr. Harper's mind, faith has less to do with a particular religion and more to do with morals, he said.

"Faith in all its forms teaches . . . that there is a right and wrong beyond mere opinion or desire. Most importantly, it teaches us that freedom is not an end in itself, that how freedom is exercised matters as much as freedom itself."

A little red light should go off every time a politician makes an appeal to faith. Faith means believing in things that are unseen and have no evidence. Yeah, that's what a politician needs.....a populace that will take his word on faith! I hope it's just a tiny minority of Westerners that are dumb enough to swallow this one.

That part about "Faith in all its forms teaches . . . that there is a right and wrong beyond mere opinion or desire" is a dangerous philosophical position in the hands of any politician! Most modern nations have been trying to move their judicial philosophies away from deontological systems that focus upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties, usually taken from traditional religion-based codes that claimed to have perfect laws that transcend the human condition. Teleological systems are results oriented, and if rules work, then they're good whether or not they are in accordance with preconceived notions about right and wrong.

For example, what Stephen Harper is saying when he announced another, tougher drug enforcement scheme a little while back, is that he is willing to escalate the War on Drugs even though the policy of the last few decades has made the problem worse. He'll keep pouring more money into more police, more prisons, to fight the war on drugs because he is fighting sin, and disregards the costs, which include: more drugs, more addicts, more drug crimes, more drug dealers.....the higher cause is too important to fight to be swayed by actual events on the ground......and that's why I want Harper, Conservatives and the religious right followers they are trying to appeal to put the curb like the Americans did with their conservative crackpots in the last election.

[jdobbin]

Nevertheless, under Chretien/Martin (and Mulroney or Trudeau or Pearson), governments got larger.

Under Chretien the government got smaller. You have been told this. You have been shown this yet you persistently won't produce numbers to show your point of view. Obviously, you are either lying since you can't be misinformed. Produce the numbers that government got bigger under Chretien or stop making false claims about it.

As for easy time of it during that Chretien period, I think you forget that other nations slipped into huge spending and deficits. Canada didn't.

Paul Martin certainly started to increase the size of government. However, it is no way as big as what Harper has done starting from 2006 when there was no support for such a huge spending program.

[jdobbin]

If the Liberals can "demonstrate" fiscal conservatism, then I (and I suspect many others) would vote for them.

The Liberals have demonstrated that. The record stands clear in that regard.

However, you vote Tory because you seem to really support large spending.

[jdobbin]

More commentary from people about Harper's speech to the right wing base.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090313/...ervative_speech

Some attacked Harper for going to the center.

Said Michel Kelly Gagnon of the Montreal Economic Institute: "If you want to vote for a centrist party, you can vote for the Liberal party of Canada. They're very good at that."

"Conservatives should stop having the internal debate in their head and all the philosophical arguments, and talk about hard specific ideas that make a difference in people's lives, have the courage to stand up and fight for the things we know are right," said Tom Long, a former leadership candidate for the Canadian Alliance.

This is what Harper said about libertarianism.

"The libertarian says, 'Let individuals exercise full freedom and take full responsibility for their actions.' The problem with this notion is that people who act irresponsibly in the name of freedom are almost never willing to take responsibility for their actions."

Some conservatives were nothing short of angry.

Mike Brock, a Conservative blogger who attended the conference, called the speech bewildering.

"The treatment to classical liberals and libertarians - of which I consider myself - was nothing short of stunning," he wrote.

"The condescension was literally dripping from his mouth. Was this his response to the disillusionment that libertarians across the country have had to his government and its policies of late?

"If it was, it did not build any bridges. Rather, it burnt them right down."

[eyeball]

Reckless U.S. consumers caused recession:

Harper

What about the reckless sums of money the US has squandered on all its stupid endless wars and interference around the world? Harper and virtually everyone who're now comnplaining about him have been staunch defenders if not allies of every foreign military adventure, no matter how blundersome, that's contributed to the economic mess the US is in. It pretty clear the effect of these helped fuel a desperate need for greed, resulting in a over-reach for yield and consumer binging to keep the nightmare alive.

Recall Poppy Bush's plea, "c'mon America, spend" when the economic effects of the 1st Gulf War started to bite, Jr. did the same damn thing when he advised American's to "take a vacation, buy a new car". Am I to believe these entreaties to consumers didn't encourage the present recession or that bankers, central and otherwise didn't likewise do their duty to freedom, family and faith?

Imagine if Harper had been in power when the 2nd Gulf War got underway and where our economy might be now?

Edited March 14, 2009 by eyeball

[Topaz]

Lets all hope that this recession/depression or whatever you want to call it doesn't lead to Canada and US joining together to survive!! By being so tied to the US economy, I guess we deserve it but we should plan NOW if that looks like the direction we could be going in?

[DrGreenthumb]

Lets all hope that this recession/depression or whatever you want to call it doesn't lead to Canada and US joining together to survive!! By being so tied to the US economy, I guess we deserve it but we should plan NOW if that looks like the direction we could be going in?

Oh Please God, NOOOOOOOOO!!!

[normanchateau]

That part about "Faith in all its forms teaches . . . that there is a right and wrong beyond mere opinion or desire" is a dangerous philosophical position in the hands of any politician! Most modern nations have been trying to move their judicial philosophies away from deontological systems that focus upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties, usually taken from traditional religion-based codes that claimed to have perfect laws that transcend the human condition. Teleological systems are results oriented, and if rules work, then they're good whether or not they are in accordance with preconceived notions about right and wrong.

"Faith in all its forms teaches . . . that there is a right and wrong beyond mere opinion or desire." I'm sure most imams and reverends would agree.

In making that comment, I wonder if Stephen Harper puts scientific evidence in the category of "mere opinion". And I wonder if his votes against same sex marriage reflect his religious "faith...that there is a right and wrong."

[bush_cheney2004]

....Imagine if Harper had been in power when the 2nd Gulf War got underway and where our economy might be now?

It would be in the exact same place, as Canada had nothing more to give than a santimonious blessing at the UN. More was spent on the SARS debacle.

[Progressive Tory]

Common people? Common people with Tory credentials?

The Tories of today are not common people. They are the Canadian version of Wall Street. Flaherty's Bay Street buddies and Harper's Oil Tycoons, not to mention Tony Clement's private healthcare pals waiting to cash in like Extendicare did in Ontario. Assermbly line care where profit overshadows actual care.

They no longer represent grassroots Canadians and I'm surprised Harper would have the nerve to complain about anyone's spending habits. Overstuffed cabinet and 18 new senators, after three years of the most wasteful spending of any gov't before him. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. He killed conservatism in Canada, and like the U.S. Republicans, it will be years before they become an entity again.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Tories of today are not common people. They are the Canadian version of Wall Street.

What happened to Bay Street?

He killed conservatism in Canada, and like the U.S. Republicans, it will be years before they become an entity again.

No relevance without an American analog...that's the game they love to play. Next!

[Progressive Tory]

arrogant elitist liberal pricks.

I crossed over to the Liberals because of the arrogant, holier than thou attitude of what was once a conservative party. All their campaigning is done at high-priced luncheons and dinners. Harper wouldn't know an average Canadian if he fell over them.

Only the wealthy and sanctimonious can join his little club. I'm neither.

[Progressive Tory]

blueblood, you misunderestimate me… clearly conspiratorial musings do not apply. I was simply it truly was an illuminating Harper speech – after all - we now know that the global recession was caused by all those wascally greedy spendthrift U.S. consumers who, apparently, out snookered the banks, mortgage companies, failed hedge fund managers, etc..

...War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, War on Drugs, War on Terror..... All funded on credit.

[bush_cheney2004]

...War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, War on Drugs, War on Terror..... All funded on credit.

...you forgot War on Poverty.

[Progressive Tory]

In the name of God, go!

Exactly. Harper's religion is hypocrisy. He is very devout.

[normanchateau]

Harper's religion is hypocrisy. He is very devout.

Religious fundamentalist Harper left his parent's mainstream church when he was born again and joined an Evangelical church which believes "that Christians who have been adulterous do not have a right to remarry ... and opposes stem-cell research, euthanasia, the use of marijuana and ordained female clergy."

http://www.gregfelton.com/canpol/2007_08_2...%20article.html

[capricorn]

I crossed over to the Liberals because of the arrogant, holier than thou attitude of what was once a conservative party.

You crossed over to the Liberals because you developed a cultist attraction to Ignatieff. To thy known self be true.

Harper wouldn't know an average Canadian if he fell over them.

Ignatieff wouldn't know members of the Liberal grassroots if he tripped over them. That's what happens when party elites select an elite leader without grassroots input.

Only the wealthy and sanctimonious can join his little club. I'm neither.

Ignatieff has quite a little clique of his own.

[WIP]

"Faith in all its forms teaches . . . that there is a right and wrong beyond mere opinion or desire." I'm sure most imams and reverends would agree.

In making that comment, I wonder if Stephen Harper puts scientific evidence in the category of "mere opinion". And I wonder if his votes against same sex marriage reflect his religious "faith...that there is a right and wrong."

I'm glad somebody noticed! So far, Stephen Harper has played his evangelical cards pretty close to his vest -- likely because he hasn't forgotten how Stockwell Day was ridiculed by Jean Chretien's hatchet man for saying that he didn't believe in evolution.

Actually, I had more regard for Stockpile than for Stephen Harper because he came across as much more honest and sincere about his beliefs. When he was cornered on the evolution/intelligent design question, he did not feel that dodging the question or changing the subject was the right option. Harper may share those beliefs, but I get the feeling that the skillful way he tries to finesse religion means that he is more interested in what religion can do for him politically, than any deeply held metaphysical beliefs.

I think his religion talk is a message directed at social conservatives, who form a more enthusiastic, highly motivated, and dependable base for the Party than people that are supporters just for lower taxes and other economic reasons. His careful choice of words indicates that he wants to give "dog whistle" statements, that will be recognized by a small, highly motivated target audience, but will be largely ignored by the less devout or religiously motivated.

The problem is that these social conservatives have to be thrown red meat on a regular basis to keep them onside. So, I would expect a Harper government to adopt a U.S. style tough-on-crime approach, that may not actually reduce crime, but will nevertheless fill up the prisons. He'll push as hard as he can against gay rights and abortion rights -- I don't think Canada is fertile territory yet for banning stem cell research, and trying to ban abortion and gay marriage, as the Bush Administration did. But, he will push as far as he can, and he will use that line about how his faith informs him about right and wrong when the next campaign is underway.

[WIP]

I crossed over to the Liberals because of the arrogant, holier than thou attitude of what was once a conservative party. All their campaigning is done at high-priced luncheons and dinners. Harper wouldn't know an average Canadian if he fell over them.

Only the wealthy and sanctimonious can join his little club. I'm neither.

I used to be a member of the Progressive Conservatives mainly because they were consistently opposed to the Liberal moves of concentrating more and more power in the hands of the federal government. But today, with the Stephen Harper-led Conservatives following just about everything in the Republican Party playbook, I would have to support any party (even the Liberals) to put the Cons back in the Opposition benches in Parliament.

[MontyBurns]

So, I would expect a Harper government to adopt a U.S. style tough-on-crime approach, that may not actually reduce crime, but will nevertheless fill up the prisons.

What's wrong with being tough on crime? You don't believe we should be getting tough on gang violence? The majority of Canadians think we should.

[Progressive Tory]

What happened to Bay Street?

No relevance without an American analog...that's the game they love to play. Next!

This isn't about what happened to Bay Street but where Tory supporters now heil. As to the Republican Party, even they admit that they have root rot (maybe not those exact words). Google rebuilding the Republicans or listen to any poliitical commentary show. They hit bottom with Sarah Palin and are now looking to Rush Limbaugh to show them the way. The patriot who's hoping the U.S. fails.

[Progressive Tory]

You crossed over to the Liberals because you developed a cultist attraction to Ignatieff. To thy known self be true. Ignatieff wouldn't know members of the Liberal grassroots if he tripped over them. That's what happens when party elites select an elite leader without grassroots input.

Ignatieff has quite a little clique of his own.

I don't have a cultist attraction to Ignatieff but simply view him as a light at the end of the tunnel. When there was no longer a centrist conservative party in Canada, I voted based on who I hated the least. For two years it was NDP. It will now be Liberal.

Die-hard Reformers like to use the term elitist, though I can't imagine why. It didn't work for McCain. During his career, Ignatieff met and spoke with many 'ordinary people' in countries torn apart by war and civil unrest. He has seen the worst conditions imaginable, so knows a great deal about poverty and inhumanity. His teaching career only came about because of his life experience. So keep calling him an 'elitist'. Everytime McCain tried that Obama's poll numbers rose. Being smart is no longer a liability because we've seen what stupid brings. George Bush.

[Progressive Tory]

I used to be a member of the Progressive Conservatives mainly because they were consistently opposed to the Liberal moves of concentrating more and more power in the hands of the federal government. But today, with the Stephen Harper-led Conservatives following just about everything in the Republican Party playbook, I would have to support any party (even the Liberals) to put the Cons back in the Opposition benches in Parliament.

I've said before that Stephen Harper is a 'reactionist' politician. He does much better in Opposition and may have been one of the best leaders of the opposition we ever had, though at times he bordered on petty. His years with the NCC taught him how to fight and fight dirty.

Unfortunately, as Prime Minister he has proven that he is not a leader. He is still a reactionist, at a time when we need action. He refuses to take responsibility for any of actions and runs a Gestapo style caucus. If he stays on as leader for the next election, I'm eager to see how he will re-invent himself this time. He's run through his bag of tricks, and Canadians have not warmed up to him at all. From attack dog to sweater wearing geek. Same old, same old.