The rise of Harper populism

jdobbin · March 18, 2009

Dobbin, I suspect that if I pretend that Ignatieff has lost his base carries more credence than if you pretend that Harper has lost his base.

The Standard is a conservative blog. You think they are pretending? They are not the only ones upset by the spending and the deficit.

Dobbin, like a lease agent (or a Liberal), you confuse everything to obtain an advantage.

What is the confusion about Harper not being a fiscal conservative?

You think it is an advantage for him to be a big spender?

Let me make this plain: Stephen Harper is more honest and direct than Michael Ignatieff.

Let me make this plain: He is not doing what fiscal conservatives want.

You say: what choice do they have? Well, some choices are to find another party, found another party, not vote or oust him as leader.

msj · March 18, 2009

There were problems with the deal from the start. Any citizen was free to point them out.

I always thought that rabble rouser radio host Rafe Mair was a key part for why the West (or at least BC) ended up not going for it.

But that's probably just memory playing tricks on me.

Edit - so I go check and find out that it is the Charlottetown Accord that I was thinking of. Although I think Rafe was against the Meech Lake Accord too.

Edited March 18, 2009 by msj

Alta4ever · March 18, 2009

There were problems with the deal from the start. Any citizen was free to point them out.

And appearently their are more problems with the status quo that Trudeau wanted to keep, because he was unable to admit he made a lot of really stupid really big mistakes.

Alta4ever · March 18, 2009

That's just Mulroney's paranoia and inferiority complex. He needed a convenient scapegoat for his failures, and it seems, more often than not, that scapegoat was Trudeau.

Or you inablity to see the failures of the wrst Prime Minister in the History of this country Trudeau. The guy destoried Canada, fanned the flames of sepratism, and brought us all to the brink with his habbit of Piting regions of Canada against eachother

Wild Bill · March 18, 2009

No self-respecting Libertarian would have ever supported the authoritarian Harper Conservatives anyway. What he said is not nearly insulting as the things he is trying to do.

You may be partially correct. Many, many Libertarians supported Reform! I know, as I am one and know many more. The Reform message of populism was very compatible with Libertarian ideals.

Please note that I use the term Libertarian in its classic political sense and don't confuse it with someone who's main platform is solely the legalization of marijuana. That is a mere slang definition of Libertarian. It might fit as regards some aspects but there's a LOT more to it!

Anyhow, it's true that Harper quickly began to abandon the populist aspects of the old Reform/Alliance party. You can argue about whether this was right or wrong but it's fair to say you can't argue with the result of this making Libertarians less comfortable with today's Tories.

Fortunately for Harper, Libertarians have no other choice as the alternatives are even more elitist. However, that only festers resentment for limiting choices and sets the stage for another new party to have a shot at coming on stage.

Harper's tactics are only valid if his premises are true. It would appear that he believes that in order to achieve and maintain power he must attract the 'middle'. It would also appear that he has accepted the Liberal and other opposition parties' definition of 'middle'. He also would appear to believe that he is in no danger of losing his base as it has no other clear alternative.

I guess time will tell if he's right or wrong. Still, I would like to point out that historically it was never the wallflower in the beige suit and brown shoes who won massive majorities in the last 50 years of our history.

ToadBrother · March 18, 2009

Or you inablity to see the failures of the wrst Prime Minister in the History of this country Trudeau. The guy destoried Canada, fanned the flames of sepratism, and brought us all to the brink with his habbit of Piting regions of Canada against eachother

I'm not defending Trudeau. Apart from anything else, not getting Quebec to sign on to the Constitution was a disaster which, in part, has lead to the Parliament we see today. I'm not a liberal, I don't worship at the altar of PET. But come on, it's very clear that Mulroney seemed to view himself as the anti-Trudeau, and lurched the country through two further constitutional debacles, and has to take as much of the blame for the rise of the Bloc as PET, if not more.

Because Trudeau did destructive things doesn't mean that Mulroney didn't.

Alta4ever · March 18, 2009

I'm not defending Trudeau. Apart from anything else, not getting Quebec to sign on to the Constitution was a disaster which, in part, has lead to the Parliament we see today. I'm not a liberal, I don't worship at the altar of PET. But come on, it's very clear that Mulroney seemed to view himself as the anti-Trudeau, and lurched the country through two further constitutional debacles, and has to take as much of the blame for the rise of the Bloc as PET, if not more.
Because Trudeau did destructive things doesn't mean that Mulroney didn't.

I never said mulrooney didn't he compounded the problems trudeau created. I dislike mulrooney almost as much I hate trudeau.

ToadBrother · March 18, 2009

I never said mulrooney didn't he compounded the problems trudeau created. I dislike mulrooney almost as much I hate trudeau.

Well, at least on that point we can both agree.

jdobbin · March 18, 2009

And appearently their are more problems with the status quo that Trudeau wanted to keep, because he was unable to admit he made a lot of really stupid really big mistakes.

What status quo are you referring to?

Alta4ever · March 18, 2009

What status quo are you referring to?

The regionalism in this country that he made by maginifing poltical divides.

jdobbin · March 18, 2009

The regionalism in this country that he made by maginifing poltical divides.

I think you have to remember that by the time Trudeau left office that separatism in Quebec had reached a low ebb. That ember was blown on by Mulroney.

Mulroney spent his time slapping down Manitoba.

ToadBrother · March 18, 2009

I think you have to remember that by the time Trudeau left office that separatism in Quebec had reached a low ebb. That ember was blown on by Mulroney.
Mulroney spent his time slapping down Manitoba.

I'm really of two minds on Mulroney's attempts at Constitutional reform and trying to bring Quebec "back" into Confederation. On the one hand, I think it was a noble attempt to correct a major fault with the 1982 constitution (let's face it, Levesque was playing hardball and never really thought that Trudeau would be brazen enough to repatriate the Constitution without his nod). Further, I think some aspects of both Charlottetown and Meech Lake were very good. It certainly wasn't a perfect deal, but in the messy world of constitutional conventions, you give and you take or you go nowhere.

At the same time, I think Mulroney dropped the ball incredibly badly, and has to shoulder the bulk of the responsibility of the failure of both. His later attempts to basically blame Trudeau for the whole thing was nothing more than his inferiority complex and ego forcing him to project his own failings onto his predecessor.

My opinion is that politicians may in fact be the very worst people to put in any kind of constitutional convention. I would have much preferred a properly constituted convention of citizens, equal representation from the provinces, plus representatives from the Native communities and the Territories, advised by constitutional experts. It's not that I don't trust politicians, well, yes it is, I don't trust politicians, not with something as important as the basic legal document of our nation.

Edited March 18, 2009 by ToadBrother

Alta4ever · March 18, 2009

I think you have to remember that by the time Trudeau left office that separatism in Quebec had reached a low ebb. That ember was blown on by Mulroney.
Mulroney spent his time slapping down Manitoba.

So you forgot about him pitting Canada against the west, or does that not count to you?

As for Mulrooney, his awarding of the Cf-18 maintainance contract to quebec was the final straw, and the begining of reform.

eyeball · March 18, 2009

I tend to agree. Harper abandoning fiscal conservatism from the outset in now alienating more and more of the base.

Yeah but look at how well he's cracking down and getting tough on crime, isn't that enough offset the angst?

DrGreenthumb · March 18, 2009

Yeah but look at how well he's cracking down and getting tough on crime, isn't that enough offset the angst?

The consequence of the drugwar is the suspension of civil liberties for everyone. No Libertarian could accept the state's right to control how we use our own bodies. Harper's authoritarianism should scare anyone who believes in individual rights

Alta4ever · March 18, 2009

The consequence of the drugwar is the suspension of civil liberties for everyone. No Libertarian could accept the state's right to control how we use our own bodies. Harper's authoritarianism should scare anyone who believes in individual rights

And rampant drug use should scare anyone who pays taxes and has to cover the healthcare costs of said drug use.

DrGreenthumb · March 18, 2009

And rampant drug use should scare anyone who pays taxes and has to cover the healthcare costs of said drug use.

Yes people should be concerned with rampant use of alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical mood altering drugs, and even illegal drugs, which will continue unabated no matter how many people you put in cages for their personal choices.

Reducing problem drug use should be a goal of our education and health care systems. All drugs should be regulated according to their scientific probability of doing harm, not according to what some religious bigot considers a good or evil substances. Our drug laws are based on misinformation from the 30's. Its time we used science to update our drug laws.

Cannabis has been around since the beginning of time, for most of us that means millions of years, for some, like our science minister that means 6000 years. Either way the natural state of cannabis and other plants is as a completely legal substance, they have been illegal less than 100 years.

So Alta4ever how much time do you think God should serve in prison for inventing, cultivating, and distributing millions upon millions, probably even billions of Cannabis plants? Remember He also invented Opium poppies, coca plants, and psychdelic mushrooms, so you probably should tack on a few extra years for that.

DrGreenthumb · March 18, 2009

And rampant drug use should scare anyone who pays taxes and has to cover the healthcare costs of said drug use.

And legalization should scare all the gangs who currently have sole distribution rights to these profitable commodities.

Legalization should also scare illegal drug users, who like users of alcohol, would have to start paying taxes on these products, and covering their own health care costs related to their drug use.

eyeball · March 18, 2009

The consequence of the drugwar is the suspension of civil liberties for everyone. No Libertarian could accept the state's right to control how we use our own bodies. Harper's authoritarianism should scare anyone who believes in individual rights

I think lots could and do all the time as long as it wasn't their body. Libertarians care about themselves, caring about everyone else's rights is the very antithesis of...meism.

ToadBrother · March 18, 2009

I think lots could and do all the time as long as it wasn't their body. Libertarians care about themselves, caring about everyone else's rights is the very antithesis of...meism.

I don't think you have to be a Libertarian to see that the War on Drugs has been an abject failure, but much worse than that, it has been an incredibly expensive failure. It looks like Obama is going to use his clout (while he still has some, his political capital is starting to wane) to, if not bring it to an end down in the States, then at least reduce and refocus it.

But in general, I agree with you. I think Libertarians are the philosophical twins of Anarchists.

DrGreenthumb · March 18, 2009

I don't think you have to be a Libertarian to see that the War on Drugs has been an abject failure, but much worse than that, it has been an incredibly expensive failure. It looks like Obama is going to use his clout (while he still has some, his political capital is starting to wane) to, if not bring it to an end down in the States, then at least reduce and refocus it.
But in general, I agree with you. I think Libertarians are the philosophical twins of Anarchists.

Well I do love the Sex Pistols, and I actually had an Anarchy tatoo when I was younger, but I don't actually believe that having NO government would be a good thing, at least not anymore. We need a military to protect ourselves from attack and police and laws to prevent people from victimizing others.

I don't fit a regular political definition. I believe in free markets, civil liberties, and in some aspects of socialism, like universal health care, and education. Some kind of weird cross between libertarian capitalist, and libertarian socialist. I don't believe the state should concern itself with people who aren't victimizing anyone, but I do think that the state should collect taxes and use the money to fund essential services and infrastructure.

jdobbin · March 18, 2009

And legalization should scare all the gangs who currently have sole distribution rights to these profitable commodities.
Legalization should also scare illegal drug users, who like users of alcohol, would have to start paying taxes on these products, and covering their own health care costs related to their drug use.

The Economist magazine agrees with you as do some police.

DrGreenthumb · March 18, 2009

The Economist magazine agrees with you as do some police.

As does everyone who has ANY common sense and is not completely blinded by party loyalty or religious ideology.

jdobbin · March 19, 2009

As does everyone who has ANY common sense and is not completely blinded by party loyalty or religious ideology.

The Economist indicated it is messy solution to end prohibition but that the focus has to be on ending criminal gangs being involved in the trade.

I think the government should start off small and focus on pot and decriminalization. Police efforts should be concentrated on ensuring that we are not violating other nation's laws by exporting product to the U.S.

Alta4ever · March 19, 2009

Well I do love the Sex Pistols, and I actually had an Anarchy tatoo when I was younger, but I don't actually believe that having NO government would be a good thing, at least not anymore. We need a military to protect ourselves from attack and police and laws to prevent people from victimizing others.
I don't fit a regular political definition. I believe in free markets, civil liberties, and in some aspects of socialism, like universal health care, and education. Some kind of weird cross between libertarian capitalist, and libertarian socialist. I don't believe the state should concern itself with people who aren't victimizing anyone, but I do think that the state should collect taxes and use the money to fund essential services and infrastructure.

Wow finnally some common ground, I like the sex pistols as well.