Conservatism vs Libertarianism in Canada

[Machjo]

I was wondering why libertarianism in Canada is so insignificant compared to conservatism.

I find that when I talk to conservatives about why they're conservative, they'll often sound libertarian on the surface. THey talk about government being too big, 'social engineering' (as if conservatives aren't guilty of that themselves, not to mention that the jury's still out as to whether it's even necessarily a bad word to begin with), taking away our freedoms, too much government spending, and too many laws.

But then they turn around and want to spend all our money on wars, and engage in their own social engineering by closing us off from immigration, etc.

Now if a conservative wants to be conservative, I have no issue with that. But in that case, why can't they just be honest and say that they support high government spending, but just not on the same programmes that socialists do? Why don't they admit that they also want to engage in social engineering, but more in the direction of maintianing racial and cultural purity? Etc.

It seems that conservaives always like to talk like libertarians when it suits them. and then switch to being conservative again when it suits them.

I'm not a libertarian myself, let alone a Libertarian. But I am moderately libertarian-leaning, but it just irritates me to no end when I hear conservatives talking like their libertarians when they're far from it.

[Borg]

But then they turn around and want to spend all our money on wars, and engage in their own social engineering by closing us off from immigration, etc.

Well this is a hoot.

Thanks for the early morning chuckle

Borg

[Machjo]

Well this is a hoot.

Thanks for the early morning chuckle

Borg

Can you explain?

Essentially, we could define social engineering as government planning of the society. Now I'm not necessarily against social engineering per se (after all, making murder punishable by life imprisonment is by definition social engineering, yet I support it). My point was that conservatives will often use the term social engineering in a negative context and then engage in it themselves. Even prohibiting immigration is a form of social engineering in that it invoves government intervention in social planning. By definition, removing barriers to immigration isn't social engineering in that it involves government withdrawing from active social planning.

Personally, I do support some controls on immigration, but make no pretense to its not being government involvmeent in social planning.

Also, I'm very much in favour of deep cuts to government spending, but realize too that both conservatives and socialists have sacred cow spending commitments. For socialists, it's mainly social programmes to help the destitute. For conservatives, it's the military. What's the difference? Just look at the debt the conservative government is running us into. At least the socialists are honest enough to admit that this kind of spending reuires tax increases to fund. In that respect, ironically enough, the left might be more fiscally conservative than the right overall.

[eyeball]

My point was that conservatives will often use the term social engineering in a negative context and then engage in it themselves.

I think its probably more accurate to say conservatives engage in moral engineering which is every bit as bad if not worse and in any case is executed just as capricously and stupidly and above all else, vindictively.

[Machjo]

I think its probably more accurate to say conservatives engage in moral engineering which is every bit as bad if not worse and in any case is executed just as capricously and stupidly and above all else, vindictively.

Not to mention that conservatives can even push some right-wingers to the left. For instance, a libertarian might be attracted to all the promises of less government that he hears from conservatives, but knows it's all BS and that they just mean that they'll shift spending from other programmes to the military. They also know that the conservative notion of 'freedom' is BS too, as it just means that they want to shift controls from buraucracy to borders and controls on immigration, 'national security' controls, espionage, etc.

Of course there's the Libertarian Party, but it's not likely to win any election soon, and so the Green Party comes along, economically conservative but socially liberal, hmmm... similar enough to the Libertarian Party I guess, or as close as we're likely to get any time in the near future.

In this respect, conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot. They want less government, or so they say, but then carry the sacred cows of military spending, more immigration controls, 'national security' controls, etc. As a result, libertarians who'd otherwise possible consider the conservative party end up shifting to the Green Party or Libertarian Party as, ironically enough, more conservative alternatives to the Conservatives.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Not to mention that conservatives can even push some right-wingers to the left. For instance, a libertarian might be attracted to all the promises of less government that he hears from conservatives, but knows it's all BS and that they just mean that they'll shift spending from other programmes to the military. They also know that the conservative notion of 'freedom' is BS too, as it just means that they want to shift controls from buraucracy to borders and controls on immigration, 'national security' controls, espionage, etc.

Of course there's the Libertarian Party, but it's not likely to win any election soon, and so the Green Party comes along, economically conservative but socially liberal, hmmm... similar enough to the Libertarian Party I guess, or as close as we're likely to get any time in the near future.

In this respect, conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot. They want less government, or so they say, but then carry the sacred cows of military spending, more immigration controls, 'national security' controls, etc. As a result, libertarians who'd otherwise possible consider the conservative party end up shifting to the Green Party or Libertarian Party as, ironically enough, more conservative alternatives to the Conservatives.

The Conservatives only say they want less government but in reality they create more government, always have and always will. It isn't just them by the way, all partisan groups do. Patronage is the name of the game, paying off all those folks that got you there is expensive.

[August1991]

Let me take a leap into the unknown.

I was wondering why libertarianism in Canada is so insignificant compared to conservatism.

Canada is essentially a Catholic country. Roman Catholics are the largest religious group. Almost half of Canadians are (or were) Roman Catholic.

Libertarianism is primarily a phenomenon of some Protestants and some Jews. Ayn Rand is an interesting example, as well as David Friedman. (I won't quibble over the definition of libertarian.)

Protestants tend to view Catholics as ignorant sheep who follow doctrine. Catholics, at least in North America, tend to feel inferior and look to the State for protection.

[Machjo]

Let me take a leap into the unknown.

Canada is essentially a Catholic country. Roman Catholics are the largest religious group. Almost half of Canadians are (or were) Roman Catholic.

Libertarianism is primarily a phenomenon of some Protestants and some Jews. Ayn Rand is an interesting example, as well as David Friedman. (I won't quibble over the definition of libertarian.)

Protestants tend to view Catholics as ignorant sheep who follow doctrine. Catholics, at least in North America, tend to feel inferior and look to the State for protection.

I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic medium school, did my first communion and confirmation... and then adopted a different Faith. But any, getting back on topic, I've never come across what you're saying here. I've attended Catholic mas many times before and never once did I ever hear any mention of politics. I'd even met a Catholic anarchist once. And within the libertarian movement itself you'll find both right-wing and left-wing libertarians.

So that's just all gibberish.

[August1991]

So that's just all gibberish.

I disagree.

Once the cornerstone of the Democratic coalition, Catholics in recent decades have become the most important bloc of swing voters. In 1992, Bill Clinton helped secure his victory over President George H. W. Bush by gaining a nine-point edge among Catholics, an advantage he stretched to 16 points in 1996. By contrast, George W. Bush lost the Catholic vote in 2000 by only two points and won Catholics by five points in 2004. A huge mobilization of Catholic voters in Ohio provided Bush with his margin in that crucial state.

Brookings

Compared to Canada where about 50% of the population is Catholic, in the US, only about 20% are Catholic. (A key difference between Canada and the US is this religious difference. Americans have elected only one Catholic as president - Kennedy. Our PMs since Pearson have all been Catholic except for Harper.)

Clinton's victories critically depended on the Catholic vote. (Reagan is another story - the equivalent of Claude Wagner winning the Tory leadership in 1976.) Now imagine what effect this would have if half of US voters were Catholic.

------

You have asked about Conservatism and Libertarianism in Canada. IMHO, regionalism drives Canadian federal politics far more than ideology.

[WIP]

Brookings

Was it the Catholic vote that won re-election for Bush, or the blatant voter fraud that delivered him a state, even though Bush economic policies had already put them on the leading edge of the recession?

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080696

[Machjo]

I disagree.

Brookings

Compared to Canada where about 50% of the population is Catholic, in the US, only about 20% are Catholic. (A key difference between Canada and the US is this religious difference. Americans have elected only one Catholic as president - Kennedy. Our PMs since Pearson have all been Catholic except for Harper.)

Clinton's victories critically depended on the Catholic vote. (Reagan is another story - the equivalent of Claude Wagner winning the Tory leadership in 1976.) Now imagine what effect this would have if half of US voters were Catholic.

------

You have asked about Conservatism and Libertarianism in Canada. IMHO, regionalism drives Canadian federal politics far more than ideology.

Are you sure that quote is even right? Unless US Catholics are far more partisan? Though I don't profess the Catholic Faith, I've been to Catholic mass many times before and never once heard a priest discuss politics. So if there's some kind of planning like that in Canada, it's certainly not being done during mass.

[Moonbox]

Are you sure that quote is even right? Unless US Catholics are far more partisan? Though I don't profess the Catholic Faith, I've been to Catholic mass many times before and never once heard a priest discuss politics. So if there's some kind of planning like that in Canada, it's certainly not being done during mass.

The Catholic faith has always always always be unable to stay out of politics. Pope John Paul used to say that politicians who advocate gay rights have a place in hell waiting for them. It doesn't get more political than that. The Catholic Church is one of the most backwards organization in the entire world. If you followed the Kerry/Bush election years ago you'd remember how much focus was placed on the piety of the candidates.

[Wild Bill]

I was wondering why libertarianism in Canada is so insignificant compared to conservatism.

I find that when I talk to conservatives about why they're conservative, they'll often sound libertarian on the surface. THey talk about government being too big, 'social engineering' (as if conservatives aren't guilty of that themselves, not to mention that the jury's still out as to whether it's even necessarily a bad word to begin with), taking away our freedoms, too much government spending, and too many laws.

But then they turn around and want to spend all our money on wars, and engage in their own social engineering by closing us off from immigration, etc.

Now if a conservative wants to be conservative, I have no issue with that. But in that case, why can't they just be honest and say that they support high government spending, but just not on the same programmes that socialists do? Why don't they admit that they also want to engage in social engineering, but more in the direction of maintianing racial and cultural purity? Etc.

It seems that conservaives always like to talk like libertarians when it suits them. and then switch to being conservative again when it suits them.

I'm not a libertarian myself, let alone a Libertarian. But I am moderately libertarian-leaning, but it just irritates me to no end when I hear conservatives talking like their libertarians when they're far from it.

I think much of the confusion is self-created. It's one thing to take the dictionary definitions of political philosophies. It's quite another to take the media labels. Some folks muddy the waters even more by using American definitions and trying to apply them to Canadians! No wonder it doesn't make sense!

For the record, the Canadian brand of conservative has always been much closer to the dictionary definition of a Tory. It has only been in the last 20 years or so that they have been confused with the American bible-thumping brand of Conservatives. Before that they were considered similar to the British Tories. The bible-thumping really got stuck on them by the Liberals, who were trying to demonize the Reform Party as a bunch of crazed American gun-toting, Jesus-fearing survivalists. Reform did themselves a disservice when they allowed Stockwell Day, an evangelical christian, to mix his religion with his politics. In effect, they painted themselves with their opponents' brush. Still, those evangelicals were and are only a small minority in the party, despite the claims of their opponents, who are not going to let actual numbers stop their criticisms.

You're getting confused because you're using conflicting definitions. You're expecting political Conservatives to hold common goals with bible-thumpers and American constitutional nit-pickers. A few Libertarians who hang around the Conservatives for lack of any other home express some hopes and wishes and you take it as the Gospel of the entire Conservative movement! Guess what? It's not true. It's just a few guys who happen to be at the same general end of the room daydreaming.

Many Libertarians support the Conservatives because they see some common elements. Strangely, they find few or no common elements with the modern Liberal Party, yet Libertarianism is really just classic laissez-faire liberalism! The modern Liberal party has nothing of this in its makeup. I'm not sure if it ever did. For the last 50 years or so it really hasn't had a true philosophical base, being willing to morph into almost anything in order to achieve and maintain power.

Anyway, that's why I prefer to use consistent, clear, dictionary definitions of political philosophies. Otherwise you are at the mercy of whatever is trendy or mere partisan slang. The best definitions I ever read for both the classic political philosophies and their modern, mixed up cousins are in William Gairdner's book "The Trouble with Canada". You might find it helpful to check them out.

[Machjo]

The Catholic faith has always always always be unable to stay out of politics. Pope John Paul used to say that politicians who advocate gay rights have a place in hell waiting for them. It doesn't get more political than that. The Catholic Church is one of the most backwards organization in the entire world. If you followed the Kerry/Bush election years ago you'd remember how much focus was placed on the piety of the candidates.

Ah, forbot about that point. I was too focussed on how the Catholic vote would be supporting liberals. It would seem to me that with such statements, catholics would be supporting the Conservatives or even the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, not the liberals. So how do we get support for the Liberal Party from a statement like that?

[Machjo]

The current Conservative Party is far from Libertarian. It wanted to enter Iraq originally (though so did Ignatieff), and has proven itself to be quite militarist in its ideology. The only thing holding it back is its minority status in Parliament.

[Leafless]

The current Conservative Party is far from Libertarian.

I'am not to certain about that.

Prior to 1935 the Progressive Conservatives were called the Liberal Conservative Party.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think much of the confusion is self-created. It's one thing to take the dictionary definitions of political philosophies. It's quite another to take the media labels. Some folks muddy the waters even more by using American definitions and trying to apply them to Canadians! No wonder it doesn't make sense!...

Bingo! For some reason, Canada has fallen into the trap of defining many social and political institutions in American terms. All it took was the election of a Democrat (Obama) to force more doubt and questions about domestic political identity and purpose.

[Oleg Bach]

Bingo! For some reason, Canada has fallen into the trap of defining many social and political institutions in American terms. All it took was the election of a Democrat (Obama) to force more doubt and questions about domestic political identity and purpose.

Oh no BC has just arrived........................................and in fine form I must admit - no time for you today my friend - I am hunkered down with the X -----------and she is more interesting than you..cheers.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh no BC has just arrived........................................and in fine form I must admit - no time for you today my friend - I am hunkered down with the X -----------and she is more interesting than you..cheers.

My compliments to the ex-Mrs......enjoy your Sunday!

[Zachary Young]

Why do you people talk about things that you have no idea about? No matter. Everyone is a libertarian, when they want to convince someone of something, because the only way people will ever really believe you is if you tell the truth. But the sad state of our world is that you have all been lied to for so long by so many people that when I speak the truth to you, you will react with hostility and fear.

Go back to your schools, your churches, your factories your homes. Grow fat and lazy and indolent on the wealth that is a by product of the freedom that our ancestors claimed as their birthright. Grow ignorant and tired and apathetic. Forget about the science of human action and the miracle that is laissez-faire and listen to the false prophets preach on about how you are too stupid and evil to be allowed to live your own life and make your own decisions. Believe that bullshit if you want, I don't care, I'm not going to be afraid, I'm not going to be controlled, I will live my life as it deserves to be lived - in liberty, harmonious with those who seek to not do me harm and antagonistic towards those who seek to harm me, through voluntary exchange and interaction, a consumer in the market economy.

Forget that we were once free. Forget that this country was once a great land of promise and pride. Tuck your head between your legs, close your eyes and cry, give me one soft smile as you wait for your turn to die.

[Wild Bill]

I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic medium school, did my first communion and confirmation... and then adopted a different Faith. But any, getting back on topic, I've never come across what you're saying here. I've attended Catholic mas many times before and never once did I ever hear any mention of politics. I'd even met a Catholic anarchist once. And within the libertarian movement itself you'll find both right-wing and left-wing libertarians.

So that's just all gibberish.

I think you should read August1991' s post again. You seem to have missed his point.

He didn't say that Catholics overtly discussed and took political stands in their churches. Rather, he stated that they tended to have more of a "follower" personality as opposed to protestants, who he posits are more individualistic.

Such common approaches to life can explain a great deal with Canadian politics. I married into an immigrant Italian family and I am convinced that they came from a culture of having a "patron", the big man in town who everyone looked up to and followed his wishes. A 'godfather'. if you like. This made them natural Liberal voters! When doorknocking for Reform candidates I actually had Italian Canadians tell me that they intended to vote Reform but they did not dare put a Reform sign on their lawn, as their Italian neighbours would 'crucify' them for not supporting the Liberal candidate!

This is totally true! I would be willing to swear to it under oath!

I think the point made was simply that certain cultures lend themselves to certain political parties. Like all generalizations, you can't take them as absolutes but they can be strong indicators.

[KingIggy]

The Libertarians in Canada need to collaborate with the Ron Paul movement.... Legalize weed, and stop preemptive war policy.

Show the authoritarian rightwing Neo-Cons what it means to be CONSISTENTLY FOR FREEDOM... including the freedom of innocent foreign civilians to NOT be killed by Neo-Con foreign policy and freedom of behavioural CHOICE for ADULTS wrt consentual, PRIVATE behaviour.

Libertarians : the only rational choice on the right.

[Machjo]

The Libertarians in Canada need to collaborate with the Ron Paul movement.... Legalize weed, and stop preemptive war policy.

Show the authoritarian rightwing Neo-Cons what it means to be CONSISTENTLY FOR FREEDOM... including the freedom of innocent foreign civilians to NOT be killed by Neo-Con foreign policy and freedom of behavioural CHOICE for ADULTS wrt consentual, PRIVATE behaviour.

Libertarians : the only rational choice on the right.

Now you give me the impresion of being far more libertarian than I. I'm libertarian-leaning when it comes to economic, immigration, and foreing policy. This is not to say that I'm 100% libertarian. In other areas, I am in fact conservative-leaning, such as when it comes to the abortion issue, capital punishment, and such, but by no means a rabid foaming-at-the-mouth I'l-assassinate-you-if-you're-pro-choice kind of conservative. I do support respecting those with differing opinions and respecting rule of law. I'm also pro-UN, not too libertarian there either, but more internationalistic. And I'm not particularly militaristic.

In the end though, in spite of my disagreements with the Libertarian Party, I'd be more likely to support it over the Conservative Party of Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Libertarians in Canada need to collaborate with the Ron Paul movement.... Legalize weed, and stop preemptive war policy.

Ron Paul is an American....try again.

Show the authoritarian rightwing Neo-Cons what it means to be CONSISTENTLY FOR FREEDOM... including the freedom of innocent foreign civilians to NOT be killed by Neo-Con foreign policy and freedom of behavioural CHOICE for ADULTS wrt consentual, PRIVATE behaviour.

Ummm...OK...but can we kill the guilty ones? Pretty please?

Libertarians : the only rational choice on the right.

Then move to the USA...just like Mr. Ignatieff.

[the janitor]

Libertarians : the only rational choice on the right.

I apologize Mr. Bush_Cheney, for the political lunacy of some of my fellow Canadians!

I'd let Sarah Palin do whatever she wants. Does that qualify me as a conservative libertarian?