Will the Conservatives Dominate Federal Politics for 40 Years?

[RNG]

The idea that Ontarioans deliberately choose to alternate between Liberals and Tories is a nonsequitur. Just because it happened that way for many years doesn't mean it was a deliberate choice.

After all, Bill Davis was the most pink of Tories! It would be easy to spin an argument that despite the difference in names there really were two Liberal parties in power at the same time. Despite the fact that the left despised him Mike Harris was the first and perhaps last Conservative to rule Ontario in many decades.

Just because a thing looks like a product of something else doesn't mean it is. It can be mere coincidence. Logic is a mental exercise and you can logically prove ANYTHING as long as you restrict the facts just to those that support your argument.

Like so:

"No cat has eight tails. Every cat has one tail more than no cat. Therefore, all cats have nine tails."

Interesting. Both a logic fail and a stupid semantic argument.

[capricorn]

The idea that Ontarioans deliberately choose to alternate between Liberals and Tories is a nonsequitur.

I know. I was just having a bit of fun with August presenting the possibility that the Conservatives could rule for 40 years straight. I cannot fathom that possibility.

[Jack Weber]

For over 40 years, the Ontario and Alberta (Progressive) Conservatives were not corrupted. They delivered honest, good, conservative management of public resources. More or less.

What makes you think that we can't have that at the federal level?

Not precise enough..

I can't speak for Alberta,but,Bill Davis was the last good Premier Ontario had.The reason that he was so good was that he always tried to find the common ground and get past ideological differences...ie.organized labour had a voice at Bill Davis' PC table at Queens Park.This certainly could not be said of the Harris years in the province and I highly doubt listening to anything organized labour has to say is on the forefront of anyones mids at the federal Conservative party headquarters...Or at Tim Hudak's campaign office here in Beamsville...

I think the mask of being pragmatic and interested in all sides of an issue will be coming off around the time of the next budget.This is an ideologically driven government that showed it's colours more than a few times in a minority situation...Without that check on them,I'm not looking for a whole lot of pragmatism...

Edited July 13, 2011 by Jack Weber

[bloodyminded]

But to answer your post, I think most Conservative voters have "solid values." OTOH, Leftists (NDP, federal Liberals) are often flakes. They follow the mob. Their values are fungible.

I know that's what you think. That's where we differ.

[bloodyminded]

BM, you seem to have a perpetual blind spot. Why can't many conservative voters be yokels that HAVE solid values?

I never suggested that conservative voters, yokels or otherwise, do not have "solid values." I never hinted at any such thing.

What I objected to was August's notion--which he has since reiterated more clearly--that while conservative voters own these fabled values, non-conservative voters do not.

It always seems that to you voters, groups or just people are all one way or another. Or maybe more subtly, you expect a writer to either totally praise them or totally lampoon them.

Human beings usually make odd mixes, you know.

I believe you're admonishing August, but have mistaken me for him.

[Pliny]

Interesting. Both a logic fail and a stupid semantic argument.

You have to have studied logic to follow him.

If you haven't it looks like porridge or...something it is not.

[TimG]

What makes you think that we can't have that at the federal level?

Gazebos in Muskoka?

[Pliny]

I think most Conservative voters have "solid values." OTOH, Leftists (NDP, federal Liberals) are often flakes. They follow the mob. Their values are fungible.

I agree leftist values change with the flavour of the day. Change is not particularly a Conservative quality. The leftist has failed to live up to "solid values". But let's just say he thinks they are too....um....conservative for his liking. I think the leftist view is that they cannot have solid values because, being human, one day they may not be able to live up to them so why bother in the first place. They really like to criticize a conservative who has failed to maintain his "solid values". They set no solid values for themselves for fear of receiving the same treatment.

If they have a solid value it is to not have a solid value.

[eyeball]

Change is not particularly a Conservative quality.

They sure talk a blue streak about reforming everything they can get their hands on though don't they?

[bloodyminded]

They sure talk a blue streak about reforming everything they can get their hands on though don't they?

Yes...but they're only thinking of "reforming" matters back to the old ways, in which society consisted of "solid values," which in fact never existed as they think of them.

[bloodyminded]

I agree leftist values change with the flavour of the day. Change is not particularly a Conservative quality. The leftist has failed to live up to "solid values". But let's just say he thinks they are too....um....conservative for his liking. I think the leftist view is that they cannot have solid values because, being human, one day they may not be able to live up to them so why bother in the first place. They really like to criticize a conservative who has failed to maintain his "solid values". They set no solid values for themselves for fear of receiving the same treatment.

If they have a solid value it is to not have a solid value.

This is way too generalized.

What--exactly what--are the "solid values" that conservatives tend to have, and "leftists" do not?

[Pliny]

They sure talk a blue streak about reforming everything they can get their hands on though don't they?

"Reforming"? Not a conservative word. "Restore" would be better.

[Wild Bill]

Not precise enough..

I can't speak for Alberta,but,Bill Davis was the last good Premier Ontario had.The reason that he was so good was that he always tried to find the common ground and get past ideological differences...ie.organized labour had a voice at Bill Davis' PC table at Queens Park.This certainly could not be said of the Harris years in the province and I highly doubt listening to anything organized labour has to say is on the forefront of anyones mids at the federal Conservative party headquarters...Or at Tim Hudak's campaign office here in Beamsville...

I think the mask of being pragmatic and interested in all sides of an issue will be coming off around the time of the next budget.This is an ideologically driven government that showed it's colours more than a few times in a minority situation...Without that check on them,I'm not looking for a whole lot of pragmatism...

Thank you, Jack! You just proved my point!

Bill Davis was NOT a conservative but a left winger! Otherwise, Jack would not like him!

[Pliny]

This is way too generalized.

What--exactly what--are the "solid values" that conservatives tend to have, and "leftists" do not?

Yes it is generalized and the left tends to think in terms of how the collective should act rather than the individual which gives them a sort of "mob" mentality. For example, it would be nice if there were no wars. So they believe they should have a dialogue instead of defend themselves. They believe no one should steal but if a person is starving it is ok because they themselves would like that option.

They believe in mass transit and getting cars off the road, so that it is more comfortable for them to drive - that is, "those according to their ability" will tolerate the inconvenience if it is simply a matter of some taxes. Those, according to their need believe it is an entitlement.

The environment can only be saved by the force of "political will" not the solid values of individuals.

Allow individuals freedom to behave and the environment will be dead in a decade. Apparently, two centuries of "free-market capitalism"(as though it exists)has demonstrated this is axiomatic. The dull gray cities, polluted rivers, and barbed-wire walls of communist Poland and the USSR are of no significance. This, to the leftist, is a failure in those societies of those individuals in a leadership role who didn't understand how "socialism" should really work or it is the fault of outside influences destroying it internally.

I think August has been reading his copy of "Demonic".

But will conservatives dominate federal politics for the next forty years?

As government is about force, it depends on if individuals will accept government forcing people to behave as they think they should or if they will accept forcing people to adopt "solid values" for themselves. Being of a libertarian slant neither are a best option. Individuals, the basic unit of society, should set the bar not government. Society happens basically with common bonds and a tacit agreement, or common understanding of individual behavior - the rules of society. The laws of government have the flaw of cementing society and are less reversible or able to change. This is especially true in a social democracy if a special interest should lose an entitlement.

Since government holds the monopoly on the use of force, they are less likely to mend their ways and more likely to force changes in society. A dictatorship, or totalitarian regime will of course just do as it pleases. The individual becomes embodied in the personality of it's leader or leaders. The "masses" in such a regime are those who do not embody the personality of it's leader(s) out of what is considered mostly stupidity or sometimes a threatening unwillingness, of which both are punished accordingly. A social democracy is different in that there is a progressive unwillingness that is considered by it's leadership to be born out of stupidity, ironically brought about byprogressive government growth and complexity of law, and thus force, that is; "law", instead of reason, becomes the preferred tool.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Pliny

[Remiel]

The environment can only be saved by the force of "political will" not the solid values of individuals.

Allow individuals freedom to behave and the environment will be dead in a decade. Apparently, two centuries of "free-market capitalism"(as though it exists)has demonstrated that, the dull gray cities, polluted rivers, and barbed-wire walls of communist Poland and the USSR are of no significance. This again is a failure of individuals in a leadership role who didn't understand how "socialism" should work.

Outside of the other stuff, I think it would be an interesting question to ask what te USSR would do in the current environment of concern over climate change. Would they deny it and carry on as they had, or would the Politburo have implemented changes?

[TimG]

Outside of the other stuff, I think it would be an interesting question to ask what te USSR would do in the current environment of concern over climate change. Would they deny it and carry on as they had, or would the Politburo have implemented changes?

I doubt the USSR would be any different from Russia. They have oil and gas to sell + a cold climate. That pretty much ensures that CO2 mitigation would have been viewed as a Western conspiracy.

It is worth noting that China only plays lip service to the CO2 obsession because it wants to make money from CDMs. China has consistently rejected any suggestion that it should reduce its emissions without compensation.

[bloodyminded]

Yes it is generalized and the left tends to think in terms of how the collective should act rather than the individual which gives them a sort of "mob" mentality.

But intense nationalism is "mob mentality." Reflexively supporting war is mob mentality. The idea that every horrible thing committed by the West over several decades was a necessary component of the fight agaisnt Soviet Tyranny is mob mentality. Religion is mob mentality. The list could go on indefinitely.

As social animals (which human beings are, by dint of their very biology) there always has been and always will be "mob mentality." Leftism has nothing whatsoever to do with it, beyond the simple fact that they belong to the human race.

For example, it would be nice if there were no wars. So they believe they should have a dialogue instead of defend themselves.

When? With Iraq? Afghanistan?

Much of the debate has been about whether we are "defending ourselves," not that maybe we shouldn't!

They believe no one should steal but if a person is starving it is ok because they themselves would like that option.

If I"m reading the caricature correctly, it's more about a common leftist tendency to defend underdogs, and think compassionately. Leftists could no doubt be mistaken or have the wrong focus on certain issues thanks to this tendency, which can fast become reflexive, automatic...but it's based fundamentally on both ancient community values, as well as on the value of the individual.

So I think you're simplifying grotesquely. If anything, it's the law 'n order types who tend profoundly towards mob mentality.

The environment can only be saved by the force of "political will" not the solid values of individuals.

No. The political will is premised on the solid values of individuals in matters like this. Plenty of environemntalists have extremely solid values when it comes to such causes.

That you don't necessarily agree with their "solid values" certainly doens't mean they don't exist!

Or are you asserting that "solid values" can only mean those things with which you persoanlly agree?

I think August has been reading his copy of "Demonic".

Well, somebody's got to read extremist polemical semi-fictional entertainment, I guess.

As government is about force, it depends on if individuals will accept government forcing people to behave as they think they should or if they will accept forcing people to adopt "solid values" for themselves. Being of a libertarian slant neither are a best option. Individuals, the basic unit of society, should set the bar not government. Society happens basically with common bonds and a tacit agreement, or common understanding of individual behavior - the rules of society. The laws of government have the flaw of cementing society and are less reversible or able to change. This is especially true in a social democracy if a special interest should lose an entitlement. Since government holds the monopoly on the use of force, they are less likely to mend their ways and more likely to force changes in society. A dictatorship, or totalitarian regime will of course just do as it pleases. The individual becomes embodied in the personality of it's leader or leaders. The "masses" in such a regime are those who do not embody the personality of it's leader(s) out of what is considered mostly stupidity or sometimes a threatening unwillingness, of which both are punished accordingly. A social democracy is different in that there is a progressive unwillingness that is considered by it's leadership to be born out of stupidity and not progressive government growth and complexity of law, and thus force, that is; "law", instead of reason, becomes the preferred tool.

I can sympathize with much of this, though again I think it too generalized; but I don't see how conservatives (or Conservatives) are any less statist. They make the claim; but they don't really believe their own rhetoric, evidently.

Edited July 14, 2011 by bloodyminded

[August1991]

Gazebos in Muskoka?

I suspect that Bill Davis and Peter Lougheed occasionally approved crazy expenses.

Stephen Harper has said that he is an incremental conservative.

---

My point is that Harper seems to have the talent of Davis and Lougheed in places where people vote according to habit, assuming all is well.

Given the federal parliament, draw your own federal conclusion. Heck, think of Quebec seats outside of le Plateau.

Edited July 14, 2011 by August1991

[Jack Weber]

Thank you, Jack! You just proved my point!

Bill Davis was NOT a conservative but a left winger! Otherwise, Jack would not like him!

Being pragmatic is a hallmark of "the left"?

Being pragmatic is the hallmark of a good legislator trying to find the common ground that works for most in society...That's what Bill Davis did!

Intransigence and hardline ideological governance seems to be your thing,Bill...No wonder you think Mike Harris was such a great premier,and doubtless,it's the reason why you'll be voting for "Wine Tasting" Tim's representative in your riding in the Fall....

[dre]

I agree leftist values change with the flavour of the day. Change is not particularly a Conservative quality. The leftist has failed to live up to "solid values". But let's just say he thinks they are too....um....conservative for his liking. I think the leftist view is that they cannot have solid values because, being human, one day they may not be able to live up to them so why bother in the first place. They really like to criticize a conservative who has failed to maintain his "solid values". They set no solid values for themselves for fear of receiving the same treatment.

If they have a solid value it is to not have a solid value.

Jesus Christ, what tripe. Most people on both sides will gladly abandon their principles out of utility, or "pragmatism".

They set no solid values for themselves for fear of receiving the same treatment.

You realize youre talking about an imaginary group of people that exists only in your head right?

I think the leftist view is that they cannot have solid values because, being human, one day they may not be able to live up to them so why bother in the first place.

Holy shit. What mind-blowingly simplistic, bargain basement hackery.

Edited July 15, 2011 by dre

[Pliny]

But intense nationalism is "mob mentality." Reflexively supporting war is mob mentality.

The idea that every horrible thing committed by the West over several decades was a necessary component of the fight agaisnt Soviet Tyranny is mob mentality.

Religion is mob mentality. The list could go on indefinitely.

As social animals (which human beings are, by dint of their very biology) there always has been and always will be "mob mentality." Leftism has nothing whatsoever to do with it, beyond the simple fact that they belong to the human race.

Do you see any difference between intense nationalism and intense patriotism? There is a thread on this forum on the difference between nationalism and patriotism including an excellent essay from George Orwell outlining the difference.

In a nutshell, there is a mob, and then there is individuals working in co-operation. The difference has to be delineated.

The individual member of a mob considers he is thinking and acting like all others in the mob. The individual acting in co-operation with others does not consider he is thinking and acting like all others engaged in the co-operative effort. He is well aware of himself and his responsiblities as an individual. In a mob one is only aware of himself as a unit in a whole and cannot accomplish anything so powerful and forceful as in a group and has the added benefit of not holding any personal responsibility for things that happen that may go wrong.

When? With Iraq? Afghanistan?

Chamberlain. And certainly Obama's promise was concialition to ease tensions with fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.

Much of the debate has been about whether we are "defending ourselves," not that maybe we shouldn't!

If I"m reading the caricature correctly, it's more about a common leftist tendency to defend underdogs, and think compassionately. Leftists could no doubt be mistaken or have the wrong focus on certain issues thanks to this tendency, which can fast become reflexive, automatic...but it's based fundamentally on both ancient community values, as well as on the value of the individual.

If they are fundamentally based on community values, as well as in the value of the individual, why is the force of law a requirement? The tendency to defend underdogs and think compassionately is only a part of the equation. The leftist tendency is to get government to defend underdogs and think compassionately by the use of the force of law.

So I think you're simplifying grotesquely. If anything, it's the law 'n order types who tend profoundly towards mob mentality.

I disagree. They are not immune to acting like a mob but the use of force collectively is generally limited to using government to apply law and order not in assigning responsiblity to decide who deserves the State's compassion and who the winners and losers should be.

No. The political will is premised on the solid values of individuals in matters like this. Plenty of environemntalists have extremely solid values when it comes to such causes.

That you don't necessarily agree with their "solid values" certainly doens't mean they don't exist!

Or are you asserting that "solid values" can only mean those things with which you persoanlly agree?

They have to do with forcing a collective behavior in which individuals must act in unison. The difference is in one's individual self-determination to contribute in a way he considers he can best contribute and contributing in the way the committee forces him to contribute.

Well, somebody's got to read extremist polemical semi-fictional entertainment, I guess.

Call it what you like. It is just her point of view. You can disagree if you like. Can you think of any reason why anyone would view things like that? WIP thinks it may be a brain malfunction.

I can sympathize with much of this, though again I think it too generalized; but I don't see how conservatives (or Conservatives) are any less statist. They make the claim; but they don't really believe their own rhetoric, evidently.

Once again Conservatives are not immune to mob behavior, nor is any group that finds a way to use force to do what it wants. Liberals today tend to be more socialist - enlisting government to force a particular social behavior. Social behavior other than individual criminality is not generally a concern of a Conservative government and is left for the most part in the province of the individual. I would say Conservatives have less tendency to be Statist as they are supposed to be "conservative", maintaining the status quo. We know in a social democracy they have to be somewhat liberal to get elected and thus can't help but be somewhat Statist. I think they will tend to be no more or no less Statist than socialist forces are Statist. Some, like myself, mostly libertarian and individually, not politically, conservative believe in a small government with a limited mandate. Proponents of small government are more rarely found on the left side of the spectrum.

[Evening Star]

Chamberlain.

You know Chamberlain was a Conservative, right?

[Pliny]

You know Chamberlain was a Conservative, right?

Confusing isn't it.

His father Joseph was a Liberal and splintered from that party to head the Unionist party - not anything to do with Unions but with the issue of Irish home rule. Neville started his political career in civic politics as a Liberal-Unionist candidate for mayor and apparently made a notable Liberal-Unionist speech for his father. The Unionists soon found their Liberal coalition untenable as Liberals desired to allow Irish home rule. Conservatives were conservatives and would never allow any diminishment of Britain's political influence over Ireland. So the Unionists became allied with the Conservatives. As Chamberlain stated 99 of 100 issues could be settled between the Liberals and Unionists but for Irish home rule.

But looking at how conservatism and liberalism changed over the decades between WWI and WWII is an interesting exercise. Socialism basically took over liberalism shifting the classical liberals to conservatism. Conservatives and liberals alike were pinched between the hard right fascists and the hard left socialists. But big government was the order of the day and conservatives and liberals alike were in the position of following the progressive movements that - or becoming irrelevant.

Chamberlain was a Statesman and believed in the State. Was he conservative? He was willing to change the status quo, not a conservative trait. If he had been conservative he would have told Hitler to take a hike when he was orchestrating a take over of the Sudetenland. I wouldn't consider John McCain a conservative. Nor Joe Leiberman or Arlen Spector who were both once members of the Republican party.

[Evening Star]

I'm just not totally sure, in this case, why Chamberlain would be a 'leftist' and Churchill would be a 'rightist'. Churchill also had a significant stint in the Liberal Party and also believed in many statist measures. He led a wartime coalition with Clement Attlee's truly socialist Labour Party, to whom he entrusted the domestic economy.

Confusing isn't it.

His father Joseph was a Liberal and splintered from that party to head the Unionist party - not anything to do with Unions but with the issue of Irish home rule. Neville started his political career in civic politics as a Liberal-Unionist candidate for mayor and apparently made a notable Liberal-Unionist speech for his father. The Unionists soon found their Liberal coalition untenable as Liberals desired to allow Irish home rule. Conservatives were conservatives and would never allow any diminishment of Britain's political influence over Ireland. So the Unionists became allied with the Conservatives. As Chamberlain stated 99 of 100 issues could be settled between the Liberals and Unionists but for Irish home rule.

But looking at how conservatism and liberalism changed over the decades between WWI and WWII is an interesting exercise. Socialism basically took over liberalism shifting the classical liberals to conservatism. Conservatives and liberals alike were pinched between the hard right fascists and the hard left socialists. But big government was the order of the day and conservatives and liberals alike were in the position of following the progressive movements that - or becoming irrelevant.

Chamberlain was a Statesman and believed in the State. Was he conservative? He was willing to change the status quo, not a conservative trait. If he had been conservative he would have told Hitler to take a hike when he was orchestrating a take over of the Sudetenland. I wouldn't consider John McCain a conservative. Nor Joe Leiberman or Arlen Spector who were both once members of the Republican party.

[Evening Star]

And, to be clear, I don't really consider Churchill a leftist at all. I just don't see why Chamberlain was any more of a leftist. Was he less gung-ho about eugenics?