Political Ideologies

[fellowtraveller]

I agree with much of this, but whether the great majority of Canadians are "socially conservative" is certainly arguable.

However, as you imply eslewhere in your post, it sometimes comes down to a problem of definition.

Ooops, I messed that up, I meant socially liberal! And fiscally moderate, by which I mean they support our soical contract in general but alkso recognize that they have to be paid for somehow other than by debt and that spending must be finite at some point.

The center, if you will.

[bleeding heart]

Ooops, I messed that up, I meant socially liberal! And fiscally moderate, by which I mean they support our soical contract in general but alkso recognize that they have to be paid for somehow other than by debt and that spending must be finite at some point.

The center, if you will.

Ok, I see that.

I can't say for certain, but I think I more or less agree.

[dre]

I wouldnt say we are fiscally moderate. We are a nation of borrowers/consumers that save almost nothing... we have lowest personal savings rates in history. And theres absolutely no movement in this country towards a leaner more government AT ALL.

[eyeball]

So both sides want to arrive at different destinations on the same path, they both want the state dictating moral issues.

And when we argue, we all want to pigeonhole others into a convenient way of thinking.

I disagree. The only thing I really want the state to do when it comes to managing the compulsions of social conservatism is to simply keep it off my back.

What this means is that I want limits placed on what the state can do to an individual, and thankfully there are in the form of the Charter and the Supreme Court.

I could care less what sort of jollies social conservatives get off on just so long as it doesn't involve me.

[Michael Hardner]

I wouldnt say we are fiscally moderate. We are a nation of borrowers/consumers that save almost nothing... we have lowest personal savings rates in history. And theres absolutely no movement in this country towards a leaner more government AT ALL.

Stats are hard to find. Somebody did some research individually on their blog, for what it's worth:

http://anepigone.blogspot.ca/2008/03/government-spending-as-percentage-of.html

Canada is 45th.

[dre]

Stats are hard to find. Somebody did some research individually on their blog, for what it's worth:

http://anepigone.blogspot.ca/2008/03/government-spending-as-percentage-of.html

Canada is 45th.

Those arent the numbers that I would use to judge the fiscal outlook of Canadians. Thats simply the size of government VS GDP.

What I meant in general is that Canadians dont care about either their own balance sheets or the governments. Spending money we dont have is a cultural disposition of sorts, and since the early 80's the personal saving rate has dropped from 20% to under 3%.

This is also a population that turfed out the only government in mondern history to run balanced budgets, and then gave a majority to a party running the biggest deficits in history.

Canadians WILL become more fiscally conservative very soon, but in generally they are among the LEAST fiscally conservative people in human history. Decadent and protypical modern consumers that would gladly spend their children and grandchildrens money to live easy and pampered lives now.

Edited April 27, 2012 by dre

[August1991]

Here's the strange thing... has the ever been anyone anywhere that fits into category 4: fiscal liberal and social conservative? I can't even imagine how a person with those views would perceive various arguments and what their responses would be. It's a strange position that might be worth imagining.

Cybercoma, we in the West have embarked on an experiment to answer your question.

Life is all about relations. And the State is barely a substitute for family relations.

State tax regimes are barely capable of substituting for internal family transfers. IOW, when families fail, there is not enough money in the universe to pay for the care among anonymous individuals.

----

So, cybercoma, how is "social conservative" different from "fiscal conservative"?

Edited April 28, 2012 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Those arent the numbers that I would use to judge the fiscal outlook of Canadians. Thats simply the size of government VS GDP.

Ok, but on a world scale we're in the middle.

Canadians WILL become more fiscally conservative very soon, but in generally they are among the LEAST fiscally conservative people in human history.

Unprovable statement. It doesn't make any sense to compare different economic eras for fiscal conservatism anyway.

[eyeball]

how is "social conservative" different from "fiscal conservative"?

Social conservative Vic Toews answered that when he said, "no cost is too high".

[August1991]

Social conservative Vic Toews answered that when he said, "no cost is too high".

Huh?

The link between fiscal conservative and social liberal goes through the broader leftist ideal of co-operation.

Good families co-operate, work together. Bad (dysfunctional) families don't.

If the State tries to substitute/solve the problems of Bad families, there is not enough money (tax revenue) to solve the problem.

----

Social conservatives have this (leftist) advantage: their families co-operate and work together.

Edited May 5, 2012 by August1991

[eyeball]

Huh?

The link between fiscal conservative and social liberal goes through the broader leftist ideal of co-operation.

Good families co-operate, work together. Bad (dysfunctional) families don't.

If the State tries to substitute/solve the problems of Bad families, there is not enough money (tax revenue) to solve the problem.

----

Social conservatives have this (leftist) advantage: their families co-operate and work together.

You think Vic Toews is a socially liberal lefty?

[August1991]

You think Vic Toews is a socially liberal lefty?

I have no idea.

---

After a wikipedia search of Vic Toews, I learned this:

In 2008, Toews divorced from his wife of 30 years, Lorraine Kathleen Fehr, after it was discovered that he fathered a child with a younger woman. This incident later became publicized in February 2012, when an anonymous Twitter account (later discovered to be a Liberal Party staffer) began posting information from Toews' divorce affidavit (that were on the public record, filed with the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba) as reaction to the introduction of Bill-30.

Whatever.

As I say, we humans have various institutions to co-operate and work together. Family is one of the institutions. If we try to use the State to replace the family, there is not enough money on the planet to pay the taxes.

Apparently, Vic Toews is good evidence of my point. Canadian taxpayers will pay for the failure of his first family.

----

But eyeball, I have a broader question. After this divorce, who will take care of Vic Toews in his old age? His first wife, second wife, or the State?

IOW, why would his second wife care for him - given that he divorced once/breaking a solemn promise? And what about his kids?

Edited May 8, 2012 by August1991

[eyeball]

I have no idea.

---

After a wikipedia search of Vic Toews, I learned this: Whatever.

You didn't search why he said "no cost is too high"? If you did you might realize why I asked with obvious incredulity why you thought he was a social liberal.

As I say, we humans have various institutions to co-operate and work together. Family is one of the institutions. If we try to use the State to replace the family, there is not enough money on the planet to pay the taxes.

Apparently, Vic Toews is good evidence of my point. Canadian taxpayers will pay for the failure of his first family.

If they do it'll be mice nuts compared to the limitless spending Toews would direct at things like prohibiting pot for example. By rights fiscal conservatives never mind the libertarians should be gagging and screaming at the top of their lungs at this ideological travesty.

But eyeball, I have a broader question. After this divorce, who will take care of Vic Toews in his old age? His first wife, second wife, or the State?

His State supplied pension that we pay for should be enough to take care of all three.

IOW, why would his second wife care for him - given that he divorced once/breaking a solemn promise? And what about his kids?

I have no idea.

In any case it's obvious we're on completely different wavelengths if not media and looking at the world in utterly disparate ways. Ideology is probably the least of all the things that make so many people seem so alien to one another.

Edited May 8, 2012 by eyeball

[Viktyr L. Korimir]

Here's the strange thing... has the ever been anyone anywhere that fits into category 4: fiscal liberal and social conservative? I can't even imagine how a person with those views would perceive various arguments and what their responses would be. It's a strange position that might be worth imagining.

The political institutions of both of our governments are strongly rooted in the traditions of classical liberalism-- the main difference is that our 'conservative' parties seek to protect the traditional prerogatives of property owners and seek to maintain social liberties as they are now or were a couple decades ago (which is still liberal compared to... pretty much anything else) while our 'liberal' parties have theorized that in order for liberty to be meaningful, people must have the means to exercise their rights.

I'm not voting in your poll, so as not to throw off your polling data, but I would be Category 4. I don't care about the typical conservative 'hot button' issues-- my social values aren't derived from Judeochristian ideals-- but I definitely believe that the government has a legitimate role in enforcing and promoting what I consider 'proper' moral values among the citizenry, and I likewise believe in a fairly high degree of economic regulation on the part of the government. I believe that cultural and economic unity are necessary to the health of a strong nation.

[Guest Manny]

Here's the strange thing... has the ever been anyone anywhere that fits into category 4: fiscal liberal and social conservative? I can't even imagine how a person with those views would perceive various arguments and what their responses would be. It's a strange position that might be worth imagining.

= Jesus Christ.

[Argus]

I'm curious where people fit and what they think of the idea of the social/fiscal conservative/liberal dichotomies.

I don't really fit anywhere. People here have no-doubt assigned me to the category of 'conservative', but that's only true to a certain extent. I am a conservative in that I believe in individual responsibility, individual liberty, and in government doing only what government needs and can afford to do in order to improve the community. But the latter is quite flexible, and decided on a case by case basis, not some rigid orthodoxy. I believe in continuing on with a given process or program (ie Capitalism) until such time as something new is proven to be better. I do not believe in continuing on with a process or program which doesn't work (ie the war against crime). I have a good deal of sympathy for northern European social democratic governments because they seem to produce overall a better society than is currently the case in North America, notwithstanding their 'lefty' political ideology. How much of that is due to the cultural value set of Scandinavians, of course, is open to question. We've seen, with the introduction of middle east immigrants and refugees that this system finds it difficult to cope with people who possess these vastly different social and cultural value sets.

The problem I see with the Left in Canada is it's general requirement for obedience to group-thought, it's righteous disapproval for anyone who deviates from that required thinking, and the determination of its members to right all perceived wrongs through a nanny state mentality. The Left seems to believe in neither individual responsibility nor individual freedom, and so I despise it. I also despise the way it revels in the boorish and the crude, in a lack of dignity and respectful behaviour towards others. Of course, there is one group the Left respects -- unthinkingly, and that is minorities. The Left's liberal bigotry places minorities on a strange sort of pedestal, to be admired and cherished for their 'uniqueness', yet also protected both from the perceived bigotry of others, and from the expectations that they be held to the same standards as others (which is also termed bigotry for some odd reason).

All in all, it isn't the actual political philosophy of the Left I dislike so much as the mushy minded ignorance, stupidity and intellectual laziness of most of those who advocate it. By default, I guess that makes me a conservative -- of sorts.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

"laziness of most"

What do you think of lazy conservatives who settle in MLW's forums?

Why care about lazy thinkers at all?

[Argus]

"laziness of most"

What do you think of lazy conservatives who settle in MLW's forums?

Why care about lazy thinkers at all?

Lazy thinkers run the NDP and Liberal parties. Their lazy thinking could, if they were elected, adversely affect me.

[dre]

All in all, it isn't the actual political philosophy of the Left I dislike so much as the mushy minded ignorance, stupidity and intellectual laziness of most of those who advocate it. By default, I guess that makes me a conservative -- of sorts.

Nope, just a garden variety hack/idealog.

[Argus]

Nope, just a garden variety hack/idealog.

You can't even spell ideologue, much less understand what it comprises.

If I was a conservative ideologue I wouldn't be pro choice, anti death penalty, pro public health care, and enamored of the social democratic systems in Scandinavia.

[eyeball]

The problem I see with the Left in Canada is it's general requirement for obedience to group-thought, it's righteous disapproval for anyone who deviates from that required thinking, and the determination of its members to right all perceived wrongs through a nanny state mentality. The Left seems to believe in neither individual responsibility nor individual freedom, and so I despise it.

This is the very same the problem I have with the Right. The difference between you and me is that I also have a problem when the Left does what you've described.

My problem is with the behaviour, no matter who behaves that way.

Edited May 21, 2012 by eyeball

[Argus]

This is the very same the problem I have with the Right. The difference between you and me is that I also have a problem when the Left does what you've described.

My problem is with the behaviour, no matter who behaves that way.

I've criticized the conservatives often enough, and you don't have to look far to see my opinions of the Republicans and Tea Baggers. I can't seem to recall you going after the socialists, though...

[bleeding heart]

As a man who veered leftwards well into his thirties, I've reflected quite a lot on the matter. While the term itself is problematic, I think it's useful sometimes as shorthand, however much it is wilfully abused by those who have been taught to hate it, and have not spent much time thinking seriously about such political divides (aside from useful talking points for debating purposes, a convention as irritating as it is ultimately to be dismissed.)

I have long had some issue with identity politics, which plagues lefties moreso than anyone else, at least in an obvious sense. I tentatively agree with Argus that there is too much insistence on towing the "correct" line on often complicated matters...hence the term "political correctness" (incidentally, the term was coined by leftists as a self-reflective criticism, and with a hint of humour). While I think the phrase is much abused and overused, and furthermore applies quite succinctly to similar tendencies among right-wingers, mainstream liberals, and so on and so forth, it was initially considered a leftwing phenomenon, and it still unfortunately has some teeth. Though thankfully, its credibility has eroded.

Economically, I think the Left is on the side of the angels, but only ideally; practically, it is possibly beset by demons of unintended consequences. My personal economics are of a capitalist system with strong socialist and regulatory buffers, to protect people from capitalism's harsher effects. In other words, at bottom a mainstream perspective, differing from more rightward economics mostly in degree rather than in kind.

The contemporary Left's main strengths are twofold: first, leftism has been instrumental in improving freedoms and rights, often in ways that people of a conservative persuasion agree with, even if they are appalled at the notion of giving credit where it's due. There have been some missteps, certainly: for one, I personally think the little Canadian sub-courts that rule on what amount to insults and perceived slights is way out of bounds. And while these "human rights" councils have some genuine mainstream support, at bottom I view them as a leftist impulse.

I think the Left's primary strength is in its critiques of Western international behaviour...which is exactly why such discussions raise such outrage and sanctimony from those who think patriotic-rhetorical defense of behaviour is a high moral value. (It isn't: patriotism is utterly amoral in and of itself, and takes on moral or immoral qualities precisely dependent on the exact discussion, opinions, and intent.)

Because the Left has been more consistently correct in its analysis of Western militarism and coercion and behaviours generally (no doubt replete with errors, sure, which at worst aligns them intellectually with the centre and the right), the analyses tend to drive people quite mad. The Western nations as terror states? Well, since we use the term "terror states" at all, then yes, it demonstrably and unequivocally applies, certainly moreso than minor international-terror thugs like, say, Iran. We're major ones, unfortunately. Or the powerful Western states as being explicitly and happily opposed to democracy when it suits geostrategic and financial purposes? Again, this is demonstrable, proveable, and not even controversial anywhere in the world but within the nationalist Western societies themselves; in fact, most people, conservatives and mainstream liberals alike, will occasionally agree with such analysis...but then quickly forget them and rage against the critics, in the manner of Orwell's doublethink.

So, on the whole, I consider (rather in Argus's smart declaration of "default") that the Left is more astute and insightful overall about the political world around us. (Yours truly excepted from this complimentary view, of course.)

Edited May 21, 2012 by bleeding heart

[eyeball]

I can't seem to recall you going after the socialists, though...

That's just your general requirement for obedience to group-thought and your righteous disapproval kicking in.

If I'm not with you I must be against you.

[Argus]

That's just your general requirement for obedience to group-thought and your righteous disapproval kicking in.

If I'm not with you I must be against you.

No, it's elementary logic and discussion. You made the statement that "unlike me" you disapprove of types of behaviour regardless of whether they are exhibited by Left or Right. I pointed out I often criticize the Right, so where is your criticism of the Left? This is pretty basic stuff. You're reply is simply avoidance. You might like to think of yourself as above and beyond us mere ordinary folk, but there's no evidence of that present.