Canadian Conservatism For Dummies

[kimmy]

The way that Anders was dealt with, and moreover, the justification in calling Mandella a terrorist because he's a communist (?), well -- you'll just have to live with that. 

Perhaps that's what you wish I said.

What I actually said was that Mandela could arguably be called a terrorist because he founded a paramilitary group that attacked targets within South Africa:

And, in response to the government's crackdown on the ANC, Mandela founded the

"Umkhonto we Sizwe", or MK, which was an armed, paramilitary group that attacked targets within the country. One can certainly argue that their actions were justified by government oppression, and further justified as a response to the Sharpeville massacre. Morally I have no problem at all with taking up arms in a situation like that. But terrorism sounds like an accurate description, from an objective, technical standpoint.

Character counts?

That you would so blatantly distort and misrepresent what I wrote is a pretty telling indictment of your own character.

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

I agree on the dichotomy of some Conservatives wanting to free people from regulation while others want to impose morality.  But these are not necessarily the same people.

With these combined togehter in one party, each is marked with the warts of the other.

Conservative:  Small Government - trust people to make their own decisions, help those who REALLY need help.

Unfortunately, the latter part of that description is not born out in evidence.

Liberal: Big Government - trust bureaucrats to make many decisions, limit choices of the individual, try to help as many people as you can even if it doesn't make sense

That's a highly argumentative perspective, rather than a rigorous description.

[Guest eureka]

Why is it that the larget bureaucracy in Canadian history existed at the time of the Mulroney administration, then? Why did Chretien and Martin reduce it by an amount that leaves it still smaller than Mulroney's in spite of the growth of Canada since>

[takeanumber]

Rob Anders was, technically, somewhat correct. My information seems to indicate that communist ideology was indeed a feature of the ANC's early philosophies.

And, in response to the government's crackdown on the ANC, Mandela founded the

"Umkhonto we Sizwe", or MK, which was an armed, paramilitary group that attacked targets within the country. One can certainly argue that their actions were justified by government oppression, and further justified as a response to the Sharpeville massacre. Morally I have no problem at all with taking up arms in a situation like that. But terrorism sounds like an accurate description, from an objective, technical standpoint. Perhaps it's the moral shading of the term that's uncomfortable here: people we *don't* like are "terrorists", people we *do* like are "freedom-fighters". Uprisings we *don't* like are "revolts" or "insurgencies", uprisings we *do* like are "revolutions".

You said it Kimmy...communist idealogy was brought up, hence the (?) in my original statement. There was no blatant distortion...you reinforced the Anders line and added communism to the mix.

Character counts?

That you would so blatantly distort and misrepresent what I wrote is a pretty telling indictment of your own character.

Personal attack.

Feel free to attack my arguements, but personal attacks serve no purpose here.

---------------------------

Pateris:

You are the first person to recognize the old PC/Alliance split in the party.

Admitedly, there are Libertarians in the party.

Admitedly, there are social conservatives in the party.

However, there is a large number of party supporters, I'd say a majority, try to square both of them.

For instance:

A Libertarian believes that anybody can choose what to do with their bodies. A social conservative believes in the rights of the fetus.

A social conservative might propose that the problem with too many abortions is that women are having sex outside of wedlock, implying that married couples can afford children, while single people can't.

When the solution of providing proper income support to young, under-25 married couples is raised, to reduce abortion, the Libertarian might say fine, they might freak out. A social conservative argues that they don't want to pay for that child, and follows up with the statement:

"Only people who can afford to have children should be able to have them."

The social conservative logic, followed to its natural conclusion, is to mandate that nobody who is unmarried should be having sex, as promiscuity is allowing this evil of abortion into the world.

The Libertarian logic, followed to its natural conclusion, is to maximize freedom and prevent government from forcing people into marriage or banning promiscuity.

You can't have it both ways.

Yet, I've heard Conservatives say that they'll just ban abortions for some people and slowly train promiscuity out of society.

How can you possibly, in a party policy platform, reconcile social conservatism with libertarianism?

Now, that's just one aspect of the problem...there are two real factions...

But then you have the whole issue of religious and traditional hippocracy, which is endemic in the party. Moreover, there isn't a communitarian wing in the party...that contradiction is internal to most members.

How on earth do you resolve those contradictions in policy?

[Pateris]

How can you possibly, in a party policy platform, reconcile social conservatism with libertarianism? 

Now, that's just one aspect of the problem...there are two real factions...

But then you have the whole issue of religious and traditional hippocracy, which is endemic in the party.  Moreover, there isn't a communitarian wing in the party...that contradiction is internal to most members. 

How on earth do you resolve those contradictions in policy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Similarly, the Liberal Party of Canada is lead by a man who claims to be catholic but arguably under catholic law should be excommunicated by Pope Benedict XVI because the leader of the Liberal Party supports abortion against the wishes of his spiritual leader. Is he not being a hypocrit?

Similarly, the Liberal Party of Canada contains individuals who support free and fair trade and those that are protectionist.

Every party contains individuals who have disparate points of view. The difference in Canada is that the Conservative Party allows such discussion and debate of these issues, while the Liberal Party leadership simply ignores the disagreements within it's party.

I have a better question:

Where should Libertarian minded people go? Clearly not the Liberal Party or NDP who restrict free choice in health care, and wish to restrict free choice in child care.

[takeanumber]

There is no party for libertarians.

Why many hop in bed with the Cons is beyond me.

Hence many of the contradictions.

[Pateris]

Because the Conservative Party is the closest to Libertarian thinking.

Truth of the matter is that a Conservative government could never actually impose the strict social morality because the number of truly social conservative MPs will be small - mostly from rural western Canada.

[cybercoma]

This entire thread from top to bottom has ridiculous written all over it.  It's the same old tired fight of Liberals accusing Conservatives of being some heinous evil machine, hell-bent on destroying the country.  This is complete idiocy, not even worth the bandwidth used to view it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YAWN!

Someday maybe you right wingers will learn that vapid dismissals do not amount to valid rebutals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why bother with a valid rebuttal against a mental invalid?

[kimmy]

Rob Anders was, technically, somewhat correct. My information seems to indicate that communist ideology was indeed a feature of the ANC's early philosophies.

And, in response to the government's crackdown on the ANC, Mandela founded the

"Umkhonto we Sizwe", or MK, which was an armed, paramilitary group that attacked targets within the country. One can certainly argue that their actions were justified by government oppression, and further justified as a response to the Sharpeville massacre. Morally I have no problem at all with taking up arms in a situation like that. But terrorism sounds like an accurate description, from an objective, technical standpoint. Perhaps it's the moral shading of the term that's uncomfortable here: people we *don't* like are "terrorists", people we *do* like are "freedom-fighters". Uprisings we *don't* like are "revolts" or "insurgencies", uprisings we *do* like are "revolutions".

You said it Kimmy...communist idealogy was brought up, hence the (?) in my original statement. There was no blatant distortion...you reinforced the Anders line and added communism to the mix.

Character counts?

That you would so blatantly distort and misrepresent what I wrote is a pretty telling indictment of your own character.

Personal attack.

Feel free to attack my arguements, but personal attacks serve no purpose here.

Anders is alleged to have accused Mandela of having been a communist and a terrorist.

I pointed out that one could make a case for both claims:

-Mandela joined the ANC, a group that may have had communist ideologies.

-Mandela led the Umkhonto we Sizwe, a group that can certainly be argued to have been terrorist.

Mandela could be argued to have been a communist because he was part of group that might have been communist.

Mandela could be argued to have been a terrorist because he led a group that was arguably terrorist.

I think that's crystal clear. I don't think it can get any clearer than that. I can't imagine how anybody could possibly have read my post and conclude that I was saying Mandela was a terrorist because he was a communist. For you to represent my message as "the justification in calling Mandella a terrorist because he's a communist" is a piece of dishonesty that most people on this forum would be embarrassed to have written.

-kim

[cybercoma]

Why bother with a valid rebuttal against a mental invalid?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, sorry Sweal...this was uncalled for.

[I miss Reagan]

Don't forget Winnie Mandela, who kidnapped 4 kids and murdered a 14 year old.

[cybercoma]

There is no party for libertarians.

Why many hop in bed with the Cons is beyond me.

Hence many of the contradictions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is as libertarian party (as someone had corrected me when I first started posting here), I've just never seen a candidate for it.

[Argus]

[

When I discuss the Conservative Party, I present it as accurately as possible.  The CPC IS the party of the religous right, if any one is.

Well, so much for honesty.

In truth, if there is a party of the religious right it's the Christian Heritage Party.

Saying the Conservatives are the party of the religious right is like saying the NDP is the party of anarchists and Communists. Are there anarchists and Communists in the NDP? Sure. But is the comment fair? I don't think so.

The CPC IS the party most likely to cut people loose from social support.

What we have in this particular statement is the assumption that hefty welfare payments are the proper way to help the poor, and that those who oppose this are somehow, I dunno, less moral.

In truth, most conservatives oppose "generous" social support for broad economic reasons which have to do with the ability of small business to attract workers, and the damage to an economy caused by too many people going on welfare (a situation we saw in Ontario pre-Harris, when 1 in 10 Ontarions was on welfare).

Generally speaking conservatives simply believe that establishing a strong economy causes a strong job market which greatly reduces poverty. I happen to agree. Those on the left want, all too often, to simply throw money at the poor. Ultimately this is counter productive. It simply keeps them poor and sucking on the government teat.

Now I'm not saying there aren't hard-hearted conservatives who don't think things through properly. A solid policy would include more incentives and aid for the poor in getting education and job skills. This is an investment in what will, if succesful, produce a long term profit by establishing this former welfare user as a taxpayer. Some conservatives don't look that far into the future. But that's lack of foresight, not immorality.

The same, to a lesser extent, goes for pensions, and many other social support systems. If the state pays for your retirement then why should you save? Also, what about those who worked hard, saved hard, and are now being taxed in order to support people who squandered their money instead of making any sacrifices in order to save? There's a basic unfairness there.

Anyway, it's all very complex, and all too often gets boiled down to "evil conservatives hate the poor" type of arguments.

It IS the party which would be coziest with the lunatic Bush regime.  None of these points is a distortion. 

The Bush regime is not "lunatic". It is probably quite corrupt, and its leader is kind of sleazy, but then, who are we to complain about that? It's middle east policies are screwy, but if Iraq can be made into some kind of succesful semi-democratic state all the bloodshed will be well worth it.

[Argus]

Of course the "Conservatives are "hell-bent" on destroying the country. Is their whole platform - if such a word can be used for rotten wood - not to remake the country in a different mold?

How can they do that without destroying what we now have? Will it never get through to you who call youeselves conservatives that this party is the farthest thing from conservatism that Canada has ever seen? They are a motley collection of radicals with only a common interest in overturning our institutions.

I have no particular objection to Right Wingers - after all, we can't all have intelligence and wisdom - but I do prefer them to be conservative.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Doesn 't it embarrass you to post such vapid, childish drivel are your age?

Do you actually expect any kind of reasonable debate with that kind of sputtering drool or are you just attempting to provoke more name calling so you can whine about how nasty those horrible conservative people are?

[The Terrible Sweal]

The CPC IS the party most likely to cut people loose from social support.

What we have in this particular statement is the assumption that hefty welfare payments are the proper way to help the poor,

Not at all. Not in the least. I a mamking no normative comment on what should be theway to help the poor.

Generally speaking conservatives simply believe that establishing a strong economy causes a strong job market which greatly reduces poverty.

Conservatives believe that certain measures produce a 'strong economy'. Unfortunately, they arw mistaken about what measures work, and misquided about what constitutes a strong economy.

Some conservatives don't look that far into the future. But that's lack of foresight, not immorality.

Some conservatives who should know better nevertheless demonstrate this lack of foresight, and by sheer coincidence it favors private econimic interest.

[Argus]

The character of the people in office matter.

Yes. Actions matter more.

The way that Anders was dealt with, and moreover, the justification in calling Mandella a terrorist because he's a communist (?), well -- you'll just have to live with that. 

Mandela was indisputably a terrorist. I really don't get what it is which allows people of apparent flexible morals to embrace terrorism so long as you agree with the objectives of the terrorist.

Menachen Begin was a terrorist. I don't really care what his aims were, or that he later became prime minister of Israel and tried to establish peace. None of that affects the reality that he was a terrorist. Nelson Mandela's ANC murdered civilians - deliberately targetting them, including many women and children. He was in jail for as long as he was for refusing to renounce terrorism and violence.

He has certainly exceeded all expectations since his release. He has said some stupid things, mind you, and continues to embrace brutal thugs, but overall he has done a magnificent job in trying to heal South Africa and keep it from going down the road I expected - which is the one Zimbabwe is on. Still, that does not erase his past as a supporter of violence and terrorism.

Communism is beside the point, though it is worth noting that the South African Communist party was and remains a major element of the African National Congress, and that probably more than half the leadership of the ANC were members of the Communist party.

What kind of man denegrates a hero out of tit-for-tat politics?

A principaled one. But I don't think principals really have much of a place in your self righteous view of the world.

What kind of people, in a party, stand by a man who does that?

Stand for what? For a man stating the truth, however unpleasant, that even people who are seen as heroes can be seriously flawed?

As for the Liberals, they certainly tossed and distanced themselves from Hedy Fry, very quickly.  Sure, it was a little bit slow, that goes to show their character.

Quite aside from the disjointed confusion of the above, the Liberals never distanced themselves from Hedy Fry, nor others of her ilk, like Eleanor Caplan and Sheila Copps. On the contrary, they embraced them. Just look at that idiot Joe Volpe, accusing the Tories of being KKK sympathisers because they were laughing at a poster depicting the Liberalas as the "Libranos".

I've stated a number of double standards with respect to the role of religion, traditions, rule of law, economics, social justice, and communitarianism. 

The fact that nobody from the right wing on this board have attempted to resolve the contradictions just shows me that they can't...and so they do the conservative thing:

Most of your accusations, and that's all they are, were sweeping, nonsensical, insulting, and lacked any supporting logic, truth or evidence. You expect reasoned debate when you call people names? How old are you again?

[Argus]

Resolve the inherent tension between the conservative desire to impose their religion/morality/traditions on everybody else, and the opposite conservative desire to free everybody from regulation.  That is, the conservative double standard of simultaneous social regulation and economic deregulation.

You have failed to establish that there IS any conservative desire to impose their "religion/morality/traditions" on anyone else. Or that their efforts at preserving traditions contrast with their desire to free people from regulations (Or do you assume that stifling govenrment regulation is a tradition in this country?)

Then resolve the inherent contradiction in economic deregulation between urban and rural, in that rural areas are to get more pork, whereas the urban areas will continue to get screwed.

You have failed to establish that there is any such contradiction, or that urban areas get "screwed". Do you really think Toronto is that hard-done-by?

Then I want you to resolve the most tricky of the contradictions:  the simultaneous upholding and denegration of communitarian values, and the simultaneous upholding and denegration of the supremacy of the individual.

You have not even defined what you are talking about here.

[Argus]

I agree on the dichotomy of some Conservatives wanting to free people from regulation while others want to impose morality.  But these are not necessarily the same people.

With these combined togehter in one party, each is marked with the warts of the other.

Which then means all Liberals are tarred by corruption, and justly so, right?

[Argus]

That you would so blatantly distort and misrepresent what I wrote is a pretty telling indictment of your own character.

Personal attack.

Feel free to attack my arguements, but personal attacks serve no purpose here.

Your arguments are infantile, confused, irrational, insulting, and have no logical foundation.

How's that?

[Guest eureka]

Why don't you try to refute what I said? I stand by every word of it and, even the comments about the intelligence of Conservatives since theyseem unable to show me as wrong.

[takeanumber]

You have failed to establish that there IS any conservative desire to impose their "religion/morality/traditions" on anyone else. Or that their efforts at preserving traditions contrast with their desire to free people from regulations (Or do you assume that stifling govenrment regulation is a tradition in this country?)

Same sex marriage.

Mounties and the Turban.

Abortion.

The involvement of the Church in the state (See: Conservative participation at the World Christian Political Party Convention which coincided with the Republican convention, speeches in the House.)

Your arguments are infantile, confused, irrational, insulting, and have no logical foundation.

How's that?

Meh.

I think they do. Many people here agree with me, clearly they're not irrational, infantile, and illogical. The truth does sting though, so I'm sure you'd find them insulting.

Which then means all Liberals are tarred by corruption, and justly so, right?

Yes. They're all tarred. They've admitted it and are cleaning it up. The Cons have never admitted to the corruption under Mulroney -- which is worse?

You have failed to establish that there is any such contradiction, or that urban areas get "screwed". Do you really think Toronto is that hard-done-by?

2 Billion a month flows out of Toronto and never comes back. Don't you think that they're hard done by?

You've just demonstrated the contradiction right there. Good job.

QUOTE

Then I want you to resolve the most tricky of the contradictions: the simultaneous upholding and denegration of communitarian values, and the simultaneous upholding and denegration of the supremacy of the individual.

You have not even defined what you are talking about here.

You ought to know what I'm talking about here. The momment I identify an issue, you'll attack the issue, not the contradiction; so, how about you attack the contradiction?

Yes. Actions matter more.

They sure do.

Mandela was indisputably a terrorist.

You demonstrated the contradiction wonderfully.

A principaled one. But I don't think principals really have much of a place in your self righteous view of the world.

Yes, as Conservative 'principles' are so solid, water-tight, and contradiction free.

Stand for what? For a man stating the truth, however unpleasant, that even people who are seen as heroes can be seriously flawed?

The truth varies by who is telling it.

Quite aside from the disjointed confusion of the above, the Liberals never distanced themselves from Hedy Fry, nor others of her ilk, like Eleanor Caplan and Sheila Copps. On the contrary, they embraced them. Just look at that idiot Joe Volpe, accusing the Tories of being KKK sympathisers because they were laughing at a poster depicting the Liberalas as the "Libranos".

That poster is derogatory towards Italian-Canadians.

I believe that one of the defining characteristics of an angry conservative is a marked lack of empathy...the inability to see anything from anybody else's point of view.

As for Eleanor Caplan or Sheila Copps: Martin distanced himself from her, and I recall conservatives applauding that.

Most of your accusations, and that's all they are, were sweeping, nonsensical, insulting, and lacked any supporting logic, truth or evidence. You expect reasoned debate when you call people names? How old are you again?

I havn't called anybody a name.

My statements are general to be true, but I think that they've held up pretty well to your assault.

See, when you fail to attack the root of the contradiction, or restate it, you resort to insulting all of them -- which is fine...that's typical of the discourse that happens here.

-------

So, many of you have demonstrated that much of what I said in the initial post is in fact correct, through your arguements.

I thank Reagan especially for making some of the most rational statements, and Sweal, for hitting upon key points.