Should the Conservative Party become liberals?

[Argus]

Classical liberals, that is. The author makes a reasonable case that classical liberalism is basically today's conservatism minus the social conservatism.  Also that the Liberals are not the least bit liberal but are actually illiberal.

So what is a liberal, really? “Libertas” is Latin for liberty and “Liberal” shares the same root (“liber”). In the political realm, liberalism originally (or classically) denoted holding a philosophy based upon the concept of individual freedom. Hence “classical liberalism” is a set of beliefs that has at its root a conviction that the purpose of civilized society is to provide for the liberty of the individual. “Don’t tell me what to do” is the liberal mantra. Real liberals believe that people should largely control their own lives — that they should be free to say what they think, to have sex with and marry whom they please, to worship as they wish, to buy and sell what they want, to be responsible for themselves and to leave other people alone.

The modern version of liberalism means essentially the opposite. It embraces an expansive welfare state, extensive regulation of individual behaviour and speech, redistribution of wealth, unequal application of the law in pursuit of equality of outcome and myriad other managerial policies. Those who now call themselves Liberals in the political realm are now illiberal in their sensibilities and aspirations. Governments supervise, subsidize and control virtually every aspect of modern life: markets and financial systems, public schools and universities, health care, media, food production, energy production, telecom services, the professions and even speech. Our courts do not believe in equal application of the law. We are eroding the presumption of innocence and other aspects of due process. We have abandoned even the expectation that laws will be written, clear and understandable to all. Instead citizens are subject to the arbitrary discretion of government agencies that pursue their own agendas. Identity politics reign and the surveillance state steadily expands.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/right-now-the-liberals-arent-liberals-anymore-but-the-conservatives-can-and-must-be

[eyeball]

50 minutes ago, Argus said:

Classical liberals, that is. The author makes a reasonable case that classical liberalism is basically today's conservatism minus the social conservatism.  Also that the Liberals are not the least bit liberal but are actually illiberal.

What that tells us is that conservatives should reassert and bolster the left wings position.

Classical left wing that is - in opposition to authority.

Edited December 21, 2019 by eyeball

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Classical liberals, that is. The author makes a reasonable case that classical liberalism is basically today's conservatism minus the social conservatism.  Also that the Liberals are not the least bit liberal but are actually illiberal.

So what is a liberal, really? “Libertas” is Latin for liberty and “Liberal” shares the same root (“liber”). In the political realm, liberalism originally (or classically) denoted holding a philosophy based upon the concept of individual freedom. Hence “classical liberalism” is a set of beliefs that has at its root a conviction that the purpose of civilized society is to provide for the liberty of the individual. “Don’t tell me what to do” is the liberal mantra. Real liberals believe that people should largely control their own lives — that they should be free to say what they think, to have sex with and marry whom they please, to worship as they wish, to buy and sell what they want, to be responsible for themselves and to leave other people alone.

The modern version of liberalism means essentially the opposite. It embraces an expansive welfare state, extensive regulation of individual behaviour and speech, redistribution of wealth, unequal application of the law in pursuit of equality of outcome and myriad other managerial policies. Those who now call themselves Liberals in the political realm are now illiberal in their sensibilities and aspirations. Governments supervise, subsidize and control virtually every aspect of modern life: markets and financial systems, public schools and universities, health care, media, food production, energy production, telecom services, the professions and even speech. Our courts do not believe in equal application of the law. We are eroding the presumption of innocence and other aspects of due process. We have abandoned even the expectation that laws will be written, clear and understandable to all. Instead citizens are subject to the arbitrary discretion of government agencies that pursue their own agendas. Identity politics reign and the surveillance state steadily expands.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/right-now-the-liberals-arent-liberals-anymore-but-the-conservatives-can-and-must-be

I think that we'd all agree that "Canadian conservatives" are Liberals from a global perspective. They are even more liberal that the liberals in some key areas like freedom of speech and gun ownership. 

A also agree that the "Liberals" are becoming "socialists".

I was under the impression that I was going to vehemently disagree with the content of the OP when I read the title but I find that it's quite thought-provoking and also an accurate & damning assessment of the current state of "Liberal" politics in Canada. Some of us political laymen would even call the Libs fascists lol.

[Moonlight Graham]

Maybe the Canadian Alliance and PC's shouldn't have merged, I dunno.  PC's were less socially conservative.  IMO there are enough social conservatives to have a party like the Alliance with a place for representation in Parliament, but more along the line of the NDP, in other words most often not enough national support to win a majority gov or maybe even a minority.

IMO the CPC party should be right-of-center like the PCs and not so much socially conservative as in staunch Christian views like the Alliance.  A party that represents ie: a pro-life stance has a place a Parliament since a fair amount of Canadians are pro-life but the party won't have as good of a chance winning federal elections and forming government, because most Canadians are more socially liberal.

Canada has no moderate federal party and that's a big hole in our politics.  It's either intersectional virtue signalers on the left or "pro-life but we're not pro-life" conservatives on the right, nothing in-between. I'd even be for a classical liberal party that wasn't so socially conservative, as in the OP.

[Moonlight Graham]

Good thread Argus.

[eyeball]

40 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Canada has no moderate federal party and that's a big hole in our politics.  It's either intersectional virtue signalers on the left or "pro-life but we're not pro-life" conservatives on the right, nothing in-between. I'd even be for a classical liberal party that wasn't so socially conservative, as in the OP.

Canada has no party that is dedicated to real-time, auditable, verifiable and accountable transparency.  Institute that and everything changes - something that's never been done anywhere in human experience.

Quote

Identity politics reign and the surveillance state steadily expands.

So...turn the Telescreens around. How freakin' hard can it be?  "Just don't let it happen" Orwell replied when asked how to prevent totalitarianism.

Anyone want to start a Transparency Party and promise to saturate the spaces governments and lobbyists inhabit?  That's where the problem is and by even a cursory look at human regard for governance around the planet it doesn't seem what ideology governments subscribe to - all appear to be suffering decaying worsening levels of regard.

My guess is we'll hit rock bottom experience an interregnum and....rinse and repeat.

Edited December 21, 2019 by eyeball

[cannuck]

25 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Canada has no moderate federal party and that's a big hole in our politics.  It's either intersectional virtue signalers on the left or "pro-life but we're not pro-life" conservatives on the right, nothing in-between. I'd even be for a classical liberal party that wasn't so socially conservative, as in the OP.

I have to disagree with that.  The CPC IS a middle of the road party.  Yeah, some talk the talk, but they sure as hell don't walk ANY of the walk.

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Maybe the Canadian Alliance and PC's shouldn't have merged, I dunno.  PC's were less socially conservative.  IMO there are enough social conservatives to have a party like the Alliance with a place for representation in Parliament, but more along the line of the NDP, in other words most often not enough national support to win a majority gov or maybe even a minority.

IMO the CPC party should be right-of-center like the PCs and not so much socially conservative as in staunch Christian views like the Alliance.  A party that represents ie: a pro-life stance has a place a Parliament since a fair amount of Canadians are pro-life but the party won't have as good of a chance winning federal elections and forming government, because most Canadians are more socially liberal.

Canada has no moderate federal party and that's a big hole in our politics.  It's either intersectional virtue signalers on the left or "pro-life but we're not pro-life" conservatives on the right, nothing in-between. I'd even be for a classical liberal party that wasn't so socially conservative, as in the OP.

I think had the Alliance and PC not merged  both parties would be struggling,  regulated to party status similar to the NDP like you said, .. strong out west and weak every where else ..That being said there was a major shift in their platforms once they merged, more to the left,  and became even further to the left  when Scheer came out with his, clearly set up to chase the lefts vote...and in my opinion to far left for me..

I think they had more problems than being pro life and for some reason the media "really made this a sticking point" we won't mention bias here, but even a liberal could see that... . But also the lack of support from LGBTQ2  community played a small factor as well, if all it took was to walk down the street with some gay parade " I say get on your dancing boots" thats what politicians do, kiss babies, and dance with the gays,.... it's 2019 baby.....along with the new fade of climate change, shit your worse than the anti Christ if your don't believe we are all going to die!!!.....they are stuck because most of their support lies in oil country, and climate change is not a topic for the dinner table in the west...unless they got one of those climate change protestors on the BBQ. I mean all they really had to do was come up with a plan that was better than Justins, how hard could that be....lets tax everyone, they tell them we are going to give it all back and more.. But what really gets me is just how the Canadian public ate that up...that shit is the best tasting shit there is....

I also think that a lot of Canadians were seeking a more conservative party, for a lot of people turned to the PPC, and if the main objective was not to get Justin out of power I think that fringe party would be a lot larger than it is or was...So I agree there is a huge hole in our politics...with everyone sliding to the left, at some point in time we are going to have to stop spending and start cutting...but right now I think a majority of Canadians don't care how much debt we rack up as long as there is a little piece of the pie in it for me thats where the vote lies right now.....or change how our country loans money to itself if that is even possible..

[Moonlight Graham]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Canada has no party that is dedicated to real-time, auditable, verifiable and accountable transparency.  Institute that and everything changes - something that's never been done anywhere in human experience.

IMO all lobbying should be done in writing so we can all see what exactly is going on behind closed doors.  All face-to-face lobbying should be banned, unless the audio is recorded and it's also transcribed by an independent 3rd party and put on the official record.

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, cannuck said:

I have to disagree with that.  The CPC IS a middle of the road party.  Yeah, some talk the talk, but they sure as hell don't walk ANY of the walk.

Scheer nor Harper have ever walked in a Pride parade, so no i guess they don't walk the walk LOL.  They're homophobes, which is out of step with most of the country.

I don't want any more Alliance bible thumpers as CPC leaders.  Socially they're a bit too rightwing IMO.  A moderate candidate wouldn't mind marching in a Pride parade.

[cannuck]

Virtue signalling is not a Conservative/conservative value in any way.   I have to agree, though, that religion of ANY kind has no business being anywhere near politics (to me, it is no different from the bacon/lettuce/tomoato community stuff).

The walk that a Conservative government SHOULD  be walking would have given us a right to work nation, constitutional protection for personal property, an end to deficit budgets, and end to most of the government bureaucracy, sick care insurance that is universal, but service delivery that is unrestricted, direct democracy with recall provisions, fair taxation (flat tax on earned income) and an awful lot more that has not been touched - barely any of it even uttered.

[OftenWrong]

No, but they should become more Progressive. That would be cool, Progressive Conservatives.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

Virtue signalling is not a Conservative/conservative value in any way.   

Maybe it just has a different name ?  Why would Andrew Scheer make anti-UN statements during a campaign, even when he is planning to pursue a security council seat ?

Maybe because a certain flavour of conservative Bernier-lover is livid about the existence of the UN and sees it as a massive Soros-funded enterprise set up so that Bill Gates could commit mass genocide ?   ( Although I laugh, I'm not entirely making this up )

[cannuck]

Andrew Scheer is a very long way from being conservative in anything but name.

[Zeitgeist]

22 hours ago, Argus said:

Classical liberals, that is. The author makes a reasonable case that classical liberalism is basically today's conservatism minus the social conservatism.  Also that the Liberals are not the least bit liberal but are actually illiberal.

So what is a liberal, really? “Libertas” is Latin for liberty and “Liberal” shares the same root (“liber”). In the political realm, liberalism originally (or classically) denoted holding a philosophy based upon the concept of individual freedom. Hence “classical liberalism” is a set of beliefs that has at its root a conviction that the purpose of civilized society is to provide for the liberty of the individual. “Don’t tell me what to do” is the liberal mantra. Real liberals believe that people should largely control their own lives — that they should be free to say what they think, to have sex with and marry whom they please, to worship as they wish, to buy and sell what they want, to be responsible for themselves and to leave other people alone.

The modern version of liberalism means essentially the opposite. It embraces an expansive welfare state, extensive regulation of individual behaviour and speech, redistribution of wealth, unequal application of the law in pursuit of equality of outcome and myriad other managerial policies. Those who now call themselves Liberals in the political realm are now illiberal in their sensibilities and aspirations. Governments supervise, subsidize and control virtually every aspect of modern life: markets and financial systems, public schools and universities, health care, media, food production, energy production, telecom services, the professions and even speech. Our courts do not believe in equal application of the law. We are eroding the presumption of innocence and other aspects of due process. We have abandoned even the expectation that laws will be written, clear and understandable to all. Instead citizens are subject to the arbitrary discretion of government agencies that pursue their own agendas. Identity politics reign and the surveillance state steadily expands.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/right-now-the-liberals-arent-liberals-anymore-but-the-conservatives-can-and-must-be

So basically the only true liberals in the classic sense of the word are the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.  

That has existed for a long time.  Look at the anti-Prohibition forces back in the day.  I’d argue that, not only is the Evangelical wing and traditional social conservatism a fake mask that the party wears to make rampant individualism and materialism look better than it is, most Evangelicals know it.  Basically keep the temperance ladies at church and organizing community lunches while the dirty business gets settled.  The Dems also talk out of both sides of their mouth, flying private jets to climate change conferences.  The Dems use the rhetoric of social justice rather than religion as cover for their wealth accumulation.  

I think we need to shed these old left-right dichotomies and look more at data to decide what the optimum levels of taxation/social safety net versus complete free hand of the marketplace are to determine the sweet spot for a balance between personal wealth accumulation and protecting the vulnerable that maximizes social benefits and the incentive to be productive.  When are taxes too high?  When is government too interventionist, eroding personal freedom and drive?  Much of this work will be turned over to A.I.   We also have to watch that we don’t become slaves to formulas/algorithms.  People have to be in the driver’s seat.  It comes down to smart policies.  

The environment and greenhouse gases are much bigger part of this mix than ever.  So are immigration and trade flows. 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Argus]

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Scheer nor Harper have ever walked in a Pride parade, so no i guess they don't walk the walk LOL.  They're homophobes, which is out of step with most of the country.

Just how many Canadians do you think have even watched a gay pride parade? I mean, how deep do your illusions run? Do you think like 90%? 80%? I haven't seen any polls but I rather doubt more than 10% of Canadians have ever gone anywhere near a pride parade.

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't want any more Alliance bible thumpers as CPC leaders.

But deeply observant Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Jews are okay, right? People who won't set foot outside the door without the proper religious items and headgear, who pray many times a day. They don't let religion colour their views of the world at all, right?

[Argus]

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe it just has a different name ?  Why would Andrew Scheer make anti-UN statements during a campaign, even when he is planning to pursue a security council seat ?

Not all of us are infatuated with an organization as deeply corrupt and incompetent as the UN. An organization which sees nothing wrong with putting Zimbabwe and Venezuela on their human rights commission.

 

[Argus]

16 hours ago, cannuck said:

I have to disagree with that.  The CPC IS a middle of the road party.  Yeah, some talk the talk, but they sure as hell don't walk ANY of the walk.

The CPC didn't have any conservative policies that I'm aware of during the last election. Not even balancing the budget. It seemed to me that Scheer was utterly terrified of being called 'conservative' and ran from everything even remotely related to the term. And despite this you get people saying they need to be more 'middle of the road'. Which to me seems to mean "Well, they'd be mainstream if they just took on all the same values the media tell me are mainstream."

[Argus]

38 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Andrew Scheer is a very long way from being conservative in anything but name.

I think he has social conservative beliefs, and maybe even some fiscal conservative beliefs, but he's unwilling to advocate for any of them, nor defend any of them. Almost as if he's embarrassed to have them.

[OftenWrong]

I think you pointed out that LPC hijacked the name "Liberal" which appeals to identity by name-branding, and renders any opponents as non-liberal. The name "Progressive Conservative" was in a way chosen to counter that. The Conservative Party dropped the progressive part in their name, and inherently lost this war. I say no one can be electable. There is not a Joe Clark among them.

====

I bet Joe Clark is having a nice large glass of "I told you so," this year...

Link

Merry Christmas Joe. Yes I know it is sweet at first, but with a bitter finsih

 

[WestCanMan]

21 hours ago, eyeball said:

Canada has no party that is dedicated to real-time, auditable, verifiable and accountable transparency.  Institute that and everything changes - something that's never been done anywhere in human experience.

Theoretically that's the role of the media, law enforcement and the judicial branches, but the media is the key to it all.

As long as people don't hold their media accountable then government overreach and obstruction in the other branches will just keep getting worse, to the detriment of our society.

 

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

So basically the only true liberals in the classic sense of the word are the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.  

Libertarians are not in the Republican party. You can check with on line Libertarian groups these days and you won't feel much love for Donald Trump or Republicans. In fact, they're incensed at their actions, including their profligate spending and flouting of constitutional norms.

5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think we need to shed these old left-right dichotomies and look more at data to decide what the optimum levels of taxation/social safety net versus complete free hand of the marketplace are to determine the sweet spot for a balance between personal wealth accumulation and protecting the vulnerable that maximizes social benefits and the incentive to be productive.  When are taxes too high?  When is government too interventionist, eroding personal freedom and drive?  Much of this work will be turned over to A.I.   We also have to watch that we don’t become slaves to formulas/algorithms.  People have to be in the driver’s seat.  It comes down to smart policies.  

The environment and greenhouse gases are much bigger part of this mix than ever.  So are immigration and trade flows. 

By 'data' you mean polling, but polls can tell only half the story, and often do. The polls tell us enormous numbers of Canadians are concerned about global warming. But once you get into the nitty gritty of the cost of doing something about it those numbers dwindle. Oh, they're okay if someone else is paying, but they're not willing to pay themselves. Likewise huge numbers are concerned about immigration and would like it cut back, but it's simply an issue which places high enough in importance to change their voting. What Canadians seem to want is all about the economy. That doesn't mean income redistribution so much as making the economy work well. The problem is government can seldom do much to improve the economy aside from getting the hell out of its way.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I think you pointed out that LPC hijacked the name "Liberal" which appeals to identity by name-branding, and renders any opponents as non-liberal. The name "Progressive Conservative" was in a way chosen to counter that.

The name emerged when the leader of a western progressive party became the Tory leader and insisted on the name change. I guarantee you THAT progressive party had no interest in gay rights, transgenderism or abortion rights.

Quote

====

I bet Joe Clark is having a nice large glass of "I told you so," this year...

Joe Clark was a political moron who could always be relied upon to make the wrong decision on every topic. He was a default choice between two strong alternative Tory leaders, and he only got in because people were sick of Trudeau senior. Then he lost his government after a few months, having irritated so many people in such a short time (even with a minority) that Trudeau figured he could get in again. He was right.

 

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Argus

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Theoretically that's the role of the media, law enforcement and the judicial branches, but the media is the key to it all.

As long as people don't hold their media accountable then government overreach and obstruction in the other branches will just keep getting worse, to the detriment of our society.

 

The media's contribution to accountability would be a mere afterthought compared to the real-time, auditable, verifiable and accountable transparency I described.

What part of outlawing in-camera lobbying don't you get? Maybe you figure this is just virtue-signalling and it won't actually mean do or change anything.

Maybe there's a Deeper-media that simply won't stand for accountability no matter what we do. 

 

[Army Guy]

16 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Scheer nor Harper have ever walked in a Pride parade, so no i guess they don't walk the walk LOL.  They're homophobes, which is out of step with most of the country.

I don't want any more Alliance bible thumpers as CPC leaders.  Socially they're a bit too rightwing IMO.  A moderate candidate wouldn't mind marching in a Pride parade.

Just a question, why is it a qualification to march in the parade to get LBGT2 support ? , Why is it all other religions get passes on certain things , things except say Christians, or white people , We question is this do I have to support everything that is popular with the voters, what if I did not support same sex marriage or gay rights within my household, but when I got to work like Scheer I could ensure that those rights were protected by our laws and policies...I mean we don't invite Muslims to dinner then serve pork do we, no we accept it is part of their religion and move on...not the same for Mr Scheer though. and then when they do they are called bible thumpers and yet has anyone called the NDP leader a religious freak, because he wears a turban...should we not treat all religions the same....