What Unites Canada's "Right"?

[August1991]

Putting people into categories is wrong, but when it comes to election day, we have to put an X beside a name and put ourselves into a category - all things considered.

And, all things considered, what makes people put an X beside a Conservative name? What idea makes for a broad umbrella?

The Right (gironde) in France in the Revolution's parliament meant those who supported the monarchy. A century or so ago, in England, Conservative meant slow, careful, apprehensive to change. IMV, now, the words Right and Conservative mean something different.

To me, the Right (in Canada) essentially means that government should spend less, be smaller, be less intrusive. Government should concentrate more on doing what it can do, and leave to others what it obviously can't do. Our federal government has tried to do things it can never do, and has ignored to do the things it should be doing.

I realize that there are, for example, fiscal and social conservatives, as well as others who are conservative. But I think all can unite under the basic principle of less government.

Am I wrong?

[Riverwind]

I realize that there are, for example, fiscal and social conservatives, as well as others who are conservative. But I think all can unite under the basic principle of less government.

The Republicans in the states have succeeded in uniting three groups of people who really don't have much in common other than the fact they are monomanics (i.e. they only really care about one issue and will vote for anyone that supports that issue no matter what their policies are on other issues). The three groups are the tax cutters, national security types and the religious conservatives.

None of these groups (even the tax cutters) are really in favour of less gov't - they actually want the gov't to be as intrusive as possible within the domains that they care about. The tax cutters want lower taxes but don't want programs cut. The national security types want money spent building jails and foreign wars. And the religious conservatives want the gov't to force their moral views on everyone else.

In Canada, there are fewer monomoniacs and the majority of people sit somewhere in the wishy washy center. This means politicians in Canada cannot 'unite the right or left' - the have to cater to the center which tends to be fiscially conservative but socially liberal.

Perhaps the biggest problem for the 'right' in Canada is the largest group of monomaniacs here is left leaning (i.e. the anti-religious conservatives) which makes it nearly impossible for any party that appeals to the religious conservatives to get elected.

[idealisttotheend]

I would argue that conservatives are bound by there predilection to favour that corporations make the decisions regarding the environment, supply and demand issues, wages and all other regulations instead of governments. I have certainly met lots of "red tories" who disagree with this and think that society requires a consciousness but they don't seem to be in vogue at the moment at either the federal or provincial level.

[Slavik44]

What about a mistrust of Government? I do not belive we can say that Social Conservatives desire a less intrusive government, clearly much of their policy seems to surround maintaining or expanding government control. However I do get the impression that many Social Conservatives do not trust Government, Fiscal conservatives also seem to possess this mistrust which for them translates into a smaller Government. Given Social conservatives mistrust Government they are probabley likely to follow the lead of fiscal Conservatives on economic issues.

I think it is tough to pick one thing that unites the right. In today's world the sense of ideology is no where near as strong nor as extreme as it has been in the past. The majority of votes tend to reside in moderate swing voters. Given that fact I think it is tough to say what unites the right when most voters in Canada are not really married to one particular party. I could tell you what unites the green party voters, or the Marijuana party voters, or Bloc voters but once we move into the big three federalist parties the unity tends to disappear especially when it comes to the Liberal party and Conservative party, but I think it would be fair to say that the most ardent Conservatives do not trust Government.

[geoffrey]

There is alot of division on the right in Canada.

We have a few groups:

The Reformers:

Complete mistrust of the government. Mostly found in the west, especially in my lovely province of Alberta. Want small government, zero welfare, provincial autonomy and no government intervention in their lives... unless of course its changing social norms, which the government should stop. Want a movement towards an American republican type system, often dislike Health Care.

The PC's:

Old boys club of the PC Party, pretty much the Liberal's, with a little freer trade, a little more open economy, and lower taxes.

The old school Conservative types (put me in this bunch):

Wishes to maintain social structure and see's the benifet in class division yet still co-operation. Used to be known as Red Tories before the term was hijacked by 'liberal-minded' PC's. Belief in a common good and strong nationalism. Related closely to the One Nation Conservatives of the English. Belief in communities as more important than government. "Communitarian" is a word that has been used, but I'd say its so convoluted a term now that it no longer applies.

The key to this group is the belief that to rights are attached social responsibilities, which divides them from the libertarian aspects of the conservative movement. It doesn't go to authoritarianism though either, as it would utilitize non-government pressures to maintain the social order.

Hasn't been in Canada for about awhile, but it is the principles that Canada was founded on and moulded British politics heavily. There aren't many of us anymore, but there was definitely a noticable amount in the PC party that followed these types of views.

--

All of these groups believe in less government.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

To me, the Right (in Canada) essentially means that government should spend less, be smaller, be less intrusive.

I will certainly agree that this is the base of all conservativism, both social and fiscal. Most Canadians, both right and left, are appalled at gov't waste, but perhaps for different reasons. The problem is, to 'identify' with the right, they need strong, evident policies, and 'less' is an ambiguous term. If it were coupled with 'less taxes', it may be more 'evident', but the minor tax cuts proposed by Harper (through no fault of his own, minority gov'ts have to 'appease', rather than lead) don't cut the mustard.

I realize that there are, for example, fiscal and social conservatives, as well as others who are conservative. But I think all can unite under the basic principle of less government.

Am I wrong?

Canadians are 'socialist', by and large, so they equate 'less gov't' with eliminating social programs. As you say, there are some things the gov't shouldn't do, (funding 'arts', for example) but most gov't programs are lumped together in the minds of many.

[cybercoma]

I would argue that conservatives are bound by there predilection to favour that corporations make the decisions regarding the environment, supply and demand issues, wages and all other regulations instead of governments. I have certainly met lots of "red tories" who disagree with this and think that society requires a consciousness but they don't seem to be in vogue at the moment at either the federal or provincial level.

Big business doesn't make those decisions, nor have they ever. The market (read: You and I, and everyone else on this planet) make those decisions through our purchasing choices. Why do you think hybrid cars are more popular now than ever? Why do you think the Big 3 are struggling to play catch-up in that category against Toyota and Honda? The market drives innovation and change. People want a cleaner environment and to spend less money on gas and oil. To say corporations decide supply and demand is completely wrong (if only considering demand). They can control supply to some extent, which will drive up prices, but if they can produce more of something and sell more, they'll make more money and once again that's driven by the buyers. Wages are determined by the workforce and not the corporations. Do you think any autoworker would work for under $10/hour? Just take a look at the Delphi situation. Union or not, there is a point where you can't hire the best, nor retain workers if you pay too little. There's a reason open heart surgeons make more than cashiers. The more specialized your skills, the more money you make. If you're in a job doing something anyone else can do, competition for that job is a lot higher and it drives the value of that labour down.

So to say corporations make the decisions is entirely wrong. Corporations are bound by first and foremost the consumers and secondly the stockholders. If the consumers aren't happy the stock goes down and the stockholders aren't happy. The market drives corporate decisions and I don't see how you could say otherwise.

[Drea]

To me, the Right (in Canada) essentially means that government should spend less, be smaller, be less intrusive.

If this were the case, then rightwingers would not be against the legalization of marijuana (gov't intrusion); they would not be against a women's right to choose abortion (gov't intrusion); they would not be against couples of the same sex being married (gov't intrusion).

IMO -- the right in Canada would like to see MORE gov't intervention in personal matters.

[JerrySeinfeld]

To me, the Right (in Canada) essentially means that government should spend less, be smaller, be less intrusive.

If this were the case, then rightwingers would not be against the legalization of marijuana (gov't intrusion); they would not be against a women's right to choose abortion (gov't intrusion); they would not be against couples of the same sex being married (gov't intrusion).

IMO -- the right in Canada would like to see MORE gov't intervention in personal matters.

Right wingers are wrongly characterized as religious, pro life, and marijuana etc. Not me. I actually can't think of any of the rightwingers i talk to as these things. Its a fringe part of a much larger group.

One thing unites all rightwingers, though: low taxes.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Right wingers are wrongly characterized as religious, pro life, and marijuana etc. Not me. I actually can't think of any of the rightwingers i talk to as these things. Its a fringe part of a much larger group.

One thing unites all rightwingers, though: low taxes.

People tend to confuse the "right" with social conservatives who have a very non-libertarian agenda aimed at imposing their own values on all others. Most conservatives I know (including myself) who believe in low taxes, less regulation, less intrusion of governement in our lives have little in common with the socons. I don't even regard them as part of the same "group" I am in.

[Hicksey]

Dear August1991,

To me, the Right (in Canada) essentially means that government should spend less, be smaller, be less intrusive.

I will certainly agree that this is the base of all conservativism, both social and fiscal. Most Canadians, both right and left, are appalled at gov't waste, but perhaps for different reasons. The problem is, to 'identify' with the right, they need strong, evident policies, and 'less' is an ambiguous term. If it were coupled with 'less taxes', it may be more 'evident', but the minor tax cuts proposed by Harper (through no fault of his own, minority gov'ts have to 'appease', rather than lead) don't cut the mustard.

I realize that there are, for example, fiscal and social conservatives, as well as others who are conservative. But I think all can unite under the basic principle of less government.

Am I wrong?

Canadians are 'socialist', by and large, so they equate 'less gov't' with eliminating social programs. As you say, there are some things the gov't shouldn't do, (funding 'arts', for example) but most gov't programs are lumped together in the minds of many.

If Canadians were really socialist, the NDP would get a majority every election.

[idealisttotheend]

Big business doesn't make those decisions, nor have they ever. The market (read: You and I, and everyone else on this planet) make those decisions through our purchasing choices.

You make a good point cybercoma, thank you for pointing that out. The collary is obviously that governments make the decisions that will get them relected so you or I control that process as well. But in both cases the organizations have a degree of power greater than the individual. I can't for example choose to open a savings account that pays 3% interest even though I'd like to. I can't purchase gas at a price less than the current price in my city because all the gas stations charge the same price (barring a price war) so, in effect, the corporations have decided how much I will pay for gas. I have the choice to not buy gas at all but more than likely it will be a bad choice given my need to get to work. I would like to buy clothing that is made in Canada at Wal Mart but I only have the choice to buy the lines that Wal Mart chooses to provide me with. And as Wal Mart put it's smaller competitors out of buisness more and more Wal Mart becomes my only choice to buy anything at.

So I guess I will amend my statement. The right believes that individuals should make their choices through corporations and not governments to what extent they can and have corporations make decisions with the residual soverignty these individuals must sometimes give up in a modern society.

I point out also that the inherent nature of democratic governments is more egalitarian than corporations where weathy consumers and wealth stockholders have more say (though this is balanced by large pension funds owned by workers I admit) in their decision making process.

[geoffrey]

I can't for example choose to open a savings account that pays 3% interest even though I'd like to.

3.5% at ING direct. Money in a savings account is a waste of your time anyways. Invest it and make some bucks. Those that are rich are those that invest.

I can't purchase gas at a price less than the current price in my city because all the gas stations charge the same price (barring a price war) so, in effect, the corporations have decided how much I will pay for gas. I have the choice to not buy gas at all but more than likely it will be a bad choice given my need to get to work.

I for one, believe there is some questionable activity in the gas distribution markets. There is no market explaination for some of the things that go on with that.

I would like to buy clothing that is made in Canada at Wal Mart but I only have the choice to buy the lines that Wal Mart chooses to provide me with. And as Wal Mart put it's smaller competitors out of buisness more and more Wal Mart becomes my only choice to buy anything at.

Wal Mart is about the worst thing to have happened to this country. You'll find most conservatives aren't pro-big business, but pro-small business. That is a difference we have with the Liberals.

So I guess I will amend my statement. The right believes that individuals should make their choices through corporations and not governments to what extent they can and have corporations make decisions with the residual soverignty these individuals must sometimes give up in a modern society.

And through the community instead of the government too.

I point out also that the inherent nature of democratic governments is more egalitarian than corporations where weathy consumers and wealth stockholders have more say (though this is balanced by large pension funds owned by workers I admit) in their decision making process.

Egalitarian systems inaccurately reflect the actual nature of society. We aren't equal, people really need to get over that.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Dear August1991,

To me, the Right (in Canada) essentially means that government should spend less, be smaller, be less intrusive.

I will certainly agree that this is the base of all conservativism, both social and fiscal. Most Canadians, both right and left, are appalled at gov't waste, but perhaps for different reasons. The problem is, to 'identify' with the right, they need strong, evident policies, and 'less' is an ambiguous term. If it were coupled with 'less taxes', it may be more 'evident', but the minor tax cuts proposed by Harper (through no fault of his own, minority gov'ts have to 'appease', rather than lead) don't cut the mustard.

I realize that there are, for example, fiscal and social conservatives, as well as others who are conservative. But I think all can unite under the basic principle of less government.

Am I wrong?

Canadians are 'socialist', by and large, so they equate 'less gov't' with eliminating social programs. As you say, there are some things the gov't shouldn't do, (funding 'arts', for example) but most gov't programs are lumped together in the minds of many.

If Canadians were really socialist, the NDP would get a majority every election.

Actually many NDPs end up in Liberal Cabinet. Isn't Bob Rae in therunning for Lib leadership? What about Ujhal Dosanj, former health minister. Roy Romanow commissioned to do the health care report...and on and on....

My bet is Jack Layton has a future in a Liberal Cabinet.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hicksey,

If Canadians were really socialist, the NDP would get a majority every election.

I said socialist, not communist . The NDP are seen as really, really far left. The Liberals are moderately left, definitely to the left of centre. Even the CPC is only 'marginally' right wing.

geoffrey,

Wal Mart is about the worst thing to have happened to this country. You'll find most conservatives aren't pro-big business, but pro-small business.

If one is a capitalist, the entire reason for being is to make your small business become a big, or the biggest, business.

[geoffrey]

geoffrey,

Wal Mart is about the worst thing to have happened to this country. You'll find most conservatives aren't pro-big business, but pro-small business.

If one is a capitalist, the entire reason for being is to make your small business become a big, or the biggest, business.

Not at all. Small-business is an ideal economy system because it is the most flexible to changing market demands. Personally, I'd never want to grow a business beyond 50 employees. The real goal is to fill a market demand, and if your doing that in a small business, then all this good.

If you compare the CPC and LPC business platforms however, you'll definitely agree with me. CPC is small business, LPC is big business. Predator multinationals are neccessarily in the market's best interest, and often are counter productive to the capitalist ideal.

Before you go futher with that, do some research on perfect competition, the goal of the capitalist system. It is not oligopoly or monopoly. Capitalism doesn't fully equal big business.

[Montgomery Burns]

Geoffrey:

Wal Mart is about the worst thing to have happened to this country.

I strongly disagree. Wal Mart creates tons of jobs and helps everyone. Low-income people get to stretch their dollar, and middle/high-come people will likely direct the money they save somewhere else--which keeps the economy chugging along.

And that's A Good Thing™.

[Montgomery Burns]

August1991:

To me, the Right (in Canada) essentially means that government should spend less, be smaller, be less intrusive. Government should concentrate more on doing what it can do, and leave to others what it obviously can't do. Our federal government has tried to do things it can never do, and has ignored to do the things it should be doing.

I realize that there are, for example, fiscal and social conservatives, as well as others who are conservative. But I think all can unite under the basic principle of less government.

Am I wrong?

No, you are right. In general, your first 2 sentences summed up what unites the right in Canada.

I'd maybe add that the right:

1) generally sees the value of having a credible military--to deter its outer enemies.

2) generally believes in strong law enforcement--to deter its inner enemies.

3) generally believe in protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty--unlike a certain other ideology that believes the opposite.

[Guest Warwick Green]

August1991:

To me, the Right (in Canada) essentially means that government should spend less, be smaller, be less intrusive. Government should concentrate more on doing what it can do, and leave to others what it obviously can't do. Our federal government has tried to do things it can never do, and has ignored to do the things it should be doing.

I realize that there are, for example, fiscal and social conservatives, as well as others who are conservative. But I think all can unite under the basic principle of less government.

Am I wrong?

No, you are right. In general, your first 2 sentences summed up what unites the right in Canada.

I'd maybe add that the right:

1) generally sees the value of having a credible military--to deter its outer enemies.

2) generally believes in strong law enforcement--to deter its inner enemies.

3) generally believe in protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty--unlike a certain other ideology that believes the opposite.

And after that it's a dog's breakfast. The right ranges from libertarianism to people like the late umlamented Larry Spencer who wants to throw gays in prison.

[lost&outofcontrol]

I said socialist, not communist . The NDP are seen as really, really far left. The Liberals are moderately left, definitely to the left of centre. Even the CPC is only 'marginally' right wing.

The NDP is definitely not communist. The NDP is a center left party with a small but vocal socialist contingent . I don't think you actually know the difference between a socialist and a communist(Marxist or Leninist). A socialist will work within the present system to establish a socialist state while lets say a Leninist will advocate revolution by a small group of professional revolutionaries and a Marxist will advocate revolution by the working class as a democratic and non violent process.

There's a whole lot of ideologies past the NDP on the left.

The more you know

[Montgomery Burns]

Lost&outofcontrol:

The NDP is definitely not communist.

True.

The NDP is a center left party...

I disagree. Jack Layton is on the record stating that he prefers to be called a socialist rather than a social democrat (I've posted the exact quote on this forum in the past). It's socialists who rail against "for-profit" entities.

...with a small but vocal contingent socialist group.

I don't consider the MSM to be small.

[lost&outofcontrol]

The socialist caucus is a small part of the NDP which steers them towards the left on certain issues like health care and nationalisation. But it's still a capitalistic party that has recently been moving towards the center.

I posted the information above to correct a common misconception people on this board have. But what really burns me is that certain people use certain ideologies people have as way to attack them, they use it as a derogatory term. Just because someone may be a commie might not mean he wants government to take away your rights just like being a fascist may not necessarily be a bad thing(Nazism is a completely different bag).

[geoffrey]

Any party that wants to take more of my money and give it to social programs that are already bloated can be shown the door.

Another unifying part of the right.

[August1991]

Interesting read, in an American context:

The modern Reagan Republican Party, the modern conservative movement, if you want to know what it’s going to do … imagine a table and around it are all different groups. And on the issue that brings them to politics, not on everything, but the issue that moves their vote, what they want from the government is to be left alone. Taxpayers -- I run Americans for Tax Reform -- don’t raise my taxes. The Second Amendment community -- I’m on the board of the National Rifle Association -- leave our guns alone. Four million members of the NRA, five million guys with concealed-carry … they don’t go knocking on doors saying you should own guns; they don’t insist public schools teach books with titles like Heather Has Two Hunters. They just … leave us alone and we’re happy. The home-schooling movement, now about two million students, maybe 600,000 parents; the property-rights movement, particularly strengthened after Kelo; the business community that doesn’t want subsidies, they just want to not be taxed and not regulated. The guys who are in Washington asking for checks are not part of the coalition.

American Prospect

In Canada, change the references above from "government" to "federal government" and it works better.