News   Aug 23, 2024
 1.2K     0 
News   Aug 23, 2024
 1.8K     4 
News   Aug 23, 2024
 546     0 

Panic sweeps latte land

B

blixa442

Guest
Panic sweeps latte land
By MARGARET WENTE

Thursday, January 19, 2006 Posted at 3:55 AM EST

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail


My girlfriends are beside themselves. Stephen Harper and his barbarian horde are about to conquer Canada and sack it. My friends are convinced he'll rule like a cross between the Taliban and George Bush. If he has his way, he'll repeal gay marriage, lock up the homeless, and throw orphans onto the streets. He'll send our soldiers to fight in imperialist foreign wars, and allow the Arctic ice to melt. That kinder, gentler remake? It doesn't fool them for a second.

"The very concept of Stephen Harper is impossible," said a distraught e-mail I got the other day. "We will be the laughingstock of the world. Pro-Bush, pro-military, anti-environment, Christian Reformer for a prime minister?"

Here in latte land, the panic has reached a fever pitch. "Mr. Harper's policies are not just a threat to Canada, but to the world," said environmentalist Elizabeth May the other day, with tears in her eyes. Barbara Cameron, a York University professor, warned that a Tory government would be able to "hobble permanently the capacity of the federal government to act for the social welfare of Canadians."

To be fair, my Harper-allergenic friends aren't all women. A lot of men are also wondering where they can hide until the Liberals reinvent themselves and the barbarians are beaten back.

"Can you say anything in this final week?" pleaded my distraught e-mail friend. Yes, I can: Get a grip.

When last I looked, we lived in a democracy. This means the government requires the consent of the governed and, if the governed feel they have been vandalized, they will throw out the rascals -- just as they are doing now.

Mr. Harper is no barbarian. He is a smart, strategic thinker who knows that government must reflect the public will. Last spring, he gave a speech to the Fraser Institute, where he responded to a Mike Harris-Preston Manning plan for sweeping policy reform. Two-tier medicine, he told them, is not on. That's because, as he correctly pointed out, most Canadians don't want anything to do with it.

Mr. Harper is a deep-blue Tory in the sense that he believes people can spend their own money more wisely than governments can. This message is connecting with middle-class voters -- "people who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules," as he likes to say -- whose disposable income hasn't increased even though the economy has boomed. He wants to redirect resources from service providers (e.g., bureaucrats and daycare workers) to consumers (e.g., parents). This strikes fear into the hearts of service providers. But it strikes a lot of other people as a good idea.

Mr. Harper is guilty of being a Christian. But he's no theo-con. From the dawn of Reform, he has warned that letting socially conservative issues dominate the agenda would be a recipe for political disaster. People who claim he'll reopen the abortion debate are just blowing smoke. "I would use whatever influence I had to keep that off the agenda," he said this week, for about the zillionth time. In other words, any private member's bill on abortion would go nowhere, just as all the previous ones (some of them introduced by Liberals) have done. The same is true for efforts to repeal gay marriage. Mr. Harper would prefer civil unions. But gay marriage is the law of the land, and likely to remain so.

Would he be pro-Bush? Well, I guess so, if that means you stop poking your biggest ally in the eye. Pro-military? Yes, if that means buying equipment for soldiers that doesn't fall apart. Anti-environment? Mr. Harper says he'll clean up Saint John Harbour. That would do more for our environment than our Kyoto bureaucrats have done.

The reforms Mr. Harper has in mind won't turn us into a mini-United States. Instead, we might start looking more like Britain (where private contractors have been brought in to manage poorly performing public hospitals) and Australia (which is trying to change the dependency culture of its aboriginal underclass).

Mr. Harper aims to undo the culture of entitlement and special interest groups and chart a dramatically new course for Canada. Maybe you think that's a bad thing. Or maybe you think it's about time.
 
In typical Wente fashion, I agree with the spirit of the opinion. The irony is that her reliance on stereotype, assumed truths and sheer arogance make her just as bad as the hysterical "Latte" friends she describes.
 
The same is true for efforts to repeal gay marriage. Mr. Harper would prefer civil unions. But gay marriage is the law of the land, and likely to remain so.

Sorry, if you ask Harper, gay marriage isn't the law of the land ad aeternum - otherwise, why would he reopen the issue in the first place?

AoD
 
Harper's remarks a few days ago about the judiciary, the senate and the public service being dominated by Liberals smacked of paranoia. While he can't do anything about the first two, a Conservative government could easily rearrange things in the PS to suit their interests.

One of Harper's campaign managers worked with the Bush campaign in 2000 and 2004, and there are a number of Christian organizations that are working on behalf of the Conservatives because of its social conservative agenda.

I don't doubt that there exists a "social-conservative agenda" of the Conservative party. And while the press has been merrily prediciting the demise of the Liberal party for the past two weeks, they have missed the story of of the Conservatives who are now preaching "the middle of the road" attitude in order to draw more centrist voters. Just look at how the Conservatives are promising to fulfill so much of the Liberal policy agenda. The strange thing is that so few people find this this ironic. The Conservatives have discovered that the way to get elected is to look like most of the population in terms of political outlook: politically centrist. So the question is have they sold out their conservative agenda, or are they hijacking some of the the Liberal's political territory in order to get elected, and then possibly push for their more right-wing policies?
 
So the question is have they sold out their conservative agenda, or are they hijacking some of the the Liberal's political territory in order to get elected, and then possibly push for their more right-wing policies?

I would say just look at past precedents to get an idea of what might likely happen. In 2000 and 2004 Bush won (you could debate the 2000 results, but for simplicity, lets just say he won) by courting the Christian Fundamentalist voters. His strongest support was by far in the bible belt states, also, in the majority of states that are the poorest in the country. The campaign was very similair. Appear to appeal to a more 'centrist' crowd, nice targeted messages for various groups, take a few pages from the Democratic play book. Yet when in office, what group has seen the majority, if not all of the benefit of his policies? The upper class, business elite. The poor are poorer and the country is in worse shape economically than it was when he first went into office. Yet so may people seem surprised by this change of course. If you actually looked at who was going to make up his appointments and looked at their past records, plus Bush's own past record and what priorities he has had, it should be of absolutely no surprise that he has governed the way he has.

I tend to think this way about Harper. Yes, he has 'appeared' to be more centrist this campaign. But, if you look at old Reform/Alliance ideology, Harpers views and thoughts in old newspaper articles, the opinions of groups such as the National Citizens Council (which Harper was heavily involved with), I cant see much reason to think that these views are still not lying there underneath, simply being surpressed until the election is over. Even if you look at his proposed platform, many of the items on it reflect the past views of the Alliance et al. Senate Reform, killing Kyoto, less government, lower taxes, reduced funding to social programs, more highways and less investment in transit, and increased financial autonomy. The west is giddy right now because they know exactly what they are getting from Harper and all the promises that the Reform offered them, but was never able to deliver because it was largely a regional party, is now going to happen.

I dont think they have sold out their conservative agenda at all. Rather they have just found a campaign manager has done a great job at selling a centrist party image.
 
I dont think they have sold out their conservative agenda at all. Rather they have just found a campaign manager has done a great job at selling a centrist party image

I would agree completely. If they score a majority, I am sure we will be seeing the more socially conservative elements reappear much more quickly.
 
I agree that a majority Conservative government would open up the doors to more socially conservative policies.

The fact is, Canada as a whole does not follow a conservative agenda. People are only voting Conservative this time because the see the Liberals as "corrupt". It is easy to just swing to the other major party when they see something they dont like. The vast majority of people arent taking the time to consider what they are really voting for and what the implications could be. People have very short memories and cant remember what past Conservative governments have been like. The Liberals have been in power for 60% of this history of Canada (about 80% of the past 100 years) for a reason - it really is the party that represents Canadian values. The few Conservative governments have been inbetween long running Liberal majorities. We were bound to get another Conservative government just as a flushing out of the old Liberals before a new batch can come in. After a year and a half (of Con minority) or 4 years (Con majority) we will likely go back to successive Liberal majorities again.
 
After a year and a half (of Con minority) or 4 years (Con majority) we will likely go back to successive Liberal majorities again.

It depends.

I'm not so sure the Conservatives would run wild with an ultra right wing social conservative agenda even if they get a majority. There are many moderates in the party who would like the Conservatives to be longterm stiff opposition for the Liberals. If they show Canadians that they are radicals, then they go back to square one and we go back to the default Liberals governing without a serious opposition.

Though I'm no fan of the Conservative Party, I'm glad to see them making inroads and finally providing opposition to the Grits. That they will likely pick up a few seats in Quebec makes me optimisitic as well. Federalists in Quebec and soft nationalists finally have an alternative and the Conservatives have truly become a national party. Basically, I think we're heading in the right direction... back to where we should be... where we were before the Reform split off. I think the Liberal years were good years but they were without any real opposition for too long.
 
Realistically, a Conservative/Bloc partnership could easily yield much of what the core of the Conservative Party want done in as little as 18 months in terms of devolution of powers. They may not be able to get the Bloc to agree to regressive social policy, but that might be irrelevent. I can easily imagine a Conservative government that doesn't really care about re-election. Getting booted out of office is a small price to pay to gut the federal government.
 
One wonders if a minority can become a majority through party defections; y'know, enough surviving Liberals jumping ship according to their true colours/where the power is. (Leaving aside any private member's bills aimed at preventing blithe party defection antics...)
 
I'm not so sure the Conservatives would run wild with an ultra right wing social conservative agenda even if they get a majority.

Everyone knows that social conservatism is a dead end in this country. Quite frankly it's a political suicide and the Tories aren't stupid to fall into this trap.

That said, Martin is being profoundly hypocritical with his over the top fear-mongering. There are many Liberals who oppose SSM & abortion, just like there are many Conservatives who are pro-SSM & abortion. Trying to portray this as the exclusive domain of the Tory party is a pure lie fabricated out of desperation.
 
My girlfriends are beside themselves. Stephen Harper and his barbarian horde are about to conquer Canada and sack it. My friends are convinced he'll rule like a cross between the Taliban and George Bush. If he has his way, he'll repeal gay marriage, lock up the homeless, and throw orphans onto the streets. He'll send our soldiers to fight in imperialist foreign wars, and allow the Arctic ice to melt. That kinder, gentler remake? It doesn't fool them for a second.

"Mr. Harper's policies are not just a threat to Canada, but to the world,"

It's these kind of quotes that make people actually sympthasize Harper after seeing what wackos some of his opponents are. I'm no fan of the Conservatives however painting a picture of Harper as a nazi is laughable. My concern isn't that the Conservatives round up all the homeless, orphans and homosexuals and get rid of them - anybody with half a brain knows that will never happen. I am more worried about the party's lack of concern over urban issues, transit in big cities, etc. I am also unimpressed on how vague Harper was when asked about Canada's Healthcare act; his responsive was simply "we'll improve it" but he failed to mention the details on what he will do to make it work better. All in all, the opponents of the Conservative Party should focus more on these issues instead of trying to play the Nazi card since most people, like myself, don't buy it anymore and will get turned off.
 

Back
Top