The Shotgun Blog
« Numerical Notation of Dates | Main | Same-sex marriage »
Friday, February 04, 2005
"We are not social conservatives, and this party is not the party of social conservatives."
Trevor Lautens, columnist for the North Shore News, reports that self-described supporters of North Vancouver-Seymour B.C. Liberal MLA Dan Jarvis used a "stop the so-cons" appeal to help the politician in his recently successful renomination bid.
Mr. Lautens' column quotes the from the "Friends of Dan Jarvis" letter, dated January 7, as follows:
"Our party's constitution champions a belief in the equality, freedom and dignity of each British Columbian, and a belief that it is the responsibility of government to promote the general well-being of the people by enacting legislation which reflects the will of the people."
"This simple creed means that we fight for an inclusive, fair minded and tolerant British Columbia. Dan has always fought for these values on our behalf. . .."
"We are not social conservatives, and this party is not the party of social conservatives. No one should vote in this nomination without knowing that:
- Cindy Silver has advanced socially conservative positions in Canadian courts as a staff lawyer with Focus on the Family and as Executive Director of the Christian Legal Fellowship of Canada and acted in a number of court cases for pro-family interveners, including REAL Women.
- She has acted for organizations opposing the extension of equality rights to gays and lesbians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "- When the Surrey school board decided not to approve the use of books about same-sex parenting, Ms. Silver acted for interveners supporting the Surrey school board's position. " ... .."
".We urge you to support Dan Jarvis. Never has your vote been more important."
I myself can only hope that Mr. Jarvis, assuming this isn't some kind of ham-handed hoax, would want to distance himself from the views of such "liberal" "friends".
Posted by Rick Hiebert on February 4, 2005 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83470381a69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "We are not social conservatives, and this party is not the party of social conservatives.":
Comments
Makes sense to me.
The alternative, "We are a party of social conservatives" will ensure that the CPC is defeated regularly for the next "n" elections where "n" is the number of elections it takes the party to realize that social conservativism is a spent force in Canadian politics.
It is quite possible to take a fiscally conservative, hawkish position and still be libertarian in matters of social policy. Possible and, I suspect, rather more electorally attractive than blathering on about how letting Bruce and Tom marry will some how destroy marriage as we know it.
Posted by: Jay Currie | 2005-02-05 1:32:00 PM
Let's agree to disagree.
I wonder what Chris Delaney is up to these days. :)
Posted by: Rick Hiebert | 2005-02-05 4:00:44 PM
Damn straight, Jay! Having millions of religious supporters is a liability no party can afford in a democracy. Better ridicule their beliefs, advocate policies they will never support and drive them out now before they can cost the CPC another election.
It's simple arithmetic, just as easy (and accurate) as one of Michael Wilson's deficit forecasts. The Conservative Party of Canada needs more votes; therefore it should alienate one of its core constituencies. Got it? Less is more: fewer Conservative voters, more Conservative votes. Once the evil SoCons are banished, thousands upon thousands of venal Ontario and Quebec voters will flock to the CPC's standard despite supporting the Liberals even in the last election. They really wanted to vote Conservative and were only deterred by the presence of the SoCons.
It's not that, so much of the time, there's no daylight between the CPC and Liberal positions and the voters choose the real Liberals. No, it's the SoCons.
It's not that the CPC refuses to stand its ground and fight for conservative principles when confronted with the disapproval of the CBC and Globe and Mail. No, it's the SoCons.
Bedrock beliefs are scary, after all. It's so much more comforting to vote for those who believe in nothing, like the Liberals, or who are merely spineless, like most of the Conservatives.
Posted by: Charles MacDonald | 2005-02-05 4:37:17 PM
I'm not a so-con, but I am astonished at the continuing admonition to create a one party state in Canada. I think that the people that keep suggesting that the so-cons aren't acceptable in the Conservative party are 5th columnists. They want a Liberal lite party competing with the real thing, ensuring that no matter who forms the government, the result will be the same. The business and political elite will benefit as they can easily work with either party.
Norman mentioned in his press review today that Coyne talked about a time when conservatives were the party of ideas. It looks like the pursuit of power may be as corrupting as the possession of it.
Posted by: Jeff Eirich | 2005-02-05 7:23:42 PM
Jay,
Perhaps deliberately, you've misinterpreted Jarvis' comments; they were about the BC Liberal Party, not the CPC.
There are plenty of so-cons in the BC Liberal Party as there were in BC Social Credit. As Chrarles MacDnald notes, a Party would have to be nuts to give up an important constituency.
What Charles and others should look into, however, is how over the years these people were consistent winners. And how, when they were taken over by Bill VanderZalm, they became losers.
Nationally, Conservatives have rarely been winners and, on the few occasions when they've formed government, it's ended in tears. There are lessons to be learned from this history too, but it's not the lesson that you've served up.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-02-05 11:08:46 PM
Yes, this is about the B.C. Liberal party in particular, but the Conservatives have so-cons in their coalition too.
For the time being, anyway.
Posted by: Rick Hiebert | 2005-02-06 11:18:24 AM
Rick,
And it will be their decision whether the Liberals are to govern in perpetuity.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-02-06 11:29:32 AM
This story has a touch more nuance than you seem to give it credit, Jeff and Charles.
You make it sound as though the option is either the Party advocates social conservatism or it is slavishly trying to get votes or power for its own sake. Coyne's comment that, once upon a time, the Conservatives were known as a party of principle leaves open the question about what principles it ought to be advocating.
Conservatives, near as I can tell, have generally aligned over economic issues, not social ones (although, obviously, there are cases and cases and plenty of exceptions). No one is saying Conservatives should abandon principle, they're just saying that the principles it should advocate should have everything to do with liberty, and very little to do with who we should be sleeping with, what to do on a Sunday, how to raise children, and what sort of relationships we should be having.
And whatever else liberty might be, it is a principle.
Posted by: Peter M. Jaworski | 2005-02-06 4:43:12 PM
Liberty! Who in the Conservative party is using that word? Steven Fletcher worked with the guy from the NDP to ban trans-fats.
In my view, liberty and social conservatism are quite compatible. Social conservatism emphasises family and faith, not government as the key to a society's strength. Our laws on marriage come from the same source as our laws against murder.
Undermine marriage, and everything else will be open to question i.e. assisted suicide.
Posted by: Jeff Eirich | 2005-02-06 7:07:54 PM
Jeff: No doubt, you're right about the liberty bit--no one in the Conservative Party has made use of that word. Although I do hear it every once ina blue moon when it comes to economics. Regardless, my point was to suggest that there was an alternative principle that they could espouse. But don't.
Liberty and social conservatism are compatible if you don't want the government involved in doing anything other than, in this case, upholding contracts between consenting adults. Otherwise, they probably won't be.
But then you say this: "Social conservatism emphasises family and faith, not government as the key to a society's strength. Our laws on marriage come from the same source as our laws against murder."
In a superficial sense, sure--the government has something to do with both. I imagine you mean something a little more profound than that. Right?
"Undermine marriage, and everything else will be open to question i.e. assisted suicide"
Nonsense. It doesn't open everything to question. If anything, only those things which have some conceptual, legal, or cultural link to marriage are open to that sort of skepticism. It's difficult to see why undermining marriage would somehow lead to us rethinking assisted suicide (which we should, but for reasons separate from anything to do with marriage).
And just to be clear about this, I disagree that allowing gay marriage would undermine the institution of marriage. I'd like to see divorce rates amongst the congregation of the United Church in Toronto and elsewhere (where they allow gay marriage), as compared to, say, the holy Elvis Presley chapel in Las Vegas...
Posted by: P. M. Jaworski | 2005-02-06 7:56:34 PM
Peter wrote:
"they're just saying that the principles it should advocate should have everything to do with liberty"
Eh? Like his cousin the liberal, the libertarian prostrates himself before the altar of liberty. The conservative, on the other hand, follows tradition and favours ordered freedom. When individual liberty becomes personal license, when the duties that give meaning to our rights are disregarded, what kind of principle are we left with? The rule of radical individualism, no doubt.
On a related note, Edward C. Feser at The Conservative Philosopher has an interesting post on the growing split between libertarians and conservatives over the importance of family structure.
http://theconservativephilosopher.blogspot.com/2005/01/essence-of-conservatism-ecf-it-is.html
Posted by: Clement Ng | 2005-02-06 8:02:36 PM
The liberal is the cousin of the libertarian? An interesting assertion. Of course, one can argue that the conservative is the liberal's cousin as well, especially when the conservative agrees with the liberal that the state should be used for societal engineering. Then the only difference between the two is the desired result. Different ends, same means. I'll take life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness any day.
Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2005-02-06 9:09:57 PM
Michael wrote:
"The liberal is the cousin of the libertarian?"
Distant cousins, I should have added. The liberal pays his respects before the altar of liberty far less often than the libertarian does. Sorta of like a lapsed Catholic (without the guilt!). The liberal is rather confused, preaching social freedom but not economic freedom. Libertarians are much more consistent in this regard, we can all admit.
Do conservatives want the state to "socially engineer" outcomes? Consider the statement of intent of the American Public Philosophy Institute, an think-tank consisting of natural law conservatives.
http://www.marquette.edu/polisci/wolfe/american_public_philosophy_insti.htm
Regarding Burkean conservatism, consider Russell Kirk's six canons of conservative thought.
http://theconservativephilosopher.blogspot.com/2005/02/your-mission-should-you-choose-to.html
Do either of these come accross as the hidden manifesto of closet social engineers? Of course, practice is never the same as theory. Perhaps this is what Micheal was getting at.
Posted by: Clement Ng | 2005-02-06 11:08:31 PM
Peter
To the best of my knowledge, Coyne has never been elected, or run for public office.
That's the great thing about being a pundit--one has all the answers to even the most difficult problems, and one is never held accountable.
So-cons have a key role in the coalition. Like everyone else, they must compromise. Those who can't, like a certain writer of the stature of Mark Steyn who thinks Canada is a half-assed country and that politics is about saving souls, will likely take their ball and leave the playground.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-02-06 11:25:58 PM
Clement took issue with what I had to say like this: "Eh? Like his cousin the liberal, the libertarian prostrates himself before the altar of liberty."
Michael took care of this confusion by illustrating that the liberal hardly prostrates himself at that altar at all. In fact, says Michael, the liberal has more in common with the conservative than she does the libertarian. After all, both would make use of the state to push their 'ideals'--they just differ on the ideals.
Then Clement pulls out this gem: "The conservative, on the other hand, follows tradition and favours ordered freedom."
"Ordered freedom"? Does that strike anyone else as either an oxymoron, or a straw man? The point libertarians get at is that social institutions, like economic ones, are self-regulating. That means that they order themselves without the help of Paul Martin's and Grant Hill's and the HRDC. Unless, of course, you think your traditions so fickle as to require guns for their defence. I tend to have a lot more respect for the staying power of traditions and institutions.
Where the environmentalist views the environment as a fragile, fickle, and tender thing requiring command & control policies for its preservation, so the conservative, a close cousin, views social institutions and traditions as fragile, fickle, and tender things requiring command & control policies for their preservation. Neither the environment, nor social institutions, require the mobilization of bureaucracy for their defence. They'll both do fine without histrionics.
Clement goes on with: "When individual liberty becomes personal license, when the duties that give meaning to our rights are disregarded, what kind of principle are we left with? The rule of radical individualism, no doubt."
It's good of you to point this out. Indeed, when individual liberty becomes personal licence, we are in a heap of trouble. But it is so unlikely to come to pass as to be not worth much time to take seriously. And, of course, "radical individualism" does not lead to the discarding of duties, only the notion that, in order for duties to be legitimate, they have to be accepted by the person in question. But that's neither here nor there, since I'm not much of an individualist anyways.
Posted by: P. M. Jaworski | 2005-02-07 4:32:18 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.