The Shotgun Blog
« Just in from Tehran | Main | Bob Bexon RIP »
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Stephen "the minority government made me do it" Harper
In his latest column, John Williamson with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation writes “it is no contest between the Harper government's spending and that of Mr. Chrétien's government. The Grits exercised greater fiscal discipline.”
You can read John Williamson’s column here, but let me ask Shotgun readers a few questions:
Is the minority government situation really responsibly for this out-of-control Conservative spending?
Are Conservative partisans – volunteers, staffers, candidates, donors, bloggers – happy with their party’s performance, and, if so, why?
If the Conservatives are going to give us bigger and more intrusive government than the Liberals, why not take a chance on the Libertarian Party?
Posted by Matthew Johnston on July 19, 2008 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e553ab355a8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stephen "the minority government made me do it" Harper:
Comments
Because the Libertarian Party has some serious priority problems, like defending drug dealers and criminals over the rights of decent citizens. They'd surrender Afghanistan to the terrorists too.
What's the difference between them and the Liebral - NDP - Green Party? Not much.
Harper's been running the best government in decades. He actually makes decisions and stands by them. I'm willing to put up with that.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-19 9:46:08 AM
Zebulon Pike -- your definition of "the best government in decades" includes the biggest spending government in decades. Should I assume that your vision of conservatism does not hold limited government and fiscal restraint as a high priority?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-19 9:53:16 AM
I don't believe that Harper has not upheld the concepts of limited government and fiscal restraint. When one is in government, one allocates resources to benefit the population. He's rebuilding the military after a 20 year drought - a massive effort if ever there was one. He resolved softwood lumber, which the Liebral Party said couldn't be done.
Instead, focus on what he is not doing. He is not handing over unlimited sums of tax money over to Russia and other countries as part of the Kyoto Accord. I wish he would abandon his other efforts but he has to do something to prevent the Liebral/NDP/Green Coalition from winning that debate. It'll be worth it in the end.
There are things of which I am critical - like Arctic "security" for one. There's no threat up there. But on the whole, he has done a remarkable job. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-19 10:20:38 AM
I agree with Zebulon on this issue.I also think that if Stephen Harper had a majority government he would be able to move faster on a lot of important issues that "little brothers" Jack & Stephane continually try to block. At least the Harper government calls my home from time to time asking for donations, which is better than stealing it.
Posted by: glen | 2008-07-19 10:38:12 AM
Since Harper seized power in January 2006 Canada has welcomed a million immigrants, three percent of our population. This is in addition to natural population growth, giving us the highest population growth rate among G8 countries. While the official number of immigrants is 250,000 per year, that number reflects approved applications, which are backlogged to nearly a million, rather than actual bodies. The real number is over 400,000 a year.
While spending under Harper has increased at a 7% annual clip, his critics fail to mention that the population has grown ~4% in that time, necessitating more social spending, transfer payments, equalization, etc. Combined with an aging population, an increasing percentage of immigrants who cost the system $18 billion a year at last count (Fraser Institute, 2006), restoring military spending, and unavoidable one time payments such as Native Residential Abuse claims, the 7% number is not objectionable and represents closer to 3% real spending growth. You each owe me twelve dollars for making me explain this to you.
Canada did not cut spending in the mid-90s in a vacuum but as part of a worldwide belt tightening among developed countries, the Gramm-Rudman days. Public spending as % of GDP was higher back then and we were in deficit. The comparisons of that majority government to today’s minority government are not intelligent.
The GST cut was twelve billion dollars, a good 5% of government revenue. That’s something the Liberals would not have done, and would likely reverse. The standard to which Harper’s government should be compared is not the mid-90s Liberals, but today’s Liberals, led by a Marxist sociology professor who has promised over $25 billion in new social spending.
State run daycare pegged at 1% of GDP (Liberal Pink Book).
I as a taxpayer want no part of that and question the sanity and/or character of any individual who would not vote for the only other party that can stop that encroachment on liberty and reasonably form a government: the CPC.
Harper did not campaign on a platform to radically or even moderately cut the state and has no mandate for the politically suicidal policies his critics –curiously and invariably from the social liberal wing of the CPC – would foist upon him in a precarious minority situation. He is running a clean, competent, and disciplined government that makes those of us who back him look good. He is doing what he said he would do, and doing it well.
The Conservatives received 35% of the vote under perfect storm circumstances and will be lucky to do so again, it says here. Why you libertarian clowns want to bail on him in favour of the grotesquely etatist Liberals and their looming $25 billion in new spending is for you to explain.
Posted by: Mocker | 2008-07-19 10:43:25 AM
A Canadian friend of mine asked me the other day "Who's the Prime Minister of Canada?" I replied "It's not important." That says a lot of the standards of Canadian politics.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-19 10:50:23 AM
"Why you libertarian clowns want to bail on him in favour of the grotesquely etatist Liberals and their looming $25 billion in new spending is for you to explain."
Nobody yet on this thread has suggested conservatives bail on the Conservatives and go the Liberals.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-19 11:03:35 AM
Why not go with the Libertarians? Because then they might win .6% of the vote instead of .5% and cost the Tories a few seats.
Also, I'd say that a straight-up spending comparison isn't a fair basis for comparison here. First because, as Zebulon pointed out, a notable chunk of new spending has been sorely-needed military spending and also because we ought to consider what the impact of energy costs is on an organization like the Federal Government, which spends a lot of money on fuel.
I don't agree with a lot of how things have gone. I'd have been far more aggressive than Harper - and I think we should have already had a second election to capitalize on Mme. Dion's obvious weaknesses. But, that being said, there's no serious alternative.
Indeed, I would suggest that the defection of smart and capable people to the Libertarian Party or other splinter parties actually results in society as a whole moving leftwards since, free of the direct influence of those people, it's almost always easier for a rightish government to move to the centre-left in order to attract votes than it is to win by solidifying the support of dissident conservatives.
Not the political strategy that I favour, but an obvious one nonetheless.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-07-19 11:18:49 AM
Now that Iraq is safer than Afghanistan, should Mr. Harper redeploy the army there?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-19 12:32:33 PM
Give Harper a break! The Conservative Partyis outnumbered in parliment by three leftwing social democratic parties(including the Liberals). It seems that on foreign policy and economics that he is to the right of Mulroney, Joe Clark, and Diefenbaker. However, some of his economic plans are inhibited by the fact that he holds a minority of seats. I also would put him to the right of Mulroney and Clark on gun rights and criminal law issues. Mulroney supported gun control legislation while Harper has supported tougher sentencing and ending the gun registry. Also, he has supported prosecuting men who attack pregnant women and kill the unborn child. Look I will admit that I have my issues with the Conservatives. I wish they would come out for reinstating the death penalty. I would be thrilled if they would push pro-life legislation(something that Harper has opposed). I think that it would be great if they passed a law(like in Australia, Italy, the united States, and now Britain) where if someone invades your house then you have the right to use deadly force without being prosecuted. Finally, I would be thrilled if the party more aggressively challenged homosexual activists. So, I don't think the Conservatives are perfect but they are the best around. P.S. Libertarianism like socialism are unrealistic ideologies that fail to take into account human behavior.
Posted by: ken johnson | 2008-07-19 3:10:14 PM
Despite a minority government, it has been correctly pointed out that Harper has been able to achieve his defence and foreign policy objectives. Why? Presumably because military spending and Afghanistan are important to him.
It would seem, then, that his failure to achieve fiscal conservative objectives has little to do with the minority government situation and more to do with the fact that these objectives are less important to him.
Can we agree on that?
If we can, I would suggest that this is a bad move as a successful conservative coalition has three constituencies: fiscal conservatives (libertarians), social conservatives and foreign policy hawks. As far as I can tell, Harper has only one part of a three part coalition.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-19 3:32:15 PM
At the very, very worst, Harper is acting like a premier of Alberta. So you could say many of us are used to it. So long as he keeps running surpluses, he'll do fine.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-19 4:02:24 PM
"At the very, very worst, Harper is acting like a premier of Alberta."
Please tell me things aren't that bad.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-19 4:07:44 PM
If anything's wrong, it's that Alberta's doing too well. Yes there are labor and housing shortages, but people will learn to cope. However, that could all change if Kyoto were imposed. Be grateful for that. Some of us remember the first NEP. Never again.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-19 4:11:54 PM
John Williamson, what does he know? He's another opinionated little twit who can't seem to grasp the fact a Minority government can't impose it's will without all the Oppositions say so.
This government is in a different situation, the Liberals are not ready in any way for an election the rest are playing chicken while Harper is doing the best job in decades of taking care of our affairs.
If there's anything this country DOESN'T need it's Libertarianism, perish the thought!
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-07-19 6:53:26 PM
ZP wrote: “Because the Libertarian Party has some serious priority problems, like defending drug dealers and criminals over the rights of decent citizens.”
ZP, while I don’t want to turn this thread into another drug policy discussion, a very good argument can be made that while drug use hurts the individual drug user, drug prohibition hurts everyone, including the decent citizens you’re rightly concerned about.
In fact, I’ll add Harper’s $64 million anti-drug initiative to my list of reasons for being disappointed with his administration.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-19 7:04:13 PM
Liz J wrote: “John Williamson, what does he know? He's another opinionated little twit who can't seem to grasp the fact a minority government can't impose it's will without all the Oppositions say so.”
Well first, Liz J, John Williamson is the national director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and very qualified to discuss Harper’s fiscal record.
Second, Williamson does grasp that Harper has a minority government. Here’s what he writes about that:
“Perhaps this judgment is unfair since Mr. Chrétien governed with a House of Commons majority and Stephen Harper does not. So how does the Prime Minister match up with Mr. Martin, another minority leader? Mr. Martin's fiscal recklessness grew the size of government by 14% over two years. This certainly qualifies him as a big spending Liberal. The Conservatives have controlled the government purse strings since early 2006. After their first two years, Ottawa had grown another 14.8%. This is higher than Mr. Martin's appalling record, making Mr. Harper a bigger spending Conservative.”
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-19 7:16:11 PM
Glen wrote: “At least the Harper government calls my home from time to time asking for donations, which is better than stealing it.”
Well he isn’t financing the largest government in Canadian history with voluntary donations, Glen. :-)
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-19 7:41:36 PM
Ken Johnson wrote: “Libertarianism like socialism are unrealistic ideologies that fail to take into account human behaviour.”
Thanks for your comments, Ken. I think most libertarians are quite realistic about human behaviour and human nature. When it comes to politicians, libertarians subscribe to the Lord Action view that “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Those who believe in big government and social engineering tend also to believe in the perfectibility of man. Libertarians are under no such delusion.
Do you disagree with this?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-19 7:57:58 PM
The minority government situation is not really responsible for the out-of-control Conservative spending...chasing after votes instead of leading by principle is! Although I appreciate that balancing a minority situation is tenuous at best, I'm not sure we're accomplishing more by chasing after the votes by throwing the citizens' money back at them. I know that it just frosts me when I see this happening!!!!!!!
My observation is that Conservative partisans are not happy with their party's performance - volunteers appear to be dropping off, a large majority of staffers and former interns are no longer working on the hill, rumours of nominated candidates walking away from the party, donors unhappy with excessive spending (by the party and government), and bloggers have long been vocal about how the party has been moving away from true small "c" conservative values. Unless the party starts to rebuild the coalition of the fiscal and social conservatives, a majority government will not be possible.
Furthermore, I am continuously surprised by how much I hear volunteers complaining about the inability of both the party/government to effectively handle their messaging.
Most people would consider me much more practical than ideological...generally speaking I have subscribed to the theory that in any given election it is the furthest right and left-wing parties that aren't even seriously considered an option so people are left to fight (vote) over "the middle." Typically, this wouldn't bode well for the Libertarian Party.
However, if the Conservatives are going to give us a bigger and more intrusive government than the Liberals, these are the reasons I will finally consider voting for the Libertarian Party:
1) Smaller, limited government
2) Lower taxes
3) Free market principles; the market doesn't lie
4) If the Conservatives lose even a few seats to the Libertarian Party the Conservatives will have to take notice and heed their members/constituents, etc.
Just remember, although the Alberta Alliance didn't win more than 1 seat in the Leg during the 2004 election, they did provide about 6 election upsets in the Edmonton area in which PC candidates lost.
Posted by: libertybelle | 2008-07-19 10:12:23 PM
PM Stephen Harper is basically a Christian Liberal, He is Not a real Christian, or a Conservative
Posted by: paul | 2008-07-20 12:35:27 AM
"ZP, while I don’t want to turn this thread into another drug policy discussion, a very good argument can be made that while drug use hurts the individual drug user, drug prohibition hurts everyone, including the decent citizens you’re rightly concerned about".
Yes Matthew cocaine and heroin use kills people, what a silly argument to make that yes drugs hurt people, but prohibition hurts everyone?
Have you ever walked the streets of East Hastings in Vancouver and seen the misery that you want to license?
Yes it hurts Marc Emery and those who sell drugs. I have witneseed many lives destroyed by cocaine a very good friend of mine OD on coc.
You seem to think there is a safe way to use cocaine and that is utter BS.
Furthermore a party that stands with humanism and the idea that people are naturally good is not my party.
People are not naturally good at all and in fact quite the opposite.
Show me a single example of a stateless society that is thriving and at peace??? Please dont go back to the stone age or some tribe in the jungle.
The state is not the problem, it is the state of man born with sin that is the problem.
Your libertarian party will not change that.
Read Gorbochovs book on Perestroika as he thought man with the party could do good.
Working for the good of all-sorry did not work and look where Russia is today.
They are so imoral because they were raised on god-less communist ideology and now selling their woman on the streets of Moscow seems to be no problem.
Oh yes I forgot the Libertarian party would not stop the sale of woman as commodities would they.
The majority of child porn is now produced in the formeer eastern bloc, not the west. Why do you think that is?
I am staying with Harper.
Posted by: Merle | 2008-07-20 12:43:25 AM
Matthew, you're not showing a great deal of maturity or intelligence or honour in this thread. When I and others break one or two or three of your bad arguments, it's not an invitation to begin a brand new bad argument, but rather to argue at a higher level or STFU. You went on about the all-time highest spending thing, I successfully countered your argument, and you moved on to an even worse argument. Dripping with good faith, you are not. And I am seriously unimpressed with your logic.
I see you are on about the "largest government in history" again. Not true. Federal public spending as a percentage of GDP was higher in the early 90s and, as pointed out previously, our population is growing astronomically. Since you continue to make this bad faith argument after I took the time to explain Canada's demographics to you, it is fair and honest to mark you as a dishonest person, who people should not do business with. You are, beyond a reasonable doubt, a Liberal, given your unending attacks on the CPC even after your misconceptions have been proven wrong.
How old are you? I want to see a number. If I find out you are under 30, which is what you sound like, I'm gonna be pissed. In the future, try writing like I do: speak your mind in the active tense, unambiguously and maturely, with data and research. Your flamboyant, dramatic, and hysterical argumentation is hurting, rather than helping, your cause.
Posted by: Mocker | 2008-07-20 2:45:07 AM
I see a several people apologizing for Harper's excess of spending as something he is forced into: fact is he willingly promised by far the largest spending increases of all the parties to buy the last election. Despite posts above the military spending is the minority of this spending increase. It was his give-always to buy votes where the big bucks are being spent. I would also argue why he is spending more on the military, when the problem is not that we don't spend enough it is that we get such very poor value for our money due to the obsession with Canadian content. Then we waste what we have on adventures of questionable benefit.
He is also ruining so many young lives with his obsession against recreational drug use, more wasted money and more people forced into to a life of crime which we will all suffer from.
Harper used to work with some libertarians and indeed claimed at one time to be a classical liberal and has training as an economist so this is no accident. He should know better than to waste otter people's money and the fact he wastes more of it than even the NDP or the liberals shows it is not their pressure. It is his willingness to use the tried and true buy an election strategy instead of actually addressing the real problems.
It is Harper that is publicly against Kyoto but is so willing to destroy the oil sands industry with ill advised regulation to the same effect. Better the hypocrite Jean Teflon who agreed with Kyoto in public but in actuality did nothing about it (which is what we should do: nothing since there is no problem) than someone who is driving development out of the oil sands with policies of equal stupidity with no redeeming benefit other than being his personal idea.
He is lucky that he got such a bonus with the low spending that Chrétien has put in place, he and his party alone has squandered that legacy. As much as I disliked Chrétien he was a much better prime-minister than Harper has been, and Chrétien was a very tough act to be worse than.
I also note this excess of spending has been a Conservative party trait since the country was founded, Sir John A almost bankrupted the country at one time more efrectively than Truudeau, and all those who equate Conservatives with fiscal prudence are making a mistake we will all have to pay for.
Posted by: John Shaw | 2008-07-20 6:55:33 AM
Harper is also an Economist and he has the smarts to go with it.
He needs a Majority to really clear out the deadwood of decades of shameless Liberal patronage, ruling through condescending arrogance and lies to create dependency.
Chretien enabled the flood of millions of our tax dollars into Quebec to "buy" Quebecers without even a paper trail so he'd know nothing. He merrily concentrated on his golf ball collection as a defense at the ensuing Gomery Inquiry into the scam. Prior to that his reaction to the over forty million dollars of our money lost was something like "what's a few million to keep the country together"? That was an admission he was out to buy Quebec and they would not be bought.
After all of that, why the hell are we criticizing and badmouthing the very capable Prime Minister this country needs and is so fortunate to have at this time?
Time to stop all the negativity and be thankful we have the PM we have to wade through the maze left by the Liberals. The recent actions of Elections Canada is an example of the bureaucratic challenges this government has to deal with.
Let's not forget the smart ass twits and tired old Liberal toadies in the MSM as well.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-07-20 7:03:04 AM
There is no point in continuing the charade of this "left-right" paradigm. It's all about playing off Liberal supporters vs. Conservative supporters.
The Conservatives have a mixed ideology where they fool both the small-government people and the socially conservative people into supporting them (they tell the last group to shut up, which is kind of embarrassing. I can’t imagine being treated that way). They "have no choice" but to vote conservative.
I could not care less about the alleged differences between the Liberals and Conservatives.
Both parties:
*continued the war in Central Asia
*supported the anti-terrorism legislation, financial surveillance (fintrac.ca) and erosion of civil liberties (security certificates etc.)
*allow even citizens to be tortured
*do nothing about freedom of speech
*do nothing to decriminalize lifestyle - drugs, prostitution - the reason life is so terrible for some people is because these things are illegal and those involved have no protection or access to treatment
*continue to negotiate the destruction of Canada's sovereignty - the merging of the U.S., Canada and Mexico in secret negotiations at the executive level only - with no parliamentary representation - i.e. the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)
*never actually do anything about property rights
*show no concern about freedom and deregulating our society and they don't even have the guts to soften the horrible health care system
*they go along with the global warming agenda to one degree or another
*freedom-destroying legislation: Bill C-51 and C-61, plus roadside drug testing
ALL of the above parallels what is going on with the U.S. political parties - same scam is being directed at Americans. Same controls, same types of infringements on free expression, campaign fundraising etc. Same fake choice in the States: Obama vs. McCain.
I keep waiting to see the "secret" libertarian agenda that the Conservatives allegedly have - people must be closing their eyes and concentrating really hard to notice any signs of it.
This Liberal vs. Conservative nonsense is just a scam by the establishment and it's wearing really thin. Neither party is good enough for people who care about freedom. They're the same. It's a rip-off. It’s just a distraction while the establishment continues its agenda of disempowering Canadians.
There is no reason for people to support the Conservatives. If enough new people got involved in the Libertarian Party, we could start applying pressure and removing support from all these big-government socialist/corporatist interventionist parties: NDP, Liberals, Conservatives - across the spectrum.
Posted by: Alan Mercer | 2008-07-20 10:28:16 AM
Merle - I see the downtown east side of Vancouver everyday and have seen the misery that your politics have accomplished. You point to that problem and say "see, this is why prohibition is required" when it is under a system of prohibition that what we see exists.
...as for the comment of libertarians beleiving all men are good, I think Robert LeFevre said it best:
"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."
I don't think men are inherently good or evil, but supporting small government isn't a declaration that everyone is inherently good by any means.
It sounds to me like many of the "conservatives" we are hearing from are just as bleeding heart as the liberals. It's all a game of taking your neighbors money to spend it some way >you< feel will help your fellow man. I'm just asking that you stop stealing my cash and let me help how I see fit.
It's ironic that a conservative is comparing a libertarian to a communist. The kind of "conservatism" I see being talked about here is a little too pink for my liking.
Posted by: Jason Burrows | 2008-07-20 11:08:50 AM
Mocker wrote: "You went on about the all-time highest spending thing, I successfully countered your argument, and you moved on to an even worse argument. Dripping with good faith, you are not. And I am seriously unimpressed with your logic."
It was an excellent comment, Mocker, but you didn't really counter the point made by Williamson. All you did was provide a good explanation for why you think the Harper spending increases are reasonable.
This is where we disagree -- and I hope we can disagree politely.
If every new government "invests" in areas that were "neglected" by the previous government -- and leaves everything else more or less in place -- we are going to see bigger and bigger governments year after year.
Your argument that Harper had no choice but to spend more on social programs for immigrants and natives, doesn’t resonate with me. We elect Conservatives to shrink the size and scope of government, and it's just not happening.
And I’m sorry if you think I’m not making my case in good faith. I want to see government shrink (this is what I’m passionate about), and I believed that Harper was the best prospect we’ve seen, perhaps in Canadian history, to make that happen. But if the most libertarian-minded elected leader in the free world can’t (or won’t) reduce the size and scope of government, it makes me look for options.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-20 11:15:06 AM
Johnston is afraid of Mocker and is infinately intellectually inferior to Mocker's always "bang on" assessments.
Epsi
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-07-20 12:13:08 PM
Mocker is afraid of Johnston and is infinitely intellectually inferior to Johnston's always "bang on" assessments.
Ispe
Posted by: nolispe | 2008-07-20 12:33:05 PM
The staff and writers of the Standard need to understand that the days of taking uncontested cheap shots at Stephen Harper, Conservatives, and conservatives, are over.
Don't backtalk me with your childish excuses, such as you once wrote something nice about conservatives years ago, just admit what everybody can see on any given day here: you hate conservatives, and Conservatives, and Stephen Harper, and want to see them lose the next election.
Indeed, it would make you perversely elated if Harper - and McCain - were to lose by a few thousand votes to significantly more etatist individuals. You are actively campaigning to bleed support away from the CPC, and since the Liberals are the only other alternative, you are helping the Liberals get elected. That's you: big Liberal helper. Which makes you Liberals, no matter what weak excuses you offer.
I neither see nor feel any similar hatred toward Dion or the Liberals, who, I seem to need to remind you every few hours, have tens of billions in new social spending pledges.
I'd accuse you of being Straussians but that would give too much credit to your dishonesty. Just come out and say what is apparent in every nuance and every word: you hate conservatism - a lot. And to the extent you are fronting as a "conservative-libertarian" publication, in a country that desperately needs a proper conservative publication, I got a problem with that. A big problem with that. So I'll be keeping an eye on things here and if I see you get out of line, I'm going to rip your narrative to shreds, I promise you.
You talk about polite; well, there is nothing more impolite than a fifth columnist, and a super dishonest person who makes dishonest arguments and hides his true colours. It's no secret that some members of the LSS crew have openly talked about "taking over" the Conservative Party, which they view as too, um, conservative, and it's no secret that's what you are trying to do here. A real live fifth columnist, you are, so don't lecture me about politeness when you are so fundamentally dishonest.
I do regret that I need to defend conservatives and Conservatives so aggressively here at the Shotgun as I've got better things to do, but it's a job that needs to be done. No more uncontested cheap shots - I will expose you as the closet Liberals that you are. Let's go.
Posted by: Mocker | 2008-07-20 12:39:21 PM
Mocker wrote: “The staff and writers of the Standard need to understand that the days of taking uncontested cheap shots at Stephen Harper, Conservatives, and conservatives, are over.”
Pointing out that the Conservatives are less fiscally responsible than the Liberals is not a “cheap shot”. First, it is a fact, according to the CTF, a reliable source. Second, fiscal responsibility to central to conservative political values and should be discussed.
Mocker wrote: “Don't backtalk me with your childish excuses, such as you once wrote something nice about conservatives years ago, just admit what everybody can see on any given day here: you hate conservatives, and Conservatives, and Stephen Harper, and want to see them lose the next election.”
I don’t hate conservatives. I hate statist (and I’m not suggesting you’re a statist). I’ve written before about my views on the need for a socially conservative culture within the libertarian movement.
Mocker wrote: “Indeed, it would make you perversely elated if Harper - and McCain - were to lose by a few thousand votes to significantly more etatist individuals. You are actively campaigning to bleed support away from the CPC, and since the Liberals are the only other alternative, you are helping the Liberals get elected. That's you: big Liberal helper. Which makes you Liberals, no matter what weak excuses you offer.”
I’ve heard this argument before. When I joined the Reform Party in university, I was called a “big Liberal helper.” Thank goodness hundreds of thousands of freedom-loving people decided that conservative principles were more important than unconditional support for a political party that was conservative in name only.
Mocker wrote: “I neither see nor feel any similar hatred toward Dion or the Liberals, who, I seem to need to remind you every few hours, have tens of billions in new social spending pledges.”
I don’t mention Dion and Liberals because they are irrelevant to me. They offer the worst of everything and are not worth discussing here, in my mind. I want the debate here to always be between libertarians and conservatives, as both these intellectual traditions are valuable in creating a culture of liberty.
Mocker wrote: “I'd accuse you of being Straussians but that would give too much credit to your dishonesty.”
You’re suggesting my views are in line with the man considered to be the intellectual father of neo-conservatism? I’m sure the neo-conservatives on this site would take issue with that. I’m a pretty typical libertarian.
Mocker wrote: “Just come out and say what is apparent in every nuance and every word: you hate conservatism - a lot. And to the extent you are fronting as a "conservative-libertarian" publication, in a country that desperately needs a proper conservative publication, I got a problem with that. A big problem with that. So I'll be keeping an eye on things here and if I see you get out of line, I'm going to rip your narrative to shreds, I promise you.”
Well we agree on one thing: the country needs a libertarian-conservative publication, which the Western Standard has been from its inception. I’m also glad you intend to keep us honest. I just wish you weren’t so hostile.
Mocker wrote: “You talk about polite; well, there is nothing more impolite than a fifth columnist, and a super dishonest person who makes dishonest arguments and hides his true colours. It's no secret that some members of the LSS crew have openly talked about "taking over" the Conservative Party, which they view as too, um, conservative, and it's no secret that's what you are trying to do here. A real live fifth columnist, you are, so don't lecture me about politeness when you are so fundamentally dishonest.”
My views can be found in my posts. I’m a political libertarian and a cultural conservative. As for the LSS crew taking over the Conservative party, libertarians are trying to influence the Conservative party in the same way groups like CFAC, Real Women, NFA, CTF, Fraser Institute and many others are trying to influence the party.
You are critical of libertarians working within the Conservative party, and you are critical of libertarians working within the Libertarian party. I’ve written before that is a poor strategy to exclude libertarians from what has been called the Reagan coalition: fiscal /small government conservatives (libertarians), social conservatives and foreign policy hawks. This is a three-legged stool.
Mocker wrote: “I do regret that I need to defend conservatives and Conservatives so aggressively here at the Shotgun as I've got better things to do, but it's a job that needs to be done. No more uncontested cheap shots - I will expose you as the closet Liberals that you are. Let's go.”
You have not defended conservatism, Mocker. You’ve defended Harper’s Conservatives for being the biggest spenders in history by pointing to spending on programs for immigrants and natives, among other things. You have not defended fiscal conservative principles.
Reducing the size and scope of government in Ottawa is a very difficult job. There is a lot of institutional inertia. The job is even harder in a minority government situation. I concede all these points. But it is one thing not to reduce the size and scope of government; it is another thing to inherit a bloated, socialist, 10-year old Liberal government and to expand it further.
Here’s the response I expected from Shotgunners: “I’m disappointed with Harper on fiscal matters, but I’m happy with his commitment to rebuilding the military – and I’m prepared to give him more time to prove himself a complete conservative. Also, he has proven himself a competent manager. Besides, I’m not comfortable with a party that supports drug liberalization.” Something like that. What I didn’t expect were comments that treat Harper’s lack of fiscal responsibility as immaterial.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-20 5:30:07 PM
"The staff and writers of the Standard need to understand that the days of taking uncontested cheap shots at Stephen Harper, Conservatives, and conservatives, are over."
Matthew Johnston's question was fair enough.
By trying to shut down other conservatives because you disapprove when they are questioning their party just show how you’re espousing non-conservative values yourself.
If anything, you're a fanatic.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-07-20 8:56:32 PM
Thanks, Marc.
I was starting to feel picked on. :-)
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-20 9:23:29 PM
This approach is trying to address the symptoms instead of the problem, and we appear to have neither the political nor national will to do that. Thanks to the 1982 Charter of Rights Canada abandoned its traditional parliamentary sovereignty for judicial sovereignty, which means we are now governed by appointed radical judges and appointed bureaucrats on HR tribunals. How does this affect spending? A fairly recent example was when the government attempted to stop funding the free shoot-up places in BC and the judge ruled against the government.
In effect we have totalitarian democracy all forms of which have one thing in common. They deliberately begin to destroy the moral, economic and biological authority of traditional society by outlawing, removing authority (such as parental authority), or simply absorbing as a function of the state all the traditional voluntary associations, customs and laws. So instead of our traditional system from bottom to top, we have allowed it to be replaced with a top to bottom one.
We also have a concept of individualism totally alien to the founders of Canada, where a single individual can impose his agenda on the whole country using the government tools mentioned above. So we have left behind the original concept of individualism with its freedom of belief, expression and association. It never was an attempt to escape the control of traditional society and moral authority but instead sought out the best natural order, as it was recognised that obligations and duties came before self-interest.
It is ironic that the communists have succeeded in implementing most of their top down totalitarianism without firing a shot.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-20 9:30:38 PM
Come on Marc you are not truly saying Matthew is a CPC Conservative are you?
Not trying to be rude Matthew, but a Conservative you are not.
Questioning "his" party? Are you a member of the CPC Matthew? I kind of doubt it.
Matthew has every right to criticize the Harper Caucus as does Mocker have the right to say Matthews posts on this current subject are well unfounded and unfair.
I will give Matthew credit that he does not ban IP's of people he may not like unlike his predeccesor.
Posted by: Merle | 2008-07-20 10:40:45 PM
One has to wonder why the WS magazine failed really? I mean if it was truly Conservative it should have survived no? There are thousands of real Conservatives in Canada, more than enough to keep it going.
I have my own ideas that one day I will share here.
Posted by: merle | 2008-07-20 10:44:46 PM
You don't think the Western Standard was truly conservative in its print version, Merle?
Independent print media is a difficult business. The Alberta Report failed and so did the Western Standard print magazine, despite Ezra's best efforts, Merle -- and mine, for that matter.
We had the largest circulation of any independent magazine in Western Canada and added 100% to our top line in advertising in our last 12 months.
If you have something to say, don't be shy. Almost anything goes on the Shotgun.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-20 11:12:38 PM
I'm beginning to doubt that Mocker even knows what a libertarian is. Educate yourself, then come on here and make intelligent comments. Otherwise, well, you said it yourself with that acronym.
I'm also beginning to doubt that Mocker has any principles whatsoever. Mocker is a sports-fan style of Conservative: The Conservatives are my team, and I root for them regardless of their policy positions, their actual governing practices, or anything else, for that matter.
If they spend more than the Liberals, I don't care, because they're still my team, says Mocker.
If they decide to adopt Liberal policies, I don't care, because they're still my team, says Mocker.
If they abandon every small government policy, I don't care a whit, because they're my team and "Go Team! Ra Ra Ra."
What I would like is for the Harper Tories to stop ignoring libertarians, and small government conservatives. You don't get that by deciding that the Tories will be your team, and you'll root for them no matter what.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-20 11:25:13 PM
Well lets not forget the 1st 12 months Matthew when I was selling the ads that really mattered. It would noy have looked very good for a magazine to have a whole bunch of text and few ads.
I think one of the problems was that the WS had problems trying to identify itself.
One day the western part was there and then it was gone and then back again.
It was also at times to much like a US gossip mag with some of the front covers.
Accotding to Don Martin there were a lot of Conservatives on the Hill that did not read the WS so that says something.
oh well,
Posted by: Merle | 2008-07-21 7:30:46 AM
Matt,
Wouldn't it make more sense to call for a leadership challenge within the Conservative Party?
Posted by: D.J. McGuire | 2008-07-21 7:39:50 AM
DJ, I'm not really sure there is anyone in the party who could do a better job than Harper. He has run a tight ship.
I know you're a fan of Jason Kenney, as am I, but I doubt he would consider the job.
Furthermore, I'm not trying to single out Harper as someone who has done a bad job. (Perhaps he is soft on China, but I don't pay as close attention to that issue as you do.)
I think governing from the so-called right is virtually impossible in Canada, and that a vibrant libertarian opposition could be the best thing for both the freedom movement and the Conservative party in the long run.
Something has to change before China starts to look like the model of free enterprise, instead of countries like Canada.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-21 8:06:49 AM
Well, I will say that Harper has done a bad job. I'd even say he's worse than Cretin.
He's taken all the big gov't socialist principles and grew it by 14%. Preston Manning spanked Joe Clark and company for their ineptitude. It's time the libertarians spanked Harper for the same reason.
Peter: You're right. These lame-brained "My country/party right or wrong" people are what help bad gov't stay bad.
The biggest threat to real conservatism in this country is the Conservatives and their mindless followers.
Posted by: Principles | 2008-07-21 12:04:01 PM
Merle wrote: "I think one of the problems was that the WS had problems trying to identify itself. One day the western part was there and then it was gone and then back again."
I don't agree, Merle. I think we had a pretty consistent voice. Kevin Libin, Joe Woodard and Matt Stuart all did an excellent job. We de-emphasized the “Western” in our logo during our redesign but never removed it. We did that to account for the fact that our national readership (outside of the West) had grown substantially faster and larger than anticipated. Ontario represented about 25% of our readership.
As for the anecdotal comment by Don Martin, we had very good penetration on the Hill. Most Conservative MPs were subscribers in Ottawa and in their ridings, and many departments and NGOs also subscribed. News moves pretty fast on the Hill so it is likely that we were never really valuable as a news product due to our production cycle, but I can think of few other independent publications that were discuss as much as the Western Standard in the House and on the Hill. I’m thinking of the Libranoes and Danish cartoon issues.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-21 12:29:44 PM
Principles, I think you mean Mulroney.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-21 12:35:09 PM
Well, if Harper has both the Liebral/NDP/Green Coalition AND the Libertarians hating him, he must be doing a lot of things right. Keep up the great work, Mr. Prime Minister.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-21 12:43:25 PM
Pushing libertarians out of the Conservative party will prove to be a bad idea, ZP. You are helping to destroy the house that Reagan built.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-21 1:18:35 PM
Whoever said that they were in the Conservative Party?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-21 1:28:23 PM
ZP - virtually ever libertarian I've met has been, at some point, involved in the Conservative party (or the Reform or Canadian Alliance parties).
Libertarians were very excited when Harper was elected leader of the party and got more involved.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-21 1:43:30 PM
Better to be a little disappointed with Harper than extremely so under a Liebral/NDP/Green Government that hands over billions in tax dollars as a part of the Kyoto Atrocity. Bear with it.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-21 2:16:40 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.