The Shotgun Blog
« A reality check on Communist China | Main | The Olympics always were about denying reality . . . »
Monday, July 28, 2008
Lemieux: With Friends Like This
This week, Pierre Lemieux takes on Stephen Harper, the Conservative Party of Canada, and conservatism more generally.
Are Conservatives -- and conservatives -- really the friends of liberty some make them out to be?
Lemieux notes that government has grown faster under Conservative rule than in the preceding years when the Liberal Party was in charge. This is true even if one factors out increased military spending, which accounts for only a small fraction of the recent growth in government spending.
Lemieux also points out that the Conservatives have expanded regulation in many areas and have done little to follow through on their promises to shrink the government's role in our lives (for example, they've haven't yet done away with the 1996 gun control law.)
All of these things, according to Lemieux, only illustrate that conservatives are and always have been ambivalent about individual liberty. To paraphrase Friedrich Hayek, conservatives may want to use government to advance different ends than liberals, but they're less interested in scaling back government across the board. Like President George W. Bush, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has simply grown government in different directions than his liberal predecessor.
A year or so ago, maybe less, I would have said Lemieux was being too hard on Stephen Harper. After all, unlike Bush, Harper has had to deal with a legislature that is almost wholly opposed to his own ideology. And he's handled this situation masterfully, his government outlasting even the most optimistic projections.
At the same time, what's the alternative in Canada to the Conservative Party? Where else are "friends of liberty" going to go? The NDP? Stéphane Dion's Liberals? Isn't Stephen Harper our best hope for liberty, at least for now?
However, the trend Pierre Lemieux highlights is troubling. We'd all like to think that once the CPC gets a majority in Parliament, it will do an about face and pass a flurry of liberty-promoting, government-shredding measures that will vindicate all of the trust we've placed in Stephen Harper thus far.
But when I find myself thinking this, I have to stop: can we really trust a politician? Any politician? Is there evidence that Harper is going to turn into a libertarian once his party gains a majority? Moreover, even if there was evidence, wouldn't that indicate exactly the kind of "hidden agenda" that has stoked fears in parts of Canada (e.g. Ontario) in the past and prevented the Conservatives from gaining a majority?
Excerpts from Lemieux's column are below.
"This government has deepened bureaucratic controls on consumer goods, prepared the ban of incandescent light bulbs, pushed the crazy ethanol agenda and the centralization of securities regulation.
In several of the new laws, increased surveillance and search powers were granted to state agents.
Despite their (fuzzy) promises, the Conservatives have done nothing to rescind the gag law that restricts free speech during electoral campaigns and nothing to repeal — I mean repeal — the infamous 1995 gun control “law”. In general, they have done nothing to reclaim our liberties."
...
"It has been argued that, as a minority government, they could not do better. There is a bit of truth there. Yet, during the first half of 2008, there was a grace period when the Liberals wanted to avoid an election at almost any cost and the Conservatives had virtually free rein in the House of Commons. What did they do during that period? They did things like introduce legislation to entrench existing firearm controls (the amnesty trick), regulate food, therapeutic products and cosmetics more tightly, expand the search powers of customs cops, and maintain security certificates."
...
"Some people in the Conservative Party are good people, genuinely concerned with the demise of our liberties. But they can’t do, or say, anything. Perhaps it is better to have real enemies in power than false or impotent friends."
Posted by Terrence Watson on July 28, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e553bdab8f8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lemieux: With Friends Like This:
Comments
The way our system is set up, I can see no other outcome. What we have always had, we will always receive.
There is little incentive for voters to understand the issues, ecomonics, or the principles of freedom.
Politicians have two main objectives, and all other goals, agendas, dreams, or ideals, must be secondary to these objectives. Thise objectives are to get elected, and to get re elected.
So until the electorate changes, or the system changes, nothing will change. The CPS and Liberal parties will both give us bigger governments. They will just go about it differently.
Posted by: TM | 2008-07-28 11:08:25 AM
Once again Pierre is spot on.
Unless we return to our traditional roots and scrap PETs charter, I see no way the situation can change. The demise of Canada began in the mid 60s when our flag was replaced by a rag with the Liberal logo and the destruction was completed with PETs charter whereby we became governed by non elected agendised judges pandering to various special interest groups and lobbies.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-28 11:38:11 AM
I forgot to mention that I e-mailed Pierre's article to the PM and my MP, not that I expect anything to change. Still I figure they should know how they are seen.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-28 11:49:47 AM
Speaking of PET's charter, is not the market based on property rights? Property rights describe how we are to be free from others' interference. This is a negative right, not a positive one.
Contrast that to PET's charter which, I believe, describes positive rights, which treats individuals differently. In practice, this benefits some at the expense of others.
The more the government does the more it benefits some over, and at the expense, of others. Both the CPC and Liberal parties practice this.
Why do they do this? Because they can, and because it pays.
Posted by: TM | 2008-07-28 12:08:53 PM
"Lemieux notes that government has grown faster under Conservative rule than in the preceding years when the Liberal Party was in charge."
Terrence. You *know* I destroyed this argument a few posts back. Everyone who reads this blog saw it. Matthew Johnston actually complimented me on the quality of my argument.
And yet no fewer than 4 WS contributors have since repeated this defeated argument, knowing full well that it is baloney and doesn't factor in that Canada's population has increased over 3% in the short time Harper has been in office, a rate of growth higher than any of the preceding Liberal PMs ever had, among other factors.
How convenient for the politically correct Prof. Lemieux, who makes his living off other people's taxes in the most politically correct workplace (Canadian academia) in existence, to "forget" this detail. He has a history of doing this. I want to debate this guy, defeat his narrative once and for all, and push him into retirement.
You wonder why nobody takes you libertarians seriously? It's because your arguments aren't serious and have already been defeated. You need to be *a lot* better, and can start by explaining how tax freedom day now falls seven days *earlier* than it did under the Liberals. Some statist!
Posted by: Mocker | 2008-07-28 12:46:29 PM
"and can start by explaining how tax freedom day now falls seven days *earlier* than it did under the Liberals."
This is the only measure that should matter.
Bravo Mocker!
Epsi
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-07-28 1:25:55 PM
Mocker,
Ok ok, first, libertarians aren't interested in government growth keeping apace with population growth. If government is already too big, then spending should be going down, in spite of population growth.
Second, how much of the growth in government spending do you think can be accounted for by the growth in population? It's not enough to point out another variable. What we need to know is how much of an impact that other variable had.
I don't know the answer to that question. But according to Lemieux, government grew at twice the rate it did under the Liberals (that's even setting aside increased military spending.) Do you really think all of that can be explained through population growth?
My comments were pretty ambivalent. I'm not out to blast Harper. But it would be nice if government spent less per person under him than it did under the Liberals. Do we have _those_ numbers?
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-07-28 2:30:24 PM
Trudeau's Charter is a real gift to the legals. It makes some more equal than others, and gives more power to the unelected, unaccountable Judiciary.
The Conservatives are a minority getting some important work done and that's the best we can expect until they given that circumstance.
We all know about those pesky priorities. To quote Dion, "do you think it's easy to make priorities"?
Here's a rhyme for ya, 'screw Lemieux'.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-07-28 4:25:48 PM
Liz J.. Nothing gets the point across like poetry
Posted by: Rob C | 2008-07-28 5:21:01 PM
What do you expect when Harper has a minority government and the opposition is sworn to oppose any thing he tries to do.
Posted by: Wil S | 2008-07-28 5:26:59 PM
"Like President George W. Bush, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has simply grown government in different directions than his liberal predecessor."
Wow.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-07-28 7:31:55 PM
According to a 2000 Rasmussen poll, only 2% of Americans self-identify as libertarian. To put that number in perspective, according to a 1999 Gallup poll, 6% of Americans believe that the moon landings were faked. (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/03/08/brink-lindsey/libertarians-in-an-unlibertarian-world/)
This article goes on to suggest ways of moving from the 2% who are "strictly" libertarian, to the 15% who describe libertarian leanings. For example, accepting more government than staunch libertarians would advocate. This may be to the left or the right of the political spectrum, and it may be the only practical way to move libertarian ideas from the fringes.
Posted by: TM | 2008-07-28 8:50:44 PM
The answer is NO. You cannot trust politicians. Harper, first and foremost, wants to stay in power. A majority would be vindication for the centrist, stay the course, big goverhment Tories who have major influence over this government. "See, governing from the middle works just fine, we won". Those who keep telling us to wait until a majority and then watch the sparks fly are delusional. What we have here is something slightly better than Stelmach and John Tory. It's as good as it gets. If you want examples, the government is sending out employment equity and pay equity enforcement letters warning all federally regulated employers (private too) that they're beefing up their army of inspectors to make sure race quotas are met and "female dominated jobs" are properly compensated. Sad, but true.
Posted by: Buchanan | 2008-07-28 11:13:13 PM
I could not care less about the throwing around of labels, such as libertarian or whatever, nor do I consider myself libertarian. In fact the closest definition for me would be what used to be conservative or old classical liberal. Nevertheless to refuse to admit the truth concerning one's political party is wilful blindness. Nor does it mean that one prefers the Liberals or NDP.
Yet a number of commenters prefer to attack the writer, Pierre Lemieux instead of producing evidence to refute his statements. That convinces no one of your opinion.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-29 12:23:49 AM
According to the news...
Under Harper in 2006-2007, 86,9 millions were spent on "publicity" for Armed forces recruitment and to tell you how bad smoking in your car and in your house is bad for ya.
86,9 millions means that those figures have doubled if you compare with the precedent years.
That's not conservatism; that's sounding more like control freak false conservatives.
Sounds like Neocons.
At least, they are condemned to a minority government.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-07-29 12:40:07 AM
I believe many political " hobbyists " are so focussed on partisan rhetoric and stereotypes they cannot see the massive f*cking paciderm crammed in the living room.
The party based political system is strangling democracy itself.
It is simply a fact.
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2008-07-29 1:26:05 AM
Harper appears to have the best interests of the country in mind above personal power or gain. He's not a desperate for power politician like the person he dethroned, Paul Martin. Martin got the job he coveted for decades and didn't know what to do with it, he was in the wilderness.
We are fortunate to have such a straight arrow looking after the affairs of this country at this time. There's simply no one else on our political scene who could do better.
The list of those scuttling for power, Rae, whose political life was as NDP Premier of Ontario goofed up badly, Ignatieff, who has no political experience is not very impressive and who knows who else?
Our system isn't perfect, but who's going to change it?
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-07-29 5:15:17 AM
Buchanan: "Harper, first and foremost, wants to stay in power."
And that's a reason not to trust him? It's taken years for the Conservatives (under various monikers) to wrest power from the Librano$, despite fierce and dirty opposition from them, Taliban Jack's NDP, Duceppe's Blockheads, and the MSM, so why wouldn't Prime Minister Stephen Harper NOT want to stay in power? He's getting some good things done, despite the criticism. (And, hey, who's perfect?)
I'm with Liz J. PMSH and the CPC are the best thing that's happened to Canada since PET almost single handedly destroyed our democracy. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (how about Charter of Entitlements and Nice-for-Me Perks if you're one of the special Special Interst Groups so beloved of the lib-left Librano$?) has badly compromised our sense of community (which our Common Law up till then had fostered). In PET's new dispensation one group has been pitted against another with, usually, the minority group--which knows next to nothing about Canada's history and has neither contributed to nor participated in Canada's various campaigns to keep our democratic freedoms in place--coming out on top. To dissent is to be called a racist and a bigot, even if you're stating only facts.
I'm willing to give PMSH and the CPC a lot of rope at this point, given that they're fighting not only opposition from other political parties (and GIVE ME A BREAK: look who those parties are--the Librano$, the Non-Democratic Poofters, and the Blockheads) but the down-and-dirty-we-HATE-Harper MSM as well.
PMSH is not a grandstander nor a look-at-how-great-I-am despot. His CPC has a lot of grass-roots' support, unlike the Librano$ whose strings are being pulled by Power Corp and whose campaigns are propped up by Power Corp. He's a hard-working head of government and a brilliant strategist. Of all of the so-called political leaders in Canada, I trust him the most.
Back to you, Terrence.
Posted by: batb | 2008-07-29 6:23:04 AM
Good job mocker, 1st of all I find these libertarian types to be quite frankly rather cruel.
Theyb want govt growth to stop-what they really mean is no social programs at all. If have no health insurance or lots of disposable income and you get really sick-then you die in their world. I am also tired of Marce Emery and others berating our military.
I asked somewhere else if Matthew agreed with Kalim when he said John McCain was running a blue state facsist platform?
Still waiting for a response there Matthew please.
Posted by: Merle | 2008-07-29 7:30:40 AM
Do Party Labels mean anything anymore? Just look at the floorcrossers and doublecrossers in the political system. Only the "true believers" cannot see what is happening. If it acts like a Liberal, it is a "new conservative." The elites wanted rid of the Reform Party and now we are back to same old, same old. Hypocrisy rules!
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-07-29 9:01:10 AM
This whole debate between libertarians and conservatives is silly and pointless.
Libertarians and their critics both have to realize that you simply cannot scrap the entire welfare state in one term of office. It would be so massively disruptive it would do much more harm than good. You would destroy a huge amount of social capital, without having anything to replace it. It's a non-starter.
You need to gradually but steadily wind down the state, eliminating first those agencies that do the most harm while giving private solutions to social problems a chance to grow and fill the space vacated by government. (E.g. it will take generations just to transform Canadian government-funded universities into well-endowed private institutions, just as it took Harvard generations to get to where it is today.) These transformations to social institutions don't happen overnight. Leftists on this blog need not raise fears about dismantling social welfare in their lifetimes.
I am philosophically libertarian, but pragmatically an incrementalist. Libertarianism tells us which direction to head; it does not tell us how quickly or in what order. Getting the philosophy right is easy; getting the transformation right is the hard part.
My problem with the Harper Conservatives is that they aren't even going in the right direction, incrementally. They are at best treading water, overall, and in many ways backsliding. The tinkering they are doing on tax reform and the environment are adding massive epicycles to the complexity of government, for absolutely no gain.
There are SOOOOOOOOO many old bones in government that Harper could toss libertarians' way to keep them on board, to convince them that they are ideological fellow-travelers. That he cannot see his way clear to winnowing any of this deadwood after almost 3 years in office shows that his heart isn't really in the right place. He certainly doesn't deserve the financial or volunteer support of libertarians. Whether he deserves their vote is a strategic question that depends on how bad the alternatives are. (They are pretty bad.)
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-29 9:40:30 AM
I'm curious if Mocker et al would give the same excuse if we had a Liberal government, rather than a Tory minority?
I doubt it.
If *everything* was exactly the same (same policy, same everything), with the sole exception of the party labels, I bet Mocker and Epsi would be on here congratulating Lemieux on another fine article, blasting the free-spending and big government Liberals.
But since it's the Tories, and that's the sports team they've decided to root for (probably because of the colours, since I see no evidence of them having any principles apart from "my team, right or wrong"), they're rooting for them, and blasting Lemieux.
And Mocker, your comment that Lemieux is "politically correct" is a joke. Lemieux is an ardent supporter of guns and tobacco. He writes books about these topics. He doesn't hide. He's less politically correct than you are.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-29 9:47:05 AM
The mainstream politicians of all parties benefit from the Lemieux's of the world. Unfortunately, for liberty, Lemieux represents a small percentage of the voting public. If he had numbers behind him, they would all listen, compete and grovel for your support. The Conservatives, just like the BC Liberals, are an awful government, just perhaps marginally better than their alternatives.
The challenge is not to get elected (we can all see how that is done) but to change thinking towards a more libertarian mindset.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-07-29 11:01:24 AM
>>"and can start by explaining how tax freedom day now falls seven days *earlier* than it did under the Liberals."
This is the only measure that should matter.
Bravo Mocker!
Epsi
Posted by: epsilon | 28-Jul-08 1:25:55 PM<<
The American tax freedom day is significantly earlier than Canadians. Almost two months earlier (never mind seven days). Yet with an impending $490,000,000,000 budget deficit in 2009, I have a hard time believing that where in the calendar year tax freedom day falls is the only measure that matters, and a hard time accepting that it is any measure of how restrained the growth of government is.
Posted by: Janet | 2008-07-29 1:42:16 PM
>>What do you expect when Harper has a minority government and the opposition is sworn to oppose any thing he tries to do.
Posted by: Wil S | 28-Jul-08 5:26:59 PM<<
As has been pointed out in comments on previous items, this has not stopped Harper from getting much of his (strongly opposed by the Liberals) agenda implemented. Remember all that time Conservatives spent mocking Dion for not having the spine to stand up to them?
Posted by: Janet | 2008-07-29 1:44:41 PM
Batb,
"I'm willing to give PMSH and the CPC a lot of rope at this point, given that they're fighting not only opposition from other political parties."
I'm curious: what would Harper have to do to convince you that your trust in him was misplaced? And I ask this as someone who agrees with just about everything you wrote about him. Still, there has to be a point at which the rope runs out, so to speak (maybe we haven't gotten there yet.) So what would that point look like, to you?
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-07-29 1:55:07 PM
Terrence, you ask: "what would Harper have to do to convince you that your trust in him was misplaced?"
At this point, he'd have to get a majority--he's walking on eggshells until then--and then continue to not make a pronouncement about the HRCs and allow the corruption to continue, among other things.
When he gets a majority--please, God--if he continues to play his cards close to his chest and overspend, then I'll have a lot to say, and it will be very negative. I'll even give him a piece of my mind!!
Until the majority, he's got to keep quiet about the lousy CBC, the worse HRCs, he's got to keep spending or else the MSM and all of his opponents will be screaming bloody murder about "censorship," about "being against human rights," "about cutting spending on social programs," etc.
Right now PMSH, IMO, and his party are between a rock and a hard place. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. But they're the best we've got.
There's nowhere else for Canadians to go if we want to see a turnaround in the Dystopian Deranged Dominion--and PMSH is the best leader we've got.
So, what're ya gonna do?
Posted by: batb | 2008-07-29 3:21:42 PM
>"Right now PMSH, IMO, and his party are between a rock and a hard place. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. But they're the best we've got.
So, what're ya gonna do?"
batb | 29-Jul-08 3:21:42 PM
The Libertarians are going to stab Harper in the back, the face, the balls, and anywhere else they can get their knives in because they want Ron Paul or his clone and anything less is going to get crapped on by them regardless of whether they ever get into power or ever see any actual greater liberty.
They're too full of themselves to take a reality check abd realize that Canada is where it is because of the Liberals.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-07-29 4:05:13 PM
I have a lot of sympathy for Pierre Lemieux's position. And I can say with complete sincerity that I would vote for profound change, if I could; and I'd vote to abolish Canada, if I could.
But I've never had the chance to do that. I've had the chance to vote for a Prime Minister of Canada. As I've always done, I voted for the one who would do the least damage. And this time, he won.
Canada wasn't abolished, and society didn't change, and I want those things. But I never expected to get them by voting for Stephen Harper. I expected to see Canada made much less dangerous than it had been; and I got that.
Posted by: ebt | 2008-07-29 4:16:31 PM
Batb,
"Right now PMSH, IMO, and his party are between a rock and a hard place. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. But they're the best we've got."
That's fair. If Harper did say the kinds of things libertarians want him to say, it would just be taken as further evidence of a radical "hidden agenda" and would only hurt his political chances.
It's too bad, really.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-07-29 4:34:37 PM
A suggestion for those who continue to equate Pierre's view with the Libertarian label to claim that it boils down to conservatives versus libertarians, try going to the web site of a true Canadian conservative at williamgairdner.com and you may learn something about what true conservatism is. It most certainly is not the present government party, nor is it the Republicans south of the border.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-29 5:02:57 PM
A lot of great comments here. And I see the question of who's who re: Libertarian vs. Conservative is being bandied about.
What I didn't see anyone mention are the words "Neo-Conservative" Because that's what Bush and Harper are. These are (in my view) globalists.
The agenda is the eventual formulation of one big world wide central government. If we allow that this is a possiblity, then why ever would we think that the Neo Cons have any intention, ever, of scaling down government and restoring individual liberties and property rights etc. It aint gonna happen!
Posted by: JC | 2008-07-29 10:11:16 PM
Alain, very interesting website.
Posted by: TM | 2008-07-29 11:27:04 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.