The Shotgun Blog
« Dave Barry Knows All about Money | Main | Mr. ________ goes to Washington »
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Reply to Rondi, er, "Wonkitties"
(Cross-posted from Burkean Canuck)
DISCLAIMER: Rondi Adamson is one-of-the-greatest-columnists-who-ever-lived . . . a pocket of sanity in the Red, er, Toronto Star.
Here's my reply to Rondi's post, here, and here . . .
I've never forgiven David Frum for shuttling off Robert Bork from the Barbara Frum Lectureship before I could get the judge to sign my copy of his book from the Frum lecture . . . David told me to come back the next morning at 9AM . . . (Um, I was working during that hour at Queen's Park!). His sister, though, has raised a lot of money for Stephen and she can carry on a decent conversation.
Good for you, Rondi, giving that loon the brush-off. I blame the godless white people for the Tories' inability to woo voters in Canada's Biggest City (TM) and Canada's Second-Biggest City (TM). You know -- the Ulster Scot WASPs who not only no longer believe anything like what their great-grandparents believed, who hold a world view that consistently undermines the things that made Canada great, but who still possess their grandparents' genes and, in some cases, their money and hubris. I think new Canadians may well be the salvation of this country -- they believe in some things remarkably similar to those Old Toronto Ulster Scots . . . (Also, new Canadians have babies).
Should Prime Minister Designate Stephen Harper be "moderate" or "bold?" Um, I think he should govern. And in a minority government situation, that may mean being bold, moderate, or otherwise as the occasion requires or permits.
Posted by Russ Kuykendall on January 28, 2006 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834a578e369e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reply to Rondi, er, "Wonkitties":
Comments
Canada is a US protectorate. Also Canada has almost no mega-multi-nationals, thus no “captains of industry” that can come home from globetrotting and tell our elitist MSM what a hellhole the rest of the world is and how lucky we are to have the USA next door versus Pakistan. We have therefore created a culture of entitlement that gravitates to the mega-cities where they can feel safely cocooned.
We now have a big segment of the population that wants to be told what to do by elitist central planners rather than aspire to the individualism that conservatives champion. Conservatism is really a frontier spirit. It’s difficult (not impossible, as we know Russ) to find passionate conservatives in the middle of mega cities like Toronto and Montreal. What seems to have happened is that submissive people, who are like lap dogs, move to the mega-cities where there are bureaucratic, defined jobs with an “in-out basket” and lots of supervision. Conversely those that like to run with the big dogs live and work as far away from the CN Tower as possible.
Our only hope in the mega-cities is to try and win over the immigrants who by definition have a frontier spirit and also many have conservative values. I agree with your post, we should concentrate on the immigrants and forget about the submissive “in-out basket” BA’s that work in the bureaucracy of downtown Toronto.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-01-28 8:56:29 AM
Well, Linda Frum, David's sister, has always been super-brainy. She's written three books.
(Ms. Frum was a heroine of mine during my university days, when she befriended me. An admirable lady.)
Posted by: Rick Hiebert | 2006-01-28 9:31:20 AM
>Our only hope in the mega-cities is to try and win over the immigrants who by definition have a frontier spirit and also many have conservative values. I agree with your post, we should concentrate on the immigrants and forget about the submissive “in-out basket” BA’s that work in the bureaucracy of downtown Toronto.<
And that is certainly a possibility. It has been interesting to watch the trends down south where the Dem's have become accustomed to having the minorities, i.e. immigrant vote in their back pocket. It came as quite a shock to them, but not to conservatives to see that trend shift as more minorities voted right that ever before.
The Liberals and their minions here have shown they can be bought at any price, and feel the majority of Canadians feel the way they do. Indeed money, that which is not earned can make one easily forget their values. Hence the Liberals massive social, plus outright patronage spending. But as conservatives worldwide have shown if you can end the entitlements and give people an appreciation for who they are its funny how many of these people suddenly remember their heritage, their upbringing, and of course their values.
And that of course is a problem for the Liberals. The so called "progressive values" they deem so necessary to inflict on Canada in most cases conflict greatly with the values of the average immigrant, and last but not least, a good many Canadians.
I guess the irony of it, or depending on how you look at it, the tragedy, is that grass root Canadians who have watched this once powerful, internationally respected country reduced to, in effect one huge daycare center obsessing over the impulse of the day, now has to depend on the immigrant vote to wrest it back from the very people entrusted to protect it, and who should know better. Sad.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-01-28 10:59:52 AM
Incrementalism is the name of the game. Stephen Harper is an incrementalist, which is very different from a moderate or centrist. Yes, he has a true conservative vision, but it is neither possible nor preferable to implement it all at once. Patience and displine, patience and discipline.
"The so called "progressive values" they deem so necessary to inflict on Canada in most cases conflict greatly with the values of the average immigrant, and last but not least, a good many Canadians."
Well stated.
Posted by: Anonalogue | 2006-01-28 3:02:46 PM
Next time make sure the social conservatives that run are also immigrants. I'm convinced that would have made the difference in ridings such as Richmond, BC.
Also Russ, ease off the Ulster Scots. They didn't all take the same path (I became a practising Catholic).
Posted by: Owen | 2006-01-28 5:31:46 PM
Um, my mother is descended from Ulster Scot immigrants . . . :-)
Posted by: Russ Kuykendall | 2006-01-28 8:10:24 PM
And what was the message of those ancestral WASPs?
"The Anglo-Conformist philosophy was enunciated in 1928 by R.B. Bennett, Canada's Prime Minister from 1930 to 1935.
'We earnestly and sincerely believe that
the civilization which we call the British civilization is the standard by which we must
measure our own civilization;' thundered Bennett.
'We desire to assimilate those whom we bring to this country to that civilization...That is what we desire, rather than by the introduction of vast and overwhelming numbers of people from other countries to assimilate the British immigrants and the few Canadians who are left to some other
civilization. That is what we are endeavouring to do, and that is the reason so much stress is laid upon the British settler....'"
And the Famous Five's Emily Murphy:
"Emily Murphy's attitude towards immigration leaned towards exclusion for a number of reasons...As a magistrate, Murphy noticed that a disproportionately large number of criminals were immigrants. As a reporter on Alberta Government institutions, such as prisons and mental institutions, she could not help noticing that 70 percent of those house at mental institutions were of foreign birth. So too, her growing concern with the drug trade, caused her to notice the large role Asians played in the traffic of narcotics.
In a 1929 speech she gave to the Women's Canadian Club, Emily Murphy suggested that the club study 50 races of foreign immigrants. In her speech, she noted that 70 percent of the "insane" in Alberta were foreign born, and stated that "many thinking women" were in favour of an "intelligent quota system" that would impose limitations on immigration—designed to maintain the Anglo-Saxon character of the Canadian culture. A reasonable quota, she suggested, would be to allow one foreign immigrant into Canada for every three Anglo-Saxon immigrants."
Of course Darwin unearthed evolutions unremitting progress in his The Descent of Man:
"As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and
races.
[...]
The partial or complete extinction of many races and sub-races of man is historically known.
Humboldt saw in South America a parrot which was the sole living creature that could speak a word of the language of a lost tribe.
[...]
Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe,and race with race...and when of two adjoining tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption. Even when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept away, if it once begins to decrease, it generally goes on decreasing
until it becomes extinct. "
Posted by: DJ | 2006-01-28 9:50:30 PM
DJ:
:-) You could have referenced John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" (1867) as well in which he promotes what we now call social Darwinism. As you point out, the tradition of liberalism has a dark side.
Posted by: Russ Kuykendall | 2006-01-29 7:43:58 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.