The Shotgun Blog
« Leviathan wants your prints | Main | A pyrrhic victory for anti-racism crusader Richard Warman »
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Ideological dimensions of Canadian conservatism
That was the title of the second panel discussion yesterday at the Manning networking conference. The most interesting discourse during this panel was between libertarians and social conservatives--largely because neither group has a natural home in the Conservative party, but rather is attracted or repelled by the party's positions on specific policies. Though all panelists agreed that the common ground between ideologies is on fiscal issues, the most pushback was on whether how people live their lives should be a personal decision or something the government needs to be involved in.
This panel further showed the tension that libertarians are feeling here. By explicitly including them as a group the Manning Centre is obviously trying to reach out and bring libertarians under the wing of the "conservative" movement. (I would make a semantic argument that libertarians aren't a part of the conservative movement, but instead are working towards a lot of the same goals, but that's just because I'm picky.) It's encouraging that the group wants to start working on what we have in common as a movement rather than arguing so much over who supports the party and who doesn't.
Although the mood at the conference has actually been very libertarian friendly and fairly critical at times of the Harper government, you can tell that Harper's speech on Thursday night has many of the libertarians in attendance on edge, though they rallied last night behind an excellent defense of principled politics by Andrew Coyne. It's interesting that the conference attendees and Harper and the partisans seem to have such different motives.
(For those who are interested, the debate on "Segalism" was not as rife with sparks as people seemed to be expecting. Disappointing.)
Posted by Janet Neilson on March 14, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
This panel further showed the tension that libertarians are feeling here.
Posted by Janet Neilson on March 14, 2009 |
You mean you feel like gatecrashers. The simple solution is go to a conference run by the Libertarian party and not the Conservative party.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-03-14 11:58:04 AM
Your repeated insistence that all libertarians support the Libertarian Party is as incorrect as the idea that all Christians support the Christian Heritage Party.
The Manning Centre, which is conservative but non-partisan, is obviously making an effort to include libertarians in its discussions. No one said it has to be universally liked.
Posted by: Ker | 2009-03-14 1:14:14 PM
Your repeated insistence that all libertarians support the Libertarian Party is as incorrect as the idea that all Christians support the Christian Heritage Party.
Posted by: Ker | 2009-03-14 1:14:14 PM
My repeated insistence as you characterize it, is that libertarians "should" support the Libertarian Party. As I said in a previous post, as soon as you mention the Libertarian Party to a libertarian they distance themselves from it.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-03-14 1:40:55 PM
Most of this country votes Liberal, NDP, Bloc, and Green. The NDP and Bloc are devout socialist who hold 20-25% of the vote. The Greens pull about 5-10% and promote "green" economic and social policies. In reality, the Greens policies are a mix of socialist and 1960's New Age garbage. Finally, you have the Liberals who poll 26%(Stephane Dion) - 40%. They are a weird mix. They promote NDP policies but push them over a 10 year period(instead of 1 year like the NDP) and give special tax breaks to which every corporation fills their campaign coffers.
The only chance to put a reasonable government in power is for libertarians and social conservatives to join forces. The recent voting history of Quebec gives the left a built in advantage. Unless Canada is willing to get rid of Quebec, this fact can't be ignored. Quebec is a supposed "have-not" province that takes advantage of the current political situation to maintain an unwieldy provincial welfare state. In addition(as shown by the rhetoric about the Quebec City renactment), many francophones in Quebec refuse to view themselves as Canadian(keep playing the victim card for 250 more years). Funny isn't it that people in the former confederate states have no problem with American Civil War reenactments? So, with almost 25% of the voters in the left camp to begin with, it is important that all forces of the right(libertarians, social conservatives, strong military types) join together to win power. The other option is long periods of Liberal government(1993-2006, 1963-1979, 1935-1957).
Posted by: Jake | 2009-03-14 11:56:33 PM
I have to strongly disagree that a merger of the libertarians and the social conservatives would lead to anything but more abuse - for libertarians.
My evidence is the federal Conservative party, I could also use the Alberta Conservatives. Social conservatives will never budge on anything. They are getting their war on drugs, proposals are in place to give 2-3 years in jail for a single pot plant. They are getting their high spending, so there is firm central control.
Libertarians will take what they can get in any merger, which tends to be roughly nothing after the social conservatives have gotten their way.
The merger that will win will be the one when the people supporting the Liberals and for some supporting the NDP to understand we are *not* social conservatives. This is the major club the Liberals have an have used so effectively. I remain totally baffled why so many libertarians have a home in the Conservative Party. I uunderstand the position of the Conservatives have a machine ready made to win - but I would argue the Liberal party would have been a much better moral home and if there had been more libertarians there they could have made that party a much better option for the libertarian vote than the Conservatives.
Say what you like about Jean Chretien's ethics (I don't like them either) but his was the most fiscally libertarian like major political personality in the last 50 years. He pioneered less restricted trade long prior to Mulroney and made huge strides in getting the explosion in the public sector under control. Much more so than contemporaries like Harris or Klein with the Conservatives. If that had been built on with the support of libertarians intead of fools like Martin and Dion we could have been much further ahead today. Instead we got Martin and then Harper and the rot has set back in, with an explosion in the public sector in both economic and moral terms.
John
Posted by: John Shaw | 2009-03-15 3:11:22 PM
"Say what you like about Jean Chretien's ethics (I don't like them either) but his was the most fiscally libertarian like major political personality in the last 50 years"
Irony isn't it. I doubt Paul Martin would have gone into deficit spending either.
Posted by: MW | 2009-03-15 5:53:48 PM
"The other option is long periods of Liberal government(1993-2006, 1963-1979, 1935-1957)."--Jake
You sound as if that would be a bad thing.
Posted by: Uncle Homer | 2009-03-16 3:26:31 AM
I think it doesn't help the discussion to frame the battle as between Libertarians and the rest. That narrative is not accurate. Social conservatives are just as annoyed by Harper as Libertarians. And people like myself, whom I regard as a laisse faire capitalist fiscal conservative (as well as a social conservative), have already decided to never give Harper my vote again. And I don't buy into Libertarianism. You don't have to be a Libertarian to object to statist governments. And politically informed social conservatives generally hate censorship - don't believe otherwise.
Those Libertarians who see some conspiracy out there to "get them" have drunk the Ron Paul kool-aid.
Posted by: Faramir | 2009-03-17 1:47:26 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.