The Shotgun Blog
« Preston Manning joins Stephen Harper in blaming capitalism | Main | Liberal convention survey »
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Michael Walker to defend capitalism against attacks from Preston Manning and Stephen Harper: Fraser Institute event
I take no pleasure in reporting on Preston Manning’s technocratic tendencies and repeated public musings against free markets. Manning is a profoundly decent man with a passion for ideas. There is no doubt that he believes he’s helping to engineer a better society, which is half the problem.
I don’t think the same sincerity can be ascribed to the motives of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Harper’s decision to purge libertarians from the Conservative Party and his public promise to put an end to “unfettered capitalism” is politically motivated. It’s difficult to know what the self-described Hayekian liberal actually believes. Harper is attempting to capture the vote-rich centre-left of the political spectrum. Once comfortably entrenched, the plan, we’re told, is to drag voters inch by inch back to the centre-right. The road back to the centre-right, however, will be difficult for Harper and all those who follow him because comments decrying “unfettered capitalism” will litter the path with intellectual landmines.
The socialization of Preston Manning and the politicization of Stephen Harper are profoundly discouraging, but there are still heroes in the freedom movement who are neither confused by the current economic climate, nor ready to surrender the battle of ideas to the left. One of those heroes is Dr. Michael Walker, founder and executive director of The Fraser Institute from its establishment in 1974 until 2005.
Walker is speaking in Calgary on May 12th on the topic “In Defence of Capitalism.” You can get more details and get purchase tickets here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by westernstandard on May 2, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Funny and I do rightfully think both of these persons are rather crazy, extremists
Posted by: thenonconformer | 2009-05-03 12:13:14 AM
Harper and Manning - both religious fundamentalists, which to me, skews their ability to think properly.
Posted by: Elizabeth Montgomery/Calgary | 2009-05-03 12:20:32 AM
This has the potential to be an outstanding event. I wish I could be there.
Posted by: Janet | 2009-05-03 6:00:01 AM
I agree with Matthew's description of Manning and Harper, but the silly comment by Elizabeth is just that: silly. I doubt she would know a religious fundamentalist if she bumped into one. The problem is not in the least their religious beliefs, but it remains a very serious problem nevertheless.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-05-03 10:45:46 AM
Crazy extremists? Why would you call Manning and Harper that, thenonconformer?
If anything, they've shown themselves to be quite willing to embrace the Middle Path. They are both conforming to public opinion rather than trying to shape public opinion.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-03 11:03:25 AM
Elizabeth Montgomery/Calgary: Manning and Harper are not thinking properly because Manning is not a free market thinker and Harper's judgment is clouded by political ambition.
This has nothing to do with their religious views.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-03 11:06:29 AM
Janet, I'll try to attend and provide WS readers a report. Dr. Walker is excellent. It should be great.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-03 11:07:46 AM
"The problem is not in the least their religious beliefs, but it remains a very serious problem nevertheless."
You're exactly right, Alain. I wrote before that Manning's "religious conservative scepticism of the perfectibility of man or of the possibility of achieving heaven on earth" were likely positive influences as far as his political views are concerned. I would add that the Christian view of free view and the idea that one must establish a personal relationship with Christ for salvation give the faith an interesting individualist bent.
Buddhism, a favourite among the left, is positively collectivists. The Buddhist idea of Nirvana is the extinction of the individual, who is subsumed by some collective spiritual force. At the point of enlightenment, the individual is like a single drop of water being dropped into the ocean. I don't like the sound of that one bit.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-03 11:23:34 AM
" The Buddhist idea of Nirvana is the extinction of the individual, who is subsumed by some collective spiritual force. At the point of enlightenment, the individual is like a single drop of water being dropped into the ocean."
Very true.
A Buddhist walks up to a hotdog stand and says to the vendor, "Make me one with everything."
Posted by: Speller | 2009-05-03 12:01:56 PM
Matthew, it all depends on which version of Buddhism. Your description is correct for how Buddhism is perceived in the West for the most part, but Buddhism, like most religions (one can argue that Buddhism is not a religion, but I shall not go into that), varies greatly, even more so than Judaism, Islam and Christianity, as it is not dogmatic. For example while both Chinese and Japanese Buddhists value harmony, they are by nature very much capitalists and pro free market. I am referring to the people, not their governments. If you look into it, the morals and values taught are very much the same as in Judaism or Christianity. As for what happens after death, unless someone actually comes back to tell us, it remains a mystery.
I admit that I used to have the same opinion about Buddhism before learning I was wrong, just as I had a false view of Hinduism before looking into it more deeply.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-05-03 12:24:59 PM
I think there is a connection between Christianity and socialism. The sermon on the mount enjoins each of us to live for others as the highest ethical imperative - you are your brother's keeper, etc. This is incompatible with the individualism which underlies the pursuit of profit.
And Christian scepticism about human nature is also connected to statism - after all, if we lack virtue, if we are corrupted with individual sin, then how can we govern ourselves? Better to let the 'powers that be' rule over us. As the Bible says - they 'are ordained of God.'
Posted by: Craig | 2009-05-03 5:15:58 PM
Craig wrote: “I think there is a connection between Christianity and socialism.”
There is definitely a connection between the Christian value of altruism and socialism, as I argue here.
But there is a healthy amount of scepticism for the state in the Bible, as I argue here.
If I had to assign a political label to Bible, it would be a Marvin Olasky variety of communitarianism, I think.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-03 7:45:11 PM
Craig wrote: "And Christian scepticism about human nature is also connected to statism - after all, if we lack virtue, if we are corrupted with individual sin, then how can we govern ourselves?"
Fair enough, Craig. But the following question flows just as easily from your premise: How can people born into sin and without virtue govern others?
(I think you mean original sin, and not individual sin, although I understand your point exactly.)
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-03 7:51:32 PM
Alain,
Here’s my recollection of Buddhism from a religious studies course: All existence is suffering; all suffering comes from desire; and, the only escape from the endless misery of existence (and reincarnation) is Nirvana, which is, as I describe, the extinction of the individual.
Given the option, I’d rather hang out with Jesus.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-03 8:10:20 PM
Matthew, fair enough but if that was what was taught on Buddhism you were not given an accurate description. Desire is not a problem per se, but the three causes of suffering according to Buddhism are lust, hatred and ignorance. Lust is for example lust for power or wealth at any cost, specifically through harming others. A physical expression of lust would be rape, sexual abuse or what Buddhism calls sexual misconduct. An example of hatred would be Islamic jihad but of course there are other examples. Ignorance actually covers the first two, meaning ignorance of the cause of suffering. The pursuit of wealth and possessions is not bad, as long as it is not by means of harming others.
As for the extinction of the individual, this is what some would call the ego. Buddhism like Judaism rejects any concept of original sin. What Buddhists call the true self, traditional or orthodox Judaism calls the Divine Spark (the true soul) and in both cases it is considered pure.
Nevertheless there are all kinds of varieties of belief in Buddhism, but I have tried to describe the most common to my knowledge. Still I do not seek to change your mind about hanging out with Jesus. I see nothing wrong in that.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-05-03 8:34:20 PM
Just to be clear, I don't think either option is available.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-03 9:09:01 PM
Alain, I learned about Buddhism at a Christian college, so I may not have received a charitable interpretation of that religion. I'll concede this arguement to you as you sound better informed.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-03 9:26:56 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.