The Shotgun Blog
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Harper and the conservative movement
John Ibbitson writes an interesting column about the Conservative Party base. He points out that most Canadians are more ‘right wing’ than we would traditionally consider ourselves. This country has a long proud history of supporting personal responsibility and individual liberty. That tradition has not been wiped out and forms the back bone of the conservative movement.
But this is not really what caught my eye about the column. It was what was said at the very end the perked my interest:
Mr. Gafuik doubts the anthem flap is likely to estrange the Prime Minister from his base. After all, he says, Stephen Harper “came up on the movement side of conservative politics,” as an early adopter of the Reform Party and the onetime head of the National Citizens Coalition. Stephen Harper “is one of our own.”
But the Prime Minister needs to remember where he came from. The Stephen Harper of old would never have tried to change the wording of O Canada . And if someone else had tried, he'd have got on the phone.
This underlines two features of Stephen Harper’s leadership of the Conservative Party. The first is the bank of trust and credibility that he has built up over the years. There are many people who will, despite the ongoing evidence, give Mr. Harper the benefit of the doubt. I think the “one of our own” line truly demonstrates how many in the conservative movement (note small c) views Mr. Harper.
The second feature is the dedicated manner in which Mr. Harper has endeavoured to burn away that trust and credibility. Between the largest budgets in history and banning certain kinds of light bulbs, he has become the very thing that he once attacked. Mr. Ibbitson is right; ten years ago the most committed critic of Mr. Harper’s policies would have been Mr. Harper. The man has basically turned his back on everything that he stood for when he was President of the NCC.
The best hope for any conservative activist is to ignore the Conservative Party. They should put their energy and time into organizations like the Manning Centre or the Canadian Constitution Foundation. It is in those organizations that the ideas of the conservative movement are still alive; the same ideas that are now dead in the Harper government.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on March 14, 2010 | Permalink
Mr. Harper may be disappointing, but he's still way ahead of the alternatives. If Iggy and Jack were in power, there'd be no medicare or any government services at all because of Kyoto. Better to have disappointment than treason.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-14 2:48:08 PM
Hugh...why would anybody WANT to keep "the conservative movement" alive?
First, when Harpo was respectable, a decade ago and more, he professed a strain of libertarianism. He has since morphed his way through a variety of repugnant conservatisms.
Remember, it was libertarians he first and most forcefully drummed out of the party a coupla years back.
Even if you wished to preserve the worthless-at-best "conservative" "movement", why support the Manning Centre of all places?
The Manning Centre, like its founding namesake, is a technocratic statist entity, with disturbing social democratic and hyper-democratic elements tossed in, including religiosity to boot.
You are correct about the CCF -- they do good work and with a decidedly libertarian bent.
Meanwhile, your point about Harper - 'he may be a bastard, but he is OUR bastard'- is well put: Conservatives will tolerate anything from one of their heroes.
That said, the number of people who actually remember Harpo's more credible days is dwindling. As a young man he became a star to a lot of grey hairs who are no longer around. Harpo is best known for what he is about today: Big Government Conservatism; neocon fascist foreign policy; National Greatness conservatism; The Nanny-Bully State; and a whole whack of centrist, social democratic slop designed to appeal to the country he is from, lives in now, and truly represents: Upper Canada/Ontario ;-)
Posted by: JC | 2010-03-14 3:00:47 PM
"neocon fascist foreign policy"
There are many good reasons to throw Harper out. Lets not sully them with hyperbole and fiction.
JC is right about Manning; there is something 'up' with that guy and I don't like it. Some of the stuff he writes nowadays is disturbing. I am not familiar enough with his organization to offer opinion on it.
Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-03-14 3:30:17 PM
What do you call remaining in, and amping up, Afghanistan?
What do you call hysteria over uranium enrichment, and banging the drum for sanctions against, and war with, Iran?
What do you call committing, outside any treaty, to taking on Israel's enemies?
What do you call China-baiting?
Harper's foreign policy is neocon - the polite term for fascist. The greatest threat to domestic liberty is war abroad, war being the biggest, most destructive government program there is.
And yes, something is up with Manning. Green goofiness being one thing among many.
Posted by: JC | 2010-03-14 3:47:00 PM
The first is not happening under Harper, the next 2 are common sense, and the last is irritating but unsubstantial. On the bright side, you've revealed that you don't really know what neoconservatism is.
Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-03-14 4:11:57 PM
How can you say that 1) Mr. Harper is not a conservative, and 2) that he's following the "neocon" line? It doesn't make sense. I'd say the basic logic of his administration is finding a balance, which he has done with mixed results. On the one hand, he's had to limit the Afghanistan mission. On the other, he stopped Kyoto dead in its tracks. So it's all good.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-14 4:18:12 PM
The basic logic of his administration is to find a balance between failing to get a majority level of support and failing to enact small-government oriented ideas. It's two facepalms for the price of one!
Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-03-14 4:41:03 PM
The first, the maintenance and ramping up of the War in Afghanistan is indeed happening; how you could deny it is bizarre;
Second, even IF Iran is pursuing a nuke, it is no business of Canada's.
Third, sanctions ARE an act of war, and Harper has done plenty of anti-Iran noise making, which can only lead to Canadian support for any US attack on that country.
Canada also announced last month that it would support Israel in any military conflict it might find itself in -- which could be anything from another scrap with Hezbollah to a strike against Iran.
Finally...I don't know what neoconservatism is? Neoconservatism is nothing if not the militarization of foreign policy, one where domestic politics is played out on foreign stages, and where connected corporations profit from said policies. Neoconservatism is also about imposing its religion -- democracy -- at the end of a bayonet. And because we have attained the perfect society here in North America, we are at liberty, if not obligated, to impose our system by force on foreigners.
@Zeb: believe it or not, traditional conservatism and neoconservatism are not the same thing; neoconservatism has however, supplanted the former inside the so-called Conservative party.
Posted by: JC | 2010-03-14 5:10:29 PM
Ron Paul strikes again.
YES it is the world's problem if Iran gets nuclear weapons. The proliferation of such weapons is a grave concern for all. It could lead to war. YES enforcement has been lax, allowing Pakistan, India and Israel to flaunt the NPT, but this does not abdicate any responsibility. Sanctions are not an act of war, but rather a coercive measure, even if Iran appears unimpaired. Those people would carry on even if they were starving just like Saddam did. The world must never let them off the hook. Hopefully Iran doesn't get and use them first. That would be bad.
I was aware that 'traditional' conservatism and 'neo-conservatism' were not the same thing, but the latter comes out of the former. Even so, it is preferable to what the Ontarians have in store: a kleptocracy. I say cancel the 2015 Pan-Am Games as punishment for reviving Apartheid in Ontario.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-14 5:31:39 PM
Where is Canada ramping up the Afghan war? We're actually pulling out next year.
"second, even IF Iran is pursuing a nuke, it is no business of Canada's."
A nutjob with a weapon is everybody's business, especially when they have desecrated our right to free speech with the Fatwa against Rushdie & Co. America should have invaded just for that.
Israel is a natural ally against Islamic fascism, and Hezbollah a natural enemy.
Your description of neoconservatism as about 'imposing' democracy is true and the rest is fluff. There is nothing fascist about bringing democracy to other countries. It's stupid not evil.
Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-03-14 5:33:07 PM
@Zeb: How is Iran -- even IF they acquire a nuclear warhead -- a threat to anybody?
If they lob even ONE in Israel's direction, they will be vapourized. It's called deterrence.
Which is why THEY want one -- they are less likely to suffer a conventional invasion or air strike by their nuke-armed neighbours. That is fair game.
And sanctions, as you accidentally point out, are not only an act of war, but kill the weak, innocent, women, elderly and children whilst the purportedly offensive regime parties on, unscathed.
Finally, Zeb, NO: neoconservatism springs from socialism, not traditional conservatism. They are widely known as "liberals (socialists) mugged by reality".
Neoconservatism has always been about expansive statism and collectivist ideologies like democracy.
Posted by: JC | 2010-03-14 5:41:43 PM
@Cytotoxic: There is no such thing as "Islamofascism". That bogeyman was invented by neocon spin doctors.
Islamic fundamentalism - as extreme and barbaric as it can be - really has dick all to do with fascism.
As perverse as the death sentence against Rushdie is/was, it is not a matter over which war, or nuclear war, or sanctions, or indeed foreign policy of any kind ought to be concerned.
Harper has consistently increased Ottawa's spending and troop levels throughout his administration of the War in Afghanistan. He has done a lot to talk up, and money up the CF. He has accepted greater responsibilities in Afghan than the other "allies", thus putting Canadian lives at greater risk. He was responsible to pull out the second he assumed power.
Israel is not a "natural ally" against so-called Islamic fascism -- it is the inspiration for much of it. The other reason for the semi-fictional ideology's existence is US inverventionism in the Middle East lo these many decades. Canada HAS no dog in this fight, period. Harper has done his best to change that.
Posted by: JC | 2010-03-14 5:48:44 PM
So much wrong, where to start?
I would hope Harper would money up the CF a bit. I don't want the military-industrial complex of America but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a functional military.
Israel's possession of nuclear weapons has not deterred Iran from arming and leading terrorists for decades. I doubt it will deter any other form of crazy. But this is real a gem:
"As perverse as the death sentence against Rushdie is/was, it is not a matter over which war, or nuclear war, or sanctions, or indeed foreign policy of any kind ought to be concerned."
WRONG. Protecting our rights is one of the few legitimate functions government has. That was an act of war by Iran. Unfortunately you and many other libertarians would rather sacrifice our rights for some mis-founded historical guilt than do the right thing and destroy the Mullahs. I'll leave that to Publius.
Also, the "Israel inspired Islamic craziness" myth is just that. Most Islamic militancy has nothing to do with that conflict. From Copts getting killed in Egypt to Indians being bombed in Bombai there is a radical fringe to Islam and it must be countered (George Jonas had a piece up detailing how a former jihadi confessed that what the terrorists really hate is feminism and couldn't care less about US foreign policy). The axe-murderer sent by al-quaeda to Denmark to kill cartoonists has helped demonstrate that the dog of anyone who desires freedom is in this fight. You are entangled, and always will be. There is no more neutrality and there's nothing you can do about it.
Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-03-14 6:13:59 PM
Uh, no: an act of oppression against a writer is not an act of war or of any concern to any State other than such as may be compromised by the crime of killing him for his speech.
This may come as a newsflash, but Rushdie is not a Canadian citizen. It is undemocratic and illiberal to initiate war with another State over the issue.
Even IF the "jihadi" you reference did hate feminism -- another basis upon which NOT to initiate war -- how does said terrorist acquire the job of spokesman for the entire terrorist world?
If the US was doing in my region and to my country and people and co-religionist what they have been doing in the Middle East, I'd be taking up arms, too. Sorry to hear you would not.
Copts and Hindus may well be getting killed by Muslims -- and vice versa. But guess what? Not our problem. NOT resolveable, ever, except by the involved parties.
Meanwhile, back to the State's legitimate function (allegedly, in the Fairy Tale world of conservatives): protecting our rights. The death threat against Rushdie did not impact upon Canadians' rights. Consequently, Ottawa has no standing in that case.
If you, however, wish to finance protection for Rushdie, or retribution against his offendor, I wholeheartedly support you in that endeavour. Just don't do it with my money without asking me first.
There IS neutrality, if you choose it. If you don't, it's the war of each against all ad infinitum. Kinda like neocon foreign policy.
Lastly, you are for a LIMITED expansion of the CF under the supervision of an obvious neocon? I think not.
Posted by: JC | 2010-03-14 6:55:14 PM
Cytotocic has the facts right in this debate. I usually agree with JC but he is way off base here.
As for PM Harper I know not whether he was ever truly a conservative or not, and frankly I care not. What is important is how he has acted as PM and here I find almost nothing conservative. In light of this and that the alternatives are even worse, I, for the first time in my life, doubt I shall bother voting the next time around.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-03-14 7:17:50 PM
@JC: the Fatwa was also issued against ANY publishers of and I believe even bookstores that sold "Satanic verses". My rights have been violated--->state initiation of counter-violence measures required. Or we can suffer endless war as you would have use. Taking up arms against the US liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan? Yeah, true defenders of freedom love the Taliban and Sadaam.
@Alain: why not vote for a fringe party like the Libertarians? I would if Keith Martin weren't my MP.
Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-03-14 7:41:35 PM
Cytotoxic, unless there is a change the choices I have in my riding are CCP, Liberal, NDP or Green. I am aware of other parties that would better represent my position, but unfortunately they have never run a candidate in my riding.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-03-14 7:47:01 PM
@Cyto: Sigh. A fatwa is of no concern to any State entity unless and until somebody attempts to enforce it inside that State's territory.
And when said fatwa is attempted to be enforced on another government's turf, it is a POLICE matter.
If you consider the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan to be a "liberation" you're using a neocon dictionary and not much can be done for you.
If the US ever attempts to "liberate" Canada, anybody with a set will take up arms.
The point is not to vote FOR a party so much as to NOT vote for the current gang of bastards only because they are somehow (wrongly, in most cases) deemed by pseudo-conservatives to be 'not as bad' as the other social democrats. At least the dippers would not take us into wars, and their economic programme would more quickly meet with its day of reckoning domestically. Hell, they might even tread more lightly, especially where debt is concerned, than the Tories, due to the hyper scrutiny the socialist party would be under.
Posted by: JC | 2010-03-14 7:52:04 PM
Of those that the fatwa applied to, several have been attacked and physically harmed. The police are not meant for an attack directed/instructed by a hostile outside government. Military intervention and regime termination are required.
If Canada were ever under a Taliban/Sadaam style of government, I would hope and pray for American liberation. They would be and are our benefactors.
If the dippers got into government, they would be as partners. This would not pressure them into responsibility as the Rae NDP was. Still, a vote for the CPC is vote for the desecration of The Right and a political frame-shift to the left.
Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-03-14 8:22:18 PM
So if a crime is committed in this country, you believe the military, and not cooperation between, say, RCMP and CSIS, is who ought to respond?
So you WANT what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of actually bringing perpetrators to justice?
Posted by: JC | 2010-03-14 9:46:42 PM
Depends. If the crime is initiated/facilitated by a foreign entity such as a state or organization under state shelter, then yes go military. An example where this may be required is Spain-Venezuela. Venezuela's government has apparently been cooperating with the FARC and ETA. Spain should seriously consider working with Colombia to foment regime change in Venezuela. Arming an insurgency should be considered, but there are lots of creative ways to foment instability. Outright invasion is probably unnecessary.
I don't want what has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't the US to twaddle around with democracy or any nation building. I just want them to kill the bad guys by any means necessary. That means no combat restrictions, no target restrictions, no outcome but victory!
Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-03-14 10:18:43 PM
This is why I can't call myself a libertarian! We have a number of libertarians who want to "cow tow" to the muslim dictatorships. Iran works with terrorist groups. If that idiot Iranian president of theirs gets a nuc than it will be only a question of time before a terrorist group uses it! We have terrorist and their supporters stabbing to death a Dutch film maker(grandson of Van Gogh), trying to kill a Danish cartoonist and his granddaughter, and attempting to commit terrorist attacks worldwide. What is the response of Ron Paul and other likeminded libertarians? The answer is run away and don't make the poor little muslim radicals mad! That means not saying anything that would irritate the poor little muslim radicals! That means selling out the Jews in Israel, just like Canada and the rest of the developed world sold out the Jews of Europe in the 1930's(after all wouldn't want to piss off that failed housepainter and murdering psycho Hitler)! The failed cancer of appeasement is alive and well in the libertarian movement! Oh yeah, if you are an appeasement libertarian don't dare support increasing the size or armaments of the Canadian armed forces. How dare Canada actually have a fair sized military that can defend it! Better in the libertarian appeasement camp that we reduce ourselves to the broken military of Mulroney and Trudeau. My advice to you appeasers in the movement is drop the dope and ditch the braindead hippie act. There are real dangers in the outside world and they must be confronted. Also, there are a few real libertarians(like Neal Boortz) who actually willing to stand up to the radical Muslim danger(and yes the danger is from the radical element of Islam not all Muslims. Just like the problem was the Nazis and their supporters in Germany not all Germans). Neal's libertarian credentials are impeccable(read his book on the fair tax). However, unlike many appeasers, he knows how to read a history book. The only hope for the libertarian movement in the future is to stand up to the danger of radical jihadists. Otherwise, people like me will never offer our support to a movement that placates the world's newest brand of Nazis!
Posted by: Jim | 2010-03-14 10:32:57 PM
So, in your Objectivist worldview, Canada should have declared war on France for the "Vivre Quebec Libre!" quip by DuGaulle, instead of pursuing diplomatic measures?
The UK should have declared war on the US because of all the well placed Boston Irish who financed the IRA, and the help the CIA gave the Provos?
I should kill your family because you threaten to kill me?
Are you not remotely aware that MILLIONS of people in Iraq have died, been dismembered, mutilated, subjected to disease, dispossessed and endured 7 years of martial law all for having NOTHING to do with 9-11, or even any connection to Saddam Hussein's regime?
Millions should be destroyed because Rushdie pissed off some Mullahs and became a multi-millionaire as a consequence?
Canadian citizens should be robbed by Ottawa to pay for the killing of people who never did them harm?
Have you even begun to think out the ramifications of your war fantasies??
And btw - u seem less than enamoured of big government here in Canada - do you not grasp that a government big enuff to launch foreign invasions and occupations is going to be a very expensive government and one that won't be shy about abusing civil liberties at home?
Posted by: JC | 2010-03-14 10:36:50 PM
That anthem flap was about Harper trying to placate women! He is no more wrong than the average Canadian man who lets his woman push him around. The truth of the matter is that Canadian society has been effectively "sissified" by the feminists. The feminists stuck it down your throats and you men just accepted it. The joke is guys like Mike or JC probably talk tough on this website but get all meek in front of their ladies. Why is it that the only time that most Canadian men ever show a touch of machismo is at a stupid hockey game? I have been to supposed women centric countries like Finland, Sweden, and Norway. Yet, those men don't seem to have wandered so far down to the path to wimpland. Did you know that in Finland and Norway that the men in their military do the fighting not the women(the way it is almost every country)? Yet, in Canada, we have accepted women serving in combat because too many men don't have the nerve to stand in her place(like it is supposed to be)! How many of you guys actually have the guts or nerves to defend your wife when you are attacked by a mugger, gang of hoodlums, etc.? How many of you would be willing to put yourself between a gunman and your wife(or girlfriend or mother) to protect her? You have let the feminists have their way. The result is a society increasing populated with men who are politically correct but backbone deficent! Too many Canadian men have become Alan Alda wantabes! It is also turning many of the non-feminist majority of Canadian women off. Why do you think so many native born Canadian women are attracted to male immigrant arrivals to Canada? Do you think that your Alan Alda act is winning off feminists? Guess again, many feminists(like the senator who first brought up this issue) are men haters to begin with. They will hate you no matter what you do! Oh my mistake, they would be all to happy if you just left the country or croaked! So, men grow some cahones and at least try to set up a positive example of masculinity and honor for your children!
Posted by: Paco | 2010-03-14 11:22:11 PM
You can't call yourself libertarian for the following reasons:
a) you aren't one;
b) you have been severely brain damaged by neocon comic book fiction;
c) you think Neal Boortz has "impeccable libertarian credentials";
d) you and your whole outlook on life are dominated by FEAR;
e) you think failing to declare war - war you personally won't fight in or pay for - on the long-suffering populations of countries ruled by dogshit theocratic regimes is "appeasement";
f) you frankly do not possess the requisite IQ points that would make such a declaration truthful.
Posted by: JC | 2010-03-14 11:36:14 PM
the anthem flap was a stale and cynical political ploy to (more than anything else) try and get ignatieff to say something stupid. middle class women are an up for grabs demographic that are trending liberal. i don't like to categorize people like that either, but that's the way the handlers think.
i happened to stumble upon this page and am finding the conversation fairly interesting. i have a left-libertarian streak in me myself and i've never quite understood what it is that draws right-libertarians to conservatism. i mean, i get the stuff about personal responsibility, a distaste for imperialism and less government but all i've ever seen from right-wing governments (bush, harper, mulroney, reagan) in my lifetime is an expansion of the police state, less freedom, massive budgetary deficits, foreign conflicts and generally illiberal policies. i understand why some libertarians would have serious qualms about certain aspects of social democracy, but throughout the history of this country it's been the liberal party that has advocated greater personal freedom, balanced budgets and a peaceful foreign policy based on working through the united nations (i understand why you guys don't like the UN, but surely it's better than conflict?).
i dunno. just something to think about.
Posted by: dkdghgkdka | 2010-03-15 2:32:12 AM
JC, recognising an enemy (someone with the means and admitted goal of destroying you) and having the will to prevent this happening does not make one a war monger. As for claiming that Islamofascism, or whatever label you prefer, is purely a boogyman, an invention, the facts do not substantiate your claim.
Following the logic of your statements, the world should have allowed victory for Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan, and later the same for communism (although I think communism may have won without a fight). Does this mean that we should declare war and invade any country with which we disagree or because we want to protect our financial interest? No, of course not. In an ideal world there would be no fighting or war and everyone would always be nice to everyone else, but we are a long way away from there.
You may still disagree but dropping the hyperbole and personal attacks would be better. I do not consider my person or my identity threatened when my views are not accepted, or at least I make a sincere effort not to do so. One main reason is that I recognise that my views have never been static or permanent, so why should one cling to anything so changeable.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-03-15 2:37:47 PM
You need to step entirely outside your comfort zone and look at things more objectively.
It may shock -- shock -- you to consider that the West should NOT have fought Hitler and the Nazis -- at least not until he and Stalin had blown each others' brains out. And not until Germany made an actual move on our Home and Native Land. The real reason Canada was sucked into WW1 and WW2 was primarily as cannon fodder and raw materials for the British Imperium. And before you start on about stopping genocide, remember this FACT: Canada, and countless others had innumerable opportunities to save the Jews and other afflicted populations but chose very consciously to NOT do so. "None were too many".
Japan was a tyranny to be sure, but they were baited and provoked into Pearl Harbour. This is even acknowledged by a great many mainstream historians, now.
So much of what you cite as 'fact' where "Islamofascism" is concerned is in fact fiction, having been financed and fastidiously crafted for the last couple of decades. If you repeat a lie often enuff, eventually a large number of people will believe it is true.
Unlike you, I am anti-Communist (and anti-communist): I believe, per Mises and Rothbard, that Communism was destined to fail, to implode under the weight of its own contradictions and impossibility.
Even if "islamofascism" were real -- as opposed to a part-phantom, part Western multi-cult virus -- it, too, without the benefit of an imperial enemy, would FAIL. With nothing to fight and rail against, al qaeda et al would fail objectively and on their own terms, and not only on the basis of their lack of traction with various Muslim communities.
You believe "islamofascism" is a threat based purely on fear and propaganda. Has a muslim individual or group EVER done you or yours any harm? Has a Muslim group or individual or any person CLAIMING to act in the name of Islam EVER affected your life or that of your country? Examples, please.
Anybody who, duped or otherwise, chooses war as a primary or even casual response to a perceived crime or political difference is a warmonger, period. And if that person advocates for a war that s/he is not prepared to personally finance or fight in, the word is 'Chicken hawk'.
Posted by: JC | 2010-03-15 10:43:41 PM
"Canada also announced last month that it would support Israel in any military conflict it might find itself in"
What about today?
Read "An attack on Israel would be considered
an attack on Canada" from today's Globe...
Posted by: Marc | 2010-03-16 3:42:32 PM
JC, thank you for presenting your views in a polite and clear manner. While both our views of WW II are based on guess and both are possible, I still find mine more probable than yours for the following reasons.
I agree that the allies along with Germany and Japan were motived by self-interest, and that the allies were not motivated by true concern for the Jews and other victims of the Holocaust. Their refusing refuge to those seeking to escape the Germans and their allies confirm this along with their refusal to bomb the rail lines leading to the camps. However, I find your views the same as most of the world at the time, which preferred to ignore the large scale rearmament of Germany and the well established goals of the Germans. Due to this, much more blood was shed when they realised that appeasement resulted in naught. It is therefore probable that Canada would have been invaded after the fall of Europe and England, since great world powers need access to more and more natural resources if nothing else. This is why I still maintain that the delay in dealing with the threat cost everyone much more blood and lives and was a bad calculation.
Our war with Japan however was a different matter. I do not say this to excuse the atrocities committed by Japan at the time. Hawaii at the time had a much larger population of Japanese decent than Americans, at least based on documentation I have read, but the Americans wanted it. One could rightly call it American colonisation, just as they did with a large part of Mexico. What was also at stake were the British colonies throughout Asia, so it pretty well was a case of whether these areas were to be controlled by the British or Japan. I am therefore willing to concede that it is possible that we could have avoided going to war with Japan, especially since Canada had no vested interest.
As for militant Islam you are very wrong, as you choose to ignore that this threat exists in substantial numbers within our borders; here I include all the West. They do not hide their intentions and their behaviour is clear. It is not a question of fear, but it is a question of being realistic. I agree however that trying to fight Islamofascisim abroad while refusing to deal with the issue within our borders is rather pointless. That said it is not a matter, in my view at least, of treating all resident Muslims as Islamofascists.
We shall probably still disagree, which is fine. As for shocking me, I have seen too much in this life to be shocked. I may feel disgusted and even angry at times but no shocked.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-03-16 5:33:23 PM
Forget “conservatism,” please. Almost 150 years ago, R.L. Dabney, the great Presbyterian theologian who was Stonewall Jackson's chief of staff, said what was wrong about the secular conservatism of his day. He said:
"[Its history] history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It tends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth."
Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism. To God, they are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
Host, “The American View” Radio Show
Posted by: John Lofton | 2010-03-17 4:35:55 PM
You still fail to provide examples of actual harm done to you, yours, or your country by Muslims, or any evidence of a clear and present danger from same.
I applaud your recognition that we should not be fighting muslims "over there".
I also applaud your acknowledgment that Canada did not need to fight Japan in WW2. But if we take this and combine it with your position on Nazi Germany, shouldn't you be claiming that eventually, Japan would have sought control of ALL the Pacific, including British Columbia?
As I pointed out previously, you seem to give more power to Communism and Nazism than either ever had. Hitler's statism and inflationism was destined to fail for the same reasons the Soviets were.
Nazi Germany was never a threat to the UK. It was to portions of its Empire, but never to the British Isles themselves. Germany had no navy, for one. Second no analysis I am familiar with gave Germany ANY chance of defeating the British in a ground war IN Britain, and less chance of successfully occupying that country.
The ruling elites, meanwhile, had a lot to gain, from war. It was and is their national business.
Posted by: JC | 2010-03-17 5:42:01 PM
Hong Kong was all the reason Canada needed to fight Japan in WWII, so that idea is ludicrous. They were a menace to the entire world. Putting them down was an act of justice even though the cost was extremely high.
As for the Nazis not posing a threat to Britain - absolutely preposterous. The battles of Britain and the Atlantic easily disprove this. The Nazis went to extraordinary lengths to defeat Britain by air and sea, and later by land in the Mediterranean and North Africa. Clearly, your drug addiction is affecting your knowledge of history, assuming you had one to begin with.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-17 5:51:46 PM
@Zeb: you are right - I never had a drug addiction to begin with.
Tell us, admiral, what "extraordinary lengths the Nazis went to defeat Britain at sea"?? You are swimming nekkid, dude.
Cite ONE analysis where Germany is given ANY chance of invading, defeating and occupying Britain proper. Right. That's cuz there are none.
Germany was mainly a paper tiger -- literally: inflation was the bulk of their economic strategy. That and Bush family investment ;-)
Germany was defeated by ANOTHER economic fraud, the Soviet Union. Both were destined to implode, both should have been permitted to hasten the others decline by the West standing back to watch.
But no: the Military Industrial Complex in the US and British Empire saw $$$.
Glad to see clowns like you, Zeb, still alive online nurturing your belief in the efficacy, viability and power of Communism and Fascism. Guess that is why you vote CPC ;-)
Posted by: JC | 2010-03-17 6:04:15 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.