Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

You'd be doing a tough-on-crime shout-out to your party base too if you had this photo on the front page of your party's website

by Paul Wells on Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:28pm - 91 Comments

Bookmark and Share
  • http://www.illegalcurve.com AMM

    You mean an articulate, intelligent, and refined African American doesn’t appeal to the Conservative Party of Canada’ s base of support?

    That’s stunning news.

    • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

      AMM – It’s a shame that all you can see is a person’s colour and how well he talks/dresses himself.

      I think cons will be freaking out that Harper wants to be like Obama, the guy who thinks trillions of dollars deficits and massive expansion of the State are great way to govern.

      I see in today’s news that Flaherty is copying Obama in saying that not all deficit spending will work, be effective, but we should go ahead with it anyways.

      • T. Thwim

        It’s a shame that all you can see is a reference to a person’s color. Did it ever strike you that it might be the idea of an intelligent person that doesn’t appeal to the CPC base?

        It certainly has myself.

      • http://www.illegalcurve.com AMM

        And I think it’s a shame JWL, that you think you know anything about me based on my sporadic posting on the Macleans.ca blogs.

        • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

          I am entirely aware I know nothing about you AMM. You implied cons are racists, most of whom you don’t know, and I was just wondering how you would respond to similar accusation.

          T Thwim

          What evidence is there that Obama is intelligent? All I see is a guy who thinks he has all the answers to the world’s problems and anyone who thinks like that cannot be described as intelligent.

          • sf

            AMM did not respond particularly well. He can dish it out but he can’t take it.

          • http://www.illegalcurve.com AMM

            I can take anything thrown at me sf.

            Sometimes, most often times in fact, I just don’t care to respond. Instead, I prefer to step away from the computer, into the daylight, and enjoy the company of people I can interact with live and in-person. Try it sometime!

          • sf

            Sorry, I never leave my cave.

          • Mike T.

            Given the imagery the CPC website used regarding youth crime, I don’t think it’s entirely unfair to make a jab at their expense.

            And when you’re editor of Harvard Law Review, then you may call Obama dumb.

    • http://azmattressoutlet.com mattresses phoenix

      go beyond the stereotypes, please.

  • PolJunkie

    lol!!

    • Jarrid

      I thought Paul’s headline was funny too, he treats the Conservatives as if they’re some kind of rump party.

      The Canadian electorate gave the Conservatives close to 40% of the vote last election. A lot of these voters are in the centre of the political spectrum. A lot of them are Obama fans or at least intrigued by him. Most don’t have too much time to devote more than a cursory amount of time to politics and the issues of the day because they have to earn a living.

      I think Obama’s lustre will be lost pretty quick because his pie-in-the-sky big government solutions have been tried before and found wanting: I”m talking about socialism. Most people don’t realize that Obama’s a closet socialist.

      That said, Harper has shown in these last couple of weeks that he’s a player on the world scene and can more than hold his own. This gives Canada credibility.

      • LeenieJ (imho)

        Jarrid, what’s not close is the distribution of seats in Parliament. explain how 35% translates into 47% and those who value “transparency” can accept such a thing. it seems integrity went out the window.

      • John D

        Do you have some advanced polling analysis to back up your claims that “a lot” of Conservative voters:
        1. are in the centre of the political spectrum
        2. are Obama fans or at least intrigued by him
        3. don’t have too much time to devote more than a cursory amount of time to politics and the issues of the day
        4. Are tricked by a “closet socialist?”

  • CAPS

    What about the whole “If Obama were Canadian he’d be a Conservative” meme? Have they realised how ludicrous it is?

    • edeast

      I think they are basing it on the Chicago school.

    • Jarrid

      Obama and Harper agree on:

      a) How to deal with global warming: you get India and China in on any solution:

      b) the Afstan war

      and many other important issues.

      What’s important is that they have a good working relationship. Harper has shown he can defend Canada’s interests abroad. He’s principled and he’s shown he’s as good as his word.

      • Jarrid

        Good evening folks, I’ve been a little busy lately but I was very impressed Harper’s handling of the Obama visit followed by his power visit to the U.S. I know many of my Liberal friends were impressed as well and told me so.

        Did people see Harper’s interviews with the U.S. media? His economics background is coming in mighty handy right about now. People forget the man’s a trained economist.

        • John D

          People forget the man’s a trained economist.

          Funny that. I don’t see how, listening to him and watching his actions, you could forget that he’s a “trained economist.” He’s just so good at it.

  • Paul Wells

    He’s walking to the Prime Minister’s right, after all.

    • http://www.jackmitchell.ca J@ck M!tchell

      But he’s looking to the centre-left.

  • edeast

    I’m not getting it.
    Are you implying that the tough on crime stance by conservatives is racist?

    • http://macleans.ca kc

      I’d take a wild guess that Paul’s implying [ inferring - damn it which?] that the cons strategy is a bit incoherent right now! Still my guesses are wild!

      • http://macleans.ca kc

        Hmm on second thoughts…wild!

      • edeast

        I think your guess is better.

    • Paul Wells

      Not at all, and I’m a bit peeved that some are reading that in. I’m saying the stimulus-deficit-Obama’s-my-pal agenda has been hard for conservatives to stomach, and the mandatory-minimums-for-drive-by-shootings agenda will be a bit more palatable.which I think is why we’re seeing it.

      • edeast

        Ya, sorry bout that. That racist word is toxic, and I acknowledged my bad hypothesis earlier in response to kc.

        • http://macleans.ca kc

          It’s ok don’t think PW liked my guess either.
          I know it wasn’t yr intent, but i still like my pt better. It seems irrational to me to throw bones to yr base while cozing up to Obama. This is Harper parsed, still standing for nothing, except whatever everyone currently perceives as a winner. Did he borrow this strategy from Ralph, find a parade and get out in front of it? That’s rational in AB where the parade is invariably conservative.
          Trouble is politics isn’t rational, so i’m probably wrong. Watch how many cons lap this stuff up blissfully unconscious of any irony. Many of those folks were likely pulling for McCain and calling Obama a socialist only yesterday. Crack dowm on crime and continue branding yrself with a big O. Well, at least it steals Iggy’s thunder. Everyone loves a winner, that is until they aren’t. Let me introduce Canada’s new , new, newly newer Consevative govt. Who will they be tomorrow!

          • LeenieJ (imho)

            that’s not all they were calling Obama kc. remember NAFTA-gate? trying to suggest that Obama couldn’t be trusted on NAFTA issues by using your ambassador and others to leak information when the man you are maligning has a tone not your own is a typical type of attack against a person of colour in that country. if they did not intend the inference, i’d be very surprised. how could they not know?

            Michelle Obama was depicted as being trussed up to be raped and lynched; Obama had to tell them to “lay off my wife”. he’s been depicted with a scope on his head. this is the new way of showing the “blacks” how “equal” they are.

            look at the recent conservative rag NYP cartoon and the immediate reaction to it by ppl of all “races” in the states who “got” the implication of a depiction of assassination against Obama (he’s on the other page signing the bill referred to in the stupid cartoon!) given the history of using monkeys to depict ppl of African descent.

            and Palin’s rallies had ppl shouting comments like “kill the n*****r” meaning Obama … or maligning the Muslim religion; you name it, they had it. they also had an idiot holding a stuffed monkey with “Obama” written on it. i never heard Palin or Republicans or conservs condemning it until it looked bad. it’s not as if they had a moral conversion. ppl who are used to this type of treatment can read between the lines.

            this just looks like the “white guy” still trying to pimp or jones on the successful “black guy” who just got “honourary white status” and is now no longer 3/5 of a man, until someone can topple him from his throne or get ppl to lose their “crush” on him.

          • LeenieJ (imho)

            “this is the new way of showing “blacks” how “equal” they are.” by “this” i mean to infer to the picture relating to this article. President Obama is not fooled.

            maybe you ought to read a little book called “Black Like Me”. it was written in the mid 20th century i think by a “white” author; but it reveals a lot about hidden racism; not much has changed. ppl bristle at the word but don’t realize that they accept, enable, and benefit greatly from the behaviour and attitude related to racism (the right of ascension and rule); not to mention the system of entitlement built up around said racism. the Western World stands, lives, and benefits on land/economy/invention/brilliance/et alii built up, devised by, or belonging to others, yet denies those others their right to benefit.

          • http://macleans.ca kc

            Leenie
            Those stories are disgusting, however i don’t think that is relevent here. No-one’s suggesting SH’s a rascist, merely opportunist and politically fickle.

          • LeenieJ (imho)

            kneejerking a reaction instead of pausing to think? racism is real–at least its effects are real.

          • LeenieJ (imho)

            actually kc,

            racism is just elitism in a colour-caste system; deny it at your peril when it’s all around you.

          • http://macleans.ca kc

            Leenie
            Just what is yr pt? I’m aware rascisim is an appalling blight on the whole of humanity. If you are saying that only conservatives are rascist, all i can say is you must be very young. Take it from me, living will soon cure that. I’m assuming nothing about you, other than yr youth.

        • edeast

          At least this incident can give me a topic for that hermeneutic paper I have to write. Headline, art with the angel appendages, propaganda, timed comments of interpretation added in, and how it affects the overall meaning. Thanks.

      • Mulletaur

        Agreed. Harper has to do something, ANYTHING, to try to get his conservative base back on side. They sure don’t like the massive spending and they’re not all that fussy about Obama either, at least the ones I have been in contact with. Harper is going to have a lot of the former Reform hard core set sitting on their hands in the next election unless he introduces at least some policies to please them.

  • Terry

    Obama isn’t a conservative, he’s just slightly to the right of Harper on many issues that’s all.

  • Dot

    I think the caption on the photo was actually the Conservative photographer’s stage directions to Harper.

  • http://www.canadianrosebud.blogspot.com dan in van

    Obama, hands open, walking forcefully forward. Harper, arms down, smiling but with no idea where he’s going. But it looks good!

    • sf

      I find it silly that you are reading so much into that photo. Why would Harper have his hands up in the air while Obama was talking? And why would he be looking forward rather than looking in the eyes of the person speaking to him?

      • LeenieJ (imho)

        STephen H had his hands up in the air waving at nobody in the crowd, just like Barry, just before that so…

  • Brammer

    That didn’t take long.

    • Brammer

      ..and I love the tag!

  • Mike G

    I dunno, PW, that’s a bit cynical even for me. Gang violence is jawdroppingly prominent out here in Vancouver recently, not to mention whatever goes on in the ROC, and something needed to be said, action needs to be taken, regardless of the optics.

    Besides, as has been said before, repeatedly – in purely Machiavellian (chess moves!) terms, it doesn’t matter if the Conservatives move to the left, where else are people going to park their votes? They already have better voter turnout (I think) than the Liberals, and in places like Alberta, 10 people could show up to the polls and the province would still be as blue as ever (minus my home riding of Edmonton-Strathcona, anyway). Tory voters have made themselves ignorable. I don’t think this is good for democracy, or anything like that, but I think it does reflect the reality of the situation.

    And, you know, it’s a good picture.

  • http://www.maderblog.com David Mader

    I’d still love to know what anyone – anyone at all – thinks the Goldilocks option is for a Canadian conservative party. When the Tories were ideologically conservative, they were lampooned and lambasted for being ideological. Now that they’ve abandoned ideology in favor of power-pragmatism, they’re lampooned and lambasted for being power-driven/pragmatic. Is there an approach that wouldn’t subject them to scorn?

    It’s an honest question. I freely admit that I’m among those who would rather see the Conservatives act consistently conservative, though perhaps not dogmatically so, since they’re subject to scorn either way. But given that they’re scorned either way, is there really much force to criticisms that their current positions are incoherent? What position could they take that wouldn’t be criticized as (a) incoherent or (b) ideological? It’s almost enough to make one think that the critics are simply fixated on the party label…

    (Incidentally, this criticism isn’t directed at Paul, who never (that I can recall) criticized the Tories for being ideologically consistent (insofar as they ever were), though he did criticize the policy consequences of some of that ideological consistency. I’d be interested in his answer, though, to the Goldilocks question.)

    • T. Thwim

      There’s a difference between social conservatism and fiscal conservatism.

      Canada is not socially conservative at all, and only moderately fiscally conservative.

      The problem for the CPC is that they’ve seemed to reverse the two — thus pissing off everyone.

      • sf

        I’d have to agree with David Mader, I cannot for the life of me figure out what you consider to be social conservative policy.

    • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

      “Is there an approach that wouldn’t subject them to scorn?”

      Not in this country there isn’t. All liberals/progressives do now is squawk about others, and try to convince themselves they are ‘intelligent’, because they have no policy ideas of their own.

      That’s why I find Harper/Cons idea to go to the middle to be so infuriating. They should retain their con principles and bring the centre to them. Trying to appeal to people who think they are the prettiest, and most clever, person at the party is a mug’s game and Harper et al should stick with their beliefs and bring voters to them.

      • http://www.maderblog.com David Mader

        jwl, I agree, and I think that ideological conservatives have every reason to be upset with the recent direction of the party.

        But there are, as you suggest, relatively few of us ideological Canadian conservatives – and fewer still among the ranks of the commentariat. So while it’s perfectly understandable that Andrew Coyne has had repeated fits of apoplexy, the more general charge that Harper and the Tories are ‘hypocrites’ for running a deficit seem disingenuous, at least when they come from the same mouths that damned Harper for being an ideologue during his first term in office. If Harper was too ideological, his willingness to abandon ideology in favor of pragmatism should be applauded – although his critics remain free to suggest that perhaps an heretofore conservative party is less competent to act liberal than the Liberal party.

        The fact that so few who previously criticized Harper’s ideology seem willing to give him credit for his new-found pragmatism suggests to me that the criticism was hollow in the first place. The suggestion would be rebutted if any of these critics were to point to a specific Goldilocks policy that Harper could take that would draw recognition, if not praise. In other words, it would be fair to say “Harper is right to abandon his ideology, but in its place he has adopted policies that don’t make sense; instead he should adopt these specific policies, or at least this general approach to governance, that would be pragmatic while still recognizably conservative.”

        I haven’t seen any such suggestion, and I’m beginning to wonder if it isn’t because Harper’s current approach – though distinctly second-best – is as close to the Goldilocks option as is feasible.

        T. Thwim: in what way is the Harper conservative party socially conservative?

        • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

          Where I think the Libs/libs have been genius over the past 20 years or so is to push the meme that they are for kittens, lollipops, rainbows and all that’s nice in this world while Cons are knuckle-dragging racists who want to do nothing but rape and pillage the land. What I find most disappointing is that many cons/Cons aren’t willing to fight back, because it’s probably more trouble than it’s worth, but meekly leave the charges unanswered.

          Did you see that B Oda post that Wherry did yesterday? I thought that encapsulated Cons problem. How could Oda, or PMO, not see those type of questions coming and prepare a 2/3 sentence answer on why they were changing foreign aid. Instead we get deer-in-headlights response which makes average person wonder what she’s up to.

          I am sure a thesis could be written on why Cons don’t do well but i think one of the main reasons is that many don’t want to push back against libs belief that they are the most intelligent, tolerant party there is.

          • http://www.maderblog.com David Mader

            jwl – mean to reply directly to your post, but messed up; my reply is below beginning “I generally agree.”

          • James Connors

            Or, could be, John Stuart Mill was right.

          • http://macleans.ca kc

            Nah James, Mill was just a liberal!

      • http://macleans.ca kc

        Wrong again jwl. The cons ran on left over liberal scraps and a couple of their own ideas for a couple of yrs. Now the well’s dry. Lucky for them Obama’s come along, now they gonna ride his coattails. Sad- sack consevatives if you ask me!

      • LeenieJ (imho)

        too l8 for that; the current conservs would have to resign for me to respect conservatives in this country; and i’d have to see a whole new sea of conservatives who back up what they actually say and who don’t think good intentions are better than being honourable, decent, and responsive.

    • http://prairiewrangler.wordpress.com/ Olaf

      I’ve had the same thought on multiple occasions. The problem for Liberals, anyway (for the Dipper types the CPC probably hasn’t gone far enough out into left field), is probably not so much his general policy direction anymore, but his governing style. Sure, many will still use even the most vaguely right wing proposal to trot out the “scary ideological neo-con theo-con” line, but I think their main criticism at this point is that he appears visionless, crass, and irrationally partisan, while at the same time appearing to have little respect for openness, transparency, and other virtues of sound governance. At this point, it’s difficult (for me, anyways) to disagree with those criticisms. I think a lot of conservatives, such as myself, need to take a good long look at the way the man actually governs the country.

      I’ve pointed out on countless occasions that one can’t be a political opportunist who will advocate any policy if it will win votes, while still being an inflexible ideologue. They’re incompatible criticisms, and yet they’re often tossed out by the same people in the same day as if they could both be the case simultaneously. But such are the trappings of partisanship.

    • Mulletaur

      If they kept to being conservative, you could criticise them for being ‘wrong’ if you didn’t agree with their ideology, but not for being hypocritical or power hungry. If you have a worldview, you should either keep to it or come out clearly and state why it doesn’t apply anymore, just like Greenspan did when cornered by Congress. And if you’re all over the place, you should expect to be lambasted from all sides.

      • LeenieJ (imho)

        if the conservs “came clean” it would be over a lot faster for them.

        • Mulletaur

          If they stuck to fiscal conservatism and stayed away from social conservatism they would still have a lot of appeal, and perhaps would even change the political orientation of the Canadian polity in time – arguably, this has already happened to some extent. But their social conservatism drives voters away, particularly in Central Canada.

  • Neil from Calgary

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Conservatives get almost 40% of the visible minority vote (including my uncle) in Metro Van in the last election? Haven’t the Tories been doing better and better since 2004 with these Canadians? Granted they started from a pretty low position, but the trend election-to-election is clearly in their favour.

  • Troylis

    I’m not sure what the political optics of that photo are — I just like that it shows Obama with angel wings and a halo :)

    • http://www.jackmitchell.ca J@ck M!tchell

      LOL, didn’t notice it at first. Does he always wear those?

    • LeenieJ (imho)

      great observation!

  • Mike T.

    That pic totally looks like a new hybrid Canadian American flag was devised and put on display. Although I realize that’s not the case.

    Probably.

  • Dee

    Love the tie colours that were chosen. I don’t think that was a coincidence.

  • TobyornotToby

    I would have thought this organized crime announcement would have been made in Yorkton-Melville after all the ten percenters Garry Breitkreuz sent me on the subject.

  • http://deleted Sandi

    LOL – those CON supporters who daily called Obama the most left, commie, socialist Liberal in the Democratic party now see him as being like Harper?

    Not a good photo – it looks like Obama is the leader telling Harper what it’s all about.

    LOL – tough on crime. Yup, Fatman whoops, Batman Harper is going to save the country from all the evils by putting out crime legislation as a vote getter – lock e’m up, hand ‘em high.

    • LeenieJ (imho)

      he’s threatening an election again if those opposition ppl don’t get in line with his policy. truuuly pathetic.

  • http://www.maderblog.com David Mader

    I generally agree. I think, though, that what this points to is the fact that the 2006 election was in many ways an historical accident, but has been treated by Tories and conservatives as a triumph. The fact is, Canadian conservatism was in a shambles prior to the consolidation of the party in 2003, and as late as 2005 – when Daifallah and Kherridan published rescuing Canada’s right – it was understood that the construction of a lasting conservative movement would take years.

    The Harper victory in ’06 short-circuited, in many ways, the development of an intellectual and political movement that needed a lot more time to come to maturity. All of a sudden the folks who would have been debating, organizing, writing, and laying the groundwork for a movement found themselves in power (or in the position of supporting those in power). So that organization basically didn’t happen – that talent went to work for the party and the government with an eye toward winning the next election, not setting the stage for long-term successes. That’s not to say the Tories didn’t have a long-term plan; but the focus was necessarily different.

    That’s why, I think, I’m less troubled by the lurch to the center than many conservatives – because I never saw the Harper government as the true fulfillment of a Canadian conservative movement in the first place. So instead of bemoaning the “failure” of the Harper government, and lamenting the loss of the “last shot” Canadian conservatism will ever have, I support doing the legwork – that has always been necessary – of building a true conservative movement, both in and out of the Conservative Party, so that – some time down the road – we can elect a confidently conservative government, staffed with folks who can be trusted with their portfolios, and who can give better answers to questions than Oda did.

    • http://www.maderblog.com David Mader

      This is a response to jwl’s 6:45 p.m. comment above.

    • http://prairiewrangler.wordpress.com/ Olaf

      I like this theory, and I think there’s a lot of merit to it. One thing that would need to be sorted out for an even vaguely coherent “movement” of sorts is the libertarian leaning v. social conservative conflict, which is rather blatant and I think intractable. The former wants to let people do what they want to do, while the later wants to tell people what to do. We’re basically going to have to throw one of these ideological foundations under the bus.

      I do, truly and deeply, believe that Canadian’s are willing to embrace a genuinely conservative government. Of course, for such a thing to come to fruition, it would have to be designed precisely along the lines of my own way of thinking. It’s our only hope. :)

      • http://www.maderblog.com David Mader

        Heh Olaf exactly right. It’s the only way!

        You’re certainly right about the need to reconcile social conservatives and libertarians, though. My own pet theory – which is our only hope, of course ;) – is that libertarians need to convince social conservatives to surrender the goal of imposing social norms, in return for guaranteeing the security of their own social norms. In other words, while libertarians can’t sign up for social conservatism – inasmuch as they don’t believe in imposing subjective or moral standards on others – social conservatives can sign up for libertarianism, since libertarianism allows them to continue to follow their own social mores. Which may be more than can be said for certain strains of Canadian liberalism or progressivism, incidentally. Indeed, the sell may be easier in Canada than in the States, since Canada has far less of a tradition of explicitly socially conservative government, but/and much more of a tradition of social-democratic government that threatens to encroach on traditionally socially conservative values.

        • http://prairiewrangler.wordpress.com/ Olaf

          That’s definitely the route I would prefer, and we may be on to something here – although I fear it may be because we both appear to have a more libertarian bent (correct me if I’m wrong), it might be easier to rationalize the incorporation of others into our viewpoint than the reverse. On the other hand, as we’ve already established, it is, of course, The Only Way.

          • http://www.maderblog.com David Mader

            Well, what we need to do is find a social-conservative perspective.

            Anyone?

            Maybe we should call Myron Thompson…

          • http://prairiewrangler.wordpress.com/ Olaf

            Myron only uses telegraph, and he often turns his machine off, but I’ll send a rider to his house and see what we can do.

            Since we’ve made some headway so far, I’ll push my luck here and suggest that another thing we have to sort out for a viable “conservative” movement is the whole “science is pure bunkum ah hooey!” mentality. That needs to go. I’m no scientist, but evolution seems legit. I know that’s tied to the whole “throwing social conservatives under the bus” strategy, but to the extent it goes further than that, it should be snuffed out. Second is global warming. Again, I’m no scientist. But to the degree to which we’re willing to do our part to reduce our carbon emissions (as I’ll remind Conbots, Harper has pledged to do repeatedly), certainly we should be using market based mechanisms, no? Like, oh, I don’t know, a carbon tax, or as I like to call it, a “tax on absolutely everything ever”! I mean, one thing I find so strange about the CPC plan to reduce emissions, is that it’s relatively heavy on regulation, and light on market based mechanisms, which conservatives normally advocate (there’s a vague, somewhere over the rainbow carbon exchange plan, but still). A well designed revenue neutral carbon tax is what I consider to be a “conservative” policy (once the need to reduce carbon emissions is granted), and yet Harper was able to frame it as positively Marxist.

          • http://www.maderblog.com David Mader

            I wonder if both of these – the reflexive hostility to science (although I really don’t see that as a prominent feature of Canadian conservatism) and the demonization of the carbon tax – aren’t to a certain degree consequences of the lack of a coherent conservative foundation. Certainly there’s nothing about conservatism that should make it hostile to science; on the contrary, to the degree that conservatism embraces the dynamic impulses of the free market – the market for ideas as well as the market for goods – conservatives should be the champions of science. Libertarians can accommodate social-conservatives in this area by recognizing the legitimate place for discussion of faith in public forums (including schools); social conservatives can accommodate libertarians by recognizing that faith and science seek to answer fundamentally different questions regarding life in the universe – science the ‘how,’ faith the ‘why.’ Put those together and you’ve got an embrace of the teaching of evolution as the ascendant rational explanation for the descent of humankind, and an embrace of the teaching of different religious perspectives as the competing philosophical explanation for the same.

            As for the environment, and the carbon tax more specifically, the challenge again is to move away from reflexive opposition to ‘green’ policies. Daifallah and Kherridan have a chapter about the environment in Rescuing Canada’s Right. I’d suggest that conservatives need to emphasize the importance of figuring out what our aims are with regard to the environment, and then evaluating proposed policies as against those aims. Do we mean to keep the environment in precisely the state it’s in now (or was in 10/20/50/100/500 years ago)? Or do we mean to achieve an environment that maximizes the health and opportunity of Canadians/all humankind? And if the latter, are caps on emissions the most efficient way to meet our goals, or would that cost to the economy be better spent on adapting our way of life to a changed climate?

            Once we’ve answered these questions, we can move on to a consideration of a carbon tax; at the threshold, I’m certainly not convinced that it’s the most efficient way to achieve whatever our ends are. But in the abstract you’re correct that it is a fundamentally conservative approach, in that it (basically) taxes consumption. The Tories demonized it because (1) they come from where the oil is and (2) their opposition championed it. If a new conservative movement is to embrace carbon taxation (and the goals it serves, whatever those are), we’ll have to figure out a way to explain those goals to the folks who depend on oil for their livelihood. That’s not a reason to shy away from the project, but it’s a challenge. Of course if a carbon tax doesn’t serve the goals we choose, we can avoid the issue :)

          • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

            “whole “science is pure bunkum ah hooey!” mentality.”

            I don’t agree with this stereotype. First of all, global warming theory is not science yet, it’s pure guess work. If it was sound theory, AGM supporters wouldn’t need to make fraudulent claims/graphs and there wouldn’t be lots of other scientists punching holes in their theories. Tho I do agree Cons should be doing more to conserve environment in other ways.

            Secondly, I find social conservatives have issues with evolution but readily accept biology while libs/progressive like evolution but have troubles with biology.

            I agree with both David and Olaf that social conservatives will have to bend more towards libertarianism or else social conservatives will never have a chance of gaining power.

        • sf

          I’m doubtful that social conservatives can sign up for libertarianism, since social conservatism is rooted in the standards of the community, not just the family or the individual. Libertarianism straddles both conservatism and liberalism, although these days it’s mostly been abandoned by liberals, and conservativism have become the last bastion of freedom-lovers.

          Regardless, social conservatives and libertarians have had a rather successful pact in the United States.

          • http://www.maderblog.com David Mader

            You’ve put your finger on it, sf; the issue is whether we ought to use the state to enforce community standards, or whether the creation and enforcement of those standards should be a private affair. The challenge for libertarians is to convince social conservatives that they’re better off abandoning attempts to use state power for their ends, on the ground that the same state power is just as likely – and, in Canada, more likely – to be used to ends directly contrary to their interests. In plain English: if social conservatives don’t want to be told by the state who gets to get married in their churches, they shouldn’t try to use the state to tell other people who can get married in those folks’ churches. Unless, of course, social conservatives think they can maintain a permanent hold on the exercise of state power. In Canada I don’t think that’s a betting proposition.

          • http://www.jackmitchell.ca J@ck M!tchell

            That’s not fair, sf. Lots of Liberals are against the nanny state. There are social interventionists (and anti-interventionists) in every party in Canada.

    • Wayne

      You make some very astute observations … indeed the CPC is a much younger party which is why Harper has played the cards how he has. I daresay that after we get the 12 seats tnext election there will be considerable more change however this time with a much wider base of experience to draw from compared to what was available back when. good points !

      • Derek Pearce

        This is the best conversation I’ve seen in a blog forum in… maybe ever, especially the summation of why social conservatives should embrace libertarianism if they ever want a real chance at power.

        But now to be a stick in the mud: I’ve said it on other posts and I’ll say it again. Wayne, the Convservatives are not going to get those 12 extra seats they need for a majority. Canada is going to have to get used to minority parliaments for several years to come, no matter who forms the government. The Liberals will need a miracle to win enough seats in the West, and the Conservatives will need a leader who’d be unpalatable to their base to win enough seats in the 3 big metro centres.

  • archangel

    “Some libertarians consider libertarianism to be a lifestyle rather than a political philosophy. They apparently don’t know the difference between libertarianism and libertinism.”

    – Laurence M. Vance

  • Chuck VS Macleans

    The Justice system is a joke.

  • Leni Riefenstahl

    Impressive photo. But a little derivative.

  • LeenieJ (imho)

    if the Action was so Together; why didn’t the two have a sit down at the White House when Stephen H followed Barry home?

    Fox News was happy to receive SH weren’t they?

  • TangoJuliette

    If the photo were to be considered some kind of an embarrassment for Harper, why the hell would they post it up on their site? What are you guys putting in your corn-o’s?

    And LeenieJ -

    Barry. Has. A large. Home. It. Is. Called. The. White. House. He. Lives. In. It. With. His. Family. And. Many. Other. Support. People.
    It. Is. In. Washington, DC.

    Steve. Was. In NYC. Talking. With. Officials. At. The. United. Nations. Building. This. Is. The. Global. Home. For. Many. People. From. Many Different. Nations. [Countries?] [Places?]

    Please pay attention. Some of this stuff, like jog’free, is important.

    Can’t type any slower than this. Starting to fall asleep at the board. But let’s admit it. Had Harper shown up at the White House, with or without an invitation, you’d probably still be in some sort of attack-mode, incoherent swoon.

  • http://www.abandonedstuff.com saskboy

    This photo is part of why Obama was reluctant to give Harper too much time with his presence.

  • Wayne

    What’s really cool here is that the open minded people see it as it is and the partisan players just don’t or won’t get it … ROFL : Whoa – it appears that there are quite a few anti-harperites out there who are getting very nervous – wassa matter? … starting to feel that rug slowly moving out from under your feet? careful now cause if I know my boy Stevie (and I think I do) the next thing coming will be the poke in the eye … I suggest not looking down at the rug .. I know you want to … but if i were you I’d be carefull. The poke in the eye will be more than likely the cascade of environmental legislation coming down in the fall with the Obama seal of approval and then watcha gonna do when the obamaniacs come down on you?

  • http://macleans.ca kc

    Only Jarrid could write that last sentence without a trace of irony intended. A true innocent. It’s almost touching really!

  • Derek Pearce

    Ok this is interesting, and I freely admit I’m sounding like worst type of latte sipping urban snot (haha, I’m drinking a chai latte as I speak so there you go): people seem to confuse “Vancouver,” “Toronto,” and “Montreal” proper with the larger conurbations that surround them. If the Tories win some seats in the GTA, great, good for them. I don’t think people realize how many seats are actually in each of the 3 large cities proper. You can’t ignore all those metro seats and still win a majority. I don’t know about Van and Montreal, but the city of TO proper has 23 ridings and will gain more soon. Hence the above discussion about socons needing to come ’round to libertarianism.

From Macleans