Inkless Wells

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

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Second thoughts

by Paul Wells on Thursday, July 9, 2009 12:19am - 66 Comments

In this old column I made extravagant fun of the notion that the Harper government was overly beholden to an assortment of picturesque Christianists. Tonight I’m not so sure I was right.

Tags: charles mcvety, or should, Stephen Harper, times change

More by Paul Wells

http://unambig.wordpress.com Raphael

But… but… what about his refusal to eat the communion wafer? What sorts of conspiratorial theories can we harvest from that one?

http://mrsinistergreg.blogspot.com Greg

No conspiracy there Raph, just curiosity. Did Harper's staff not tell him about Communion's rules because they are incompetent; or did they not tell Harper because they are afraid of him and will not tell him anything for fear of getting ripped a new one?

http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

I've always found Prime Minister Harper to be an intriguing figure in this regard. I've read several books on him, including your own, and its obvious he's a policy wonk. Yet interestingly, he's proven to be more willing to placate the social conservatives than the economic ones. That's not to say that he's not in agreement with them on most of the issues, but I never felt they were something that took precedent for him over the economic stuff which, at least up until 2006 seemed to be his bread and butter. Yet now, we're seeing money being shoveled out the door at a record rate (a record that was set well before the recession and stimulus package I might add), while social conservatives are thrown more bones than the small government economic conservatives.

Mike T.

Minor concessions to social conservatives probably have fewer negative consequences than minor concessions to economic conservatives. Major concessions its harder to speculate on.

http://unambig.wordpress.com Raphael

WDM,

As a conservative, I'm curious what sort of list you could compile which would indicate that he placates either the social or the economic [fiscal] conservatives. One example would do nicely.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Well, it failed, but Bill C-10 seemed a pretty obvious attempt to pander to the so-cons.

As for WDM`s intrigue, we all think of Harper as a bit of a policy wonk I think, but because he`s not overly flamboyant about it I think we sometimes forget that he`s an evangelical Christian. It doesn`t really surprise me when his government seems to pander to the so-cons, frankly, it surprises me a little that they don`t do so more often. I see it as a remarkable sign of restraint on Harper`s part.

With notable exceptions such as the latest brouhaha, I`m often impressed at the government`s ability to keep the good old hidden agenda, well, hidden.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Brammer Brammer

Heh, with a gap of $16 Billion between now and 2014, the agenda is much more obvious. Either taxes go up or progams are cut. No mistaking which way Harper leans there.

I'm going to miss Kevin Page…. *sigh*

Darrell

Just before he became Prime Minister he also told 50,000 supporters of 'traditional marriage' that a 'Conservative Government Lead by Stephen Harper' ™ would introduce legislation to end gay marriage. While he didn't do that, there was a motion in the House on whether to reopen the debate. The outcome of the motion was a foregone conclusion, but the only real reason to have it was to pander to a group who – somewhat legitimately – believed they were voting for a government that would promote social conservative issues.
Stewart Smith

for economic conservatives (who don't follow economics closely) there was the GST cut
proposed removal of party funding based on votes

for social conservatives
no funding for Genomics Canada
use of stimulus funds for private, Christian colleges
manditory minimum sentences for young offenders
comments regarding the arts by SH wrt Quebec
treatment of Canadians with foreign sounding names being detained/tortured out of country
approach to the gun registry

I think the approach to the gun registry is the most typical approach of SH in dealing with social conservatives. As a strategy, SH does not want the registry, senate reform etc to ever go away. { The Liberals actually have a better record as economic managers thanks to Martin's term as Finance Minister. That is not to say they were conservative in the sense of smaller government, but they were prudent in ensuring that they did not spend money they did not have (or take if you prefer as a conservative)} As a result, smaller issues such as minimum sentences, Canadians of convenience, the gun registry become vital. On these issues, SH seems to seek the appearance of trying to do something (which bolsters his base) while not actually doing anything (because of the impact on the rest of the electorate.)

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I believe WDM was referring to the Ablonczy-Trost brouhaha.
Stephen

In March of this year, Brad Trost was careful to remind constituents who might have missed it that he and his party were willing to stand up to Olivia Chow and "homosexual rights activists."

http://www.bradtrost.ca/commentary/2009/03/23/fre…

His amusing views on taxes are worth a look as well. He considers them a form of slavery:

http://www.bradtrost.ca/commentary/2009/04/23/tax…

Except when he's announcing a doubling of tax dollars flowing to provinces and municipalities:

http://www.bradtrost.ca/commentary/2009/04/08/con…
maggie's farmboy

"Picturesque", or "picaresque"?
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

Tory's pander to the Socons because they need 'em, no matter what Stephen Harper's personal inclinations might be. They don't have such a lock on power that they can either 1)reward them or 2) blow them off entirely. So you get pointless little gestures like this (and, I am convinced, stranding brown skinned Canadians overseas).

Wells, I've been telling you the Tories are weirdos for a couple of years now but you never listen.
Riley Hennessey

Isn't there a Well's rule of politics that says if parties eat themselves alive, they will inevitably lose power?

I wonder who in the PMO thinks this whole "let's divide the party" game is a real winner for them? They did it with Mulroney, and they are doing it now with Alblonczy.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

They're an easy crowd to please. As a politician you can do whatever you have to in the secular world as long as you make it clear you don't like it.

catherine

That's true as long as there is no better alternative. They won't get a better alternative from any party winning seats in first past the post, but I notice the Institute for Canadian Values is plugging for proportional representation.

Mulletaur

Losers always do.

thor

Could you define "Socon" for me please? Where I live in Toronto, socially conservative is NOT the exclusive domain of the Canadian, (read small town or Western), Christian right. A number of my neighbours, quite a diverse lot religiously, ethnically, racially, and culturally, don't much like their tax dollars being spent on these soi-disant "sex parades". Me, I love a good parade. But, for dear Kady and pugnacious Paul, I would like to remind them that they ought to get out of Ottawa more often and think about what socially conservative and religiously conservative actually mean and who falls under their definition.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"socially conservative is NOT the exclusive domain of the Canadian, (read small town or Western), Christian right."

Excellent point that does not get explored often enough. It has been my experience that many ethnic minorities are quite socially conservative but lib chattering classes try to make it seem minorities are as hedonistic as they are.

catherine

While ethnic minorities may be socially conservative for a variety of reasons, there is notable overlap with the Christian right. The organized Christian right movement (such as the Institute for Canadian Values) actively recruits and encourages "new Canadians of faith" (as they put it) to become politically involved. Much of the growth in evangelicals is attributed to immigration.

http://liberalvideodepot.blogspot.com Ted

I think most political commenters use "social conservatives" as a euphemism for the socially conservative right wing Christian whereever they reside.
John D

Definition of Socon: People who refer to Pride Week as a sex parade.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

Toronto's Gay Pride received Fed money, as did many other homosexual orgs across Canada. Not sure how that proves Cons are overly beholden to Christians.

I have long wondered how many social cons there are in Canada and how intolerant they are. Are there millions of socons in Canada who are all aggrieved regularly or are there just a few of them who are quite bolshie and like to kick up a fuss.

Darrell

The fact that a gay pride parade recieved money doesn't show the Conservatives are beholden to social conservatives. However, the fact that (it would seem) the social conservative response to that funding managed to effect a substantial change of responsibilities within cabinet certainly shows something.

Stewart Smith

Paul, When Mike Harris appointed a high school drop out as his Minister of Education, things were fairly clear for many of us. Appointing a literal Christian as the Minister of Science should have been a big clue for you.
Anon

Wells in 2006:

"She fails quite spectacularly to prove it: her article ends up reading like a brilliant satire of anti-conservative conspiracy theory. But we should welcome that, too. In science, maybe even in political science, if a hypothesis resists all attempts to prove it, you get to retire the hypothesis."

Funny how no one since that time has bothered testing that hypothesis. And now Wells is having "second thoughts."
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

What the hell is a "Christianist"? Is that like an "Islamist"? Or perhaps an "atheismist"? "Hinduismist"?

I know it sounds intellectualist to add "ist" to adjectives that were doing fineist without the ist. Also I suppose it has a niceist demeaningist element about it: "Christians" makes them sounds like the people who built Canada and stuff, like, you know?. "Christianists" is soooo much better 'cause it sounds like fanaticalist nuts.

And clearly anyone who objects to the government funding Pride Week is a fanatic, a nut, and probably a really bad person. Watch out for their infiltration of the government too. Christianists raus!
http://liberalvideodepot.blogspot.com Ted

From William Johnson's 2005 biography of Stephen Harper, an excerpt relating to a March 1989 memo from Harper to Preston Manning:

"While dismissing the other two parties, Harper took very seriously the third party that based its appeal largely on conservative social values.

"The Christian Heritage Party is the most interesting from our perspective. This party purports to be a party for evangelical Christians. However, its agenda, strongly pro-life, borders on theocratic and its current support is restricted mainly to ultra-conservative voters. Nevertheless, that community is strongly committed to the party, and the CHP, very well run for a small organization, promises to survive. The Christian Heritage Party at the moment is capable of getting no more than 1 to 2 per cent of the vote.[...][CONT...]

http://liberalvideodepot.blogspot.com Ted

test – my continuation of that quote keeps getting eaten up
http://liberalvideodepot.blogspot.com Ted

Trying yet again: [...CONT.]"[...] I believe, however, that such a religious party, while it can never gain seats, is capable of hindering our development, given the ongoing attention that is likely to be paid to the abortion issue. The CHP's Ontario provincial wing, the Family Coalition Party, unites a pro-life mission with policies that are very acceptable to economic conservatives. Its base includes both evangelical Catholics and Protestants. Many of its members are urban professionals. The Party appears capable of pulling 5 to 6 per cent of the vote on an ongoing basis.
http://liberalvideodepot.blogspot.com Ted

[...CONT] "…In the United States, this element of the electorate has been critical in the development of the Republican coalition. It provides workers and funds disproportionate to its size as a voting bloc. It represents a definite social trend in North America — a small but stable part of urban society for whom religion is of primary importance, but who interact well with the rest of society. Typical urban, private-sector voters are poor political activists. I believe that the Reform Party cannot afford to lose moderate pro-life voters en masse to a religious option if it hopes to be a viable fourth party." "

matt

I respect the point BCL is trying to make, but i think the number don't show it. In most ridings where the SoCons like Trost win, you could run an elephant with a CPC logo painted on it and it would get a substantial plurality. That is why i believe that Harper is not beholden to them and does have the power to tell them to F-off. Their issues are not vote winners in Ontario and Quebec, where it matters . Even more reason to tell them to F-off. The question then is why the "master strategist" is listening to them in any manner other than being respectful enough to hear them out and pay lip-service to their wants.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

You may want to doublecheck the demographics of those reasons. Piss off the social conseratives there, and it may be an elephant with a different logo that gets the plurality. That's the problem. Harper's hold on power is based in large portion on his lock of rural western Canada. Were that to crack things would look considerably different.

matt

I need numbers. Piss of a few swing voters in burbs and Bob Dechert (plurality 397 Votes out of 56,071 cast) and what happens. Piss off Brad Trost supporters (plurality 8,978 votes out of 34,671 cast) and you still have a Conservative seat. The same can be said for Ed Holder in London West and especially Peter Braid in Kitchener (plurality 17 votes out of 60,763!!!!). I don't think the elephant would have too much trouble in Vic Toews riding with 23,303 out of 36, 196 votes or Blake Richards in Wild Rose with 36,869 out of 50,671 and the next closest competitoion the Green Party at 6, 390. Yup, piss of the SoCons all is lost. If Harper believes this then it is time for a new party leader.

As i said all those hidden agenda ads now have fresh credibility. Idiot SoCons can be kept in check when they are told to hush up for the sake of getting ballots in vote rich Ontario, but once you have a majority whats stopping them from flexing even more muscle. Perhaps they have an agenda they have been keeping secret until now. hmmm

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

What the hell is a "Christianist"? Is that like a "Muslimist"? Or perhaps an "atheistist"? "Hinduist"? Lightweightist?

I know it sounds intellectualist to add "ist" to adjectives that were doing fineist without the ist. Also I suppose it has a niceist demeaningist element about it: "Christians" sounds like the people who built Canada and stuff, like, you know? "Christianists" is soooo much better 'cause it sounds like fanaticalist nuts.

And clearly anyone who objects to the government funding Pride Week is a fanatic, a nut, and probably a really bad person. Watch out for their infiltration of the government too. Christianists raus!

Stewart Smith

from Wikipedia

Dominion Theology
Dominion Theology is a grouping of theological systems[3] with the common belief that society should be governed exclusively by the law of God as codified in the Bible, to the exclusion of secular law, a view also known as theonomy. The most prominent modern formulation of Dominion Theology is Christian Reconstructionism, founded by R. J. Rushdoony in the 1970s. Reconstructionists themselves use the word dominionism to refer to their belief that civil government should be controlled by Christians alone and conducted according to Biblical law.
…
Other terminology
Some authors have used the terms "Christianism" or "Christianist" in place of "dominionism." By alluding to the term "Islamist," this usage is intended to evoke the spectre of theocracy and even terrorism (citing, for example, the notorious bomber Eric Rudolph).[33] Commentator Andrew Sullivan advocated "Christianist" as a label for the Christian Right in a 2006 column in Time.

Basically the use of the term is an attack on those who take selected readings (usually Old Testiment) from the Bible and twist them to their political views and prejudices. It is usually used by two camps, seculists who find the notion of a God absurd and Christians who are tired of seeing their beliefs belittled by political manipulators and nutjobs in order to push an agenda of intolerance.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I see. So either Wells is referring to the absurdity of the notion of God, or he's trying to evoke the spectre of theocracy and terrorism with respect to anyone (clearly a nutjob) who thinks the taxpayer should not be funding Gay Pride Week.

That's kind of what I thought.

http://intensedebate.com/people/DallanInvictus Dallan Invictus

A Christian believes that his own behaviour should reflect Christian values.

A Christianist believes that everyone else's behaviour should reflect Christian values, and that the government should enforce this.

Yes, the parallel is drawn to Islamist theocracy and terrorism, because that is exactly the difference between mainline Islam and the terrorist Islamists. But frankly, I'd prefer not to lump in the people of humble faith with the boasting sorts who try and push that faith on me.

I can't speak for Wells, but that's why _I_ distinguish the terms.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/DallanInvictus Dallan Invictus

A Christian believes that his own behaviour should reflect Christian values, and perhaps that he should serve as an example.

A Christianist believes that everyone else's behaviour should reflect Christian values, and, most importantly, that the government should enforce this with the force of law.

Yes, the parallel is drawn to Islamist theocracy and terrorism, because that is exactly the difference between mainline Islam and the terrorist Islamists. But frankly, I'd prefer not to lump in the people of humble faith with the boasting sorts who try and push that faith on everyone else.

I can't speak for Wells, but that's why _I_ distinguish the terms.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

So "Christianists" are the ones trying to make church attendance mandatory, extramarital sex illegal, and have taxpayer funded prayer festivals. I see.

How is this relevant to those who think the taxpayer should not be funding Gay Pride Week? If anything, aren't those who want to force everyone to chip in for it "Gayists" or "Prideists" or perhaps "Paradists"? You know, the ones who believe everyone else's behaviour should reflect "leftist" values?
http://intensedebate.com/people/DallanInvictus Dallan Invictus

I said this in the other thread, or something like it: If McVety and his ilk were objecting to the government funding tourist events and civic festivals _at all_, this would be one thing – and I suppose this is where you are coming from. I would disagree with them, mind you, but I would appreciate where they were coming from. I don't imagine my conception of the role of government is universal.

But they didn't object to this degree until it was the Pride festival that was funded. So is the objection really to the spending of tax dollars, or is it to the celebration of a minority they dislike?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

…or is it perhaps celebration of an ideology, and therefore not something the government should be forcing on taxpayers?
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

…or is it perhaps an event geared to advancing an ideology ('gay sex is good') rather than a minority ('gay people are good'), and therefore not something the government should be forcing on taxpayers?
http://intensedebate.com/people/DallanInvictus Dallan Invictus

Again, I asked this elsewhere: is the Heritage Festival (http://www.heritage-festival.com/) an ideological celebration of multiculturalism? Do fringe theatre festivals and music festivals celebrate leftist ideology? Should the government fund any of them? Or is it merely the promotion of a minority's right to public existence that falls under "celebration of ideology"?

Is your position that government should fund nothing that expresses an ideology that the entire population doesn't agree with? Should we remove the tax exemption on churches, then?
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Of course we should not remove the tax exemption on churches; we should extend it to everyone!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Pantheist!
Stewart Smith

You kinda slipped here… Gay pertains to sexual orientation not an ideology.

On a related note, the concept that all sex is good speaks to the very core of Canadian values. Without sex, how would the great (foreign owned) Canadian breweries sell their beer during the long offseason of hockey? Abandoning those breweries that worked so hard to establish this great country would be an act so unpatriotic as to be essentially treasonous. Seen in this light it is clear that the Conservative's support of full frontal nudity during the parade is as Canadian as a 4th place finish at the Olympics.

However, there always should be limits. The Gays are entitled to their parades, their bars, their celebrations and their fabulously decorated condos, but really lets take Jay Manuel off the air.
Canuckistanian

first they came for jay manuel and i did not speak up…
then they came for miss jay, so i spoke up cause he is: Fabulous! ;-)
John D

To not want government to fund Pride Week does not make one Christianist. To oppose creating a funding mechanism that gives tax dollars to tourist events does not make one Christianist. To specifically oppose Pride Week receiving funding from such a mechanism, when they fully comply with its regulations, when one has not previously opposed the general funding mechanism? Well, then you're in some murky waters. Details my friend.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Taxes fund churches too. And I'm going to bet the collective tax breaks given to religious organizations far outstrips (tee hee!) the grants for Pride events.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

That's false. Tax exemption is the not the same as direct funding. The government does not give money to churches, or to church parades, or to religious festivals so far as I know.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

"Tax exemption is the not the same as direct funding."

Technically true, but pragmatically false.

If I send a cheque to a church for $500, a portion of that is not taxed. The treasury surrenders that revenue, which has the same effect on the budget's bottom line as a disbursement via a grant. The only difference between a direct grant and charitible status is the mechanism. Both represent the government "giving" money.
Jenn

Well then let me remind you of the land grants given to religions. No, still not cash, but when you got the land the tax-free church was built on for free . . . and then one hundred years later sell it, now THAT's CASH!
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

No, but the government does fund education, and educators are the most fanatical bunch of dogmatic lunatics I have ever seen.
http://intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

That's it, I'm founding the "Gayist Party of Canada." Except I'm changing the name to Gayest. All our candidates will be required to appear in public in drag.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Is it called drag when a gal dresses up as a guy?
http://intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

Indeed it is. A drag king is in fact a woman dressed as a man, usually with fake facial hair.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"All our candidates will be required to appear in public in drag."

Make that 'nude' instead of drag and you've got my vote. No wait… only if Paul Martin swears not to run.

Canuckistanian

i prefer the all-encompassing 'religionist' label. interesting backgrounder on 'christianist' though

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

In fairness, Paul, you may have been right in 2006; I mean, what surprises me is how out-of-the-blue this pandering to the Christianists seems. Sure, they might have been lurking beneath the crust all along; but Trostgate might equally well be a brand new reach-out strategem. There's the dollars, there's the stymying of the CHP, there's the growing appeal of Christianism in surprising places that just might (for all I know) be swing ridings . . .

I'd be interested to know how many emails it takes to have ministerial responsibilities reorganised like this. 50 per MP? 300? By whom and how was the mass-emailing organised? This is not the kind of thing that prompts even Christianists to spontaneously email their MP: someone gave the word.

Orson Bean

Back when I was formally involved in politics, one of the first things I learned was the way that religious groups in Canada operate in the political sphere. The thing is, they're like labour unions — in other words, they're in some respects a politician's dream, because they provide a ready-made, instant organization through which you can organize, fund-raise, get bodies to do stuff, etc.

So re: e-mailing campaigns. What I quickly learned was that a politician or MP or MLA rarely gets a "spontaneous" email from a socially conservative religious organization or individual. Often, the direction will come either straight from the pulpit (e.g., an evangelical preacher will literally tell the flock to email their MP), or from a chuch meeting. A concrete example of this, believe it or not, is regarding liquor, liquor store, pub and alcohol-related event regulation in B.C. The evangelical Christians in the Fraser Valley (which are huge there) have been extremely influential in squawking to their provincial MLAs whenever any liberalization of anything to do with alcohol is proposed. And all of this flies well under the radar of the media.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I completely believe it. The analogy with labour unions is perfect. And if one riding (Mégantic—L'Érable) can prompt every party to love asbestos, imagine what half a dozen ridings with fervent evangelicals can do. I'm just surprised their support requires the writing off of downtown Toronto for another few elections.

Mulletaur

Yeah, but asbestos was being promoted directly by the federal government. I was once at a reception in Europe where a Canadian diplomat handed me a piece of molded material made from blue asbestos and concrete and tried to sell me on the idea that it was inert and perfectly safe.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

That's insane . . .

http://wakinguponplanetx.blogspot.com Candace

Realistically, do we not have to wait until next year, and compare funding, before ASSuME-ing the worst?

Just curious