Harper’s hard right turn

Social conservatism is on the rise in Ottawa, and across Canada

by Paul Wells on Friday, March 19, 2010 9:00am - 465 Comments
Harper’s hard right turn

Photograph by Chris Wattie/ Reuters

It says in all the papers the well has run dry. The commentators keep writing that Canadian conservatism has died on the vine, that four years into his reign of tactical obsession and fiscal profligacy, Stephen Harper has forgotten why he ever went into politics.

“Where’s the big, strategic agenda for the next election?” John Ivison quoted a senior Conservative in the National Post. “I haven’t found one yet.” In the same paper, Terence Corcoran ran a string of columns identifying programs the feds should cut, because Harper seems unwilling to do the work himself. And Andrew Coyne delivered his annual post-budget verdict of despair and mourning. “Those Conservative faithfuls who have been hanging on all these years, in the hopes that, eventually, someday, with one of these budgets, this government would start to act like conservatives, must now understand that that is not going to happen. Conservatism is not just dead but, it appears, forgotten.”

But it’s a funny thing. If Canadian conservatism is dead, somebody forgot to tell Canadian conservatives.

Earlier this month, the Crowne Plaza hotel in downtown Ottawa played host to two consecutive conferences, a small one by the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada followed by a big one by the Manning Centre for Building Democracy. Both were well attended by current and former ministers, employees and strategists of the Harper government. Both drew energetic crowds of activists and ordinary people. Both gave free rein to an unabashed social conservatism that is rarely mentioned, and even less frequently championed, by even prominent fiscal conservatives in the big papers and magazines. And the mood at both gatherings was overwhelmingly optimistic, because the kind of conservatism that appeals to these organizations is demonstrably on the march in Ottawa and across Canada.

Look at the victories in only the past few months. At the quasi-governmental agency Rights and Democracy, a Harper-appointed board majority comprising unequivocal supporters of Israel’s Likud government and evangelical Christian social activists began firing employees left over from an earlier, more secular regime.

Harper announced, in the vaguest terms, a new plan to make women and children overseas the focus of Canada’s development assistance. When Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff insisted that such programs include funding for contraceptives and abortion, as they have consistently done under past Liberal and Conservative governments, Conservative MP Shelly Glover said no such schemes would be funded in the future. Bev Oda, the minister for CIDA, backed her up. When Ignatieff pushed back, he wound up on the front page of the Catholic Register newspaper next to the headline, “Ignatieff Urges Abortion for World’s Poor.”

In Winnipeg, the Christian charity Youth for Christ managed to secure $3.2 million in federal infrastructure stimulus funding toward building an $11.5-million community centre in one of the city’s toughest neighbourhoods. Even without provincial support, which is usually sought for these stimulus projects, the Youth for Christ centre looks set to go ahead. NDP MP Pat Martin didn’t like the idea of government money going to an organization that seeks converts. “What if this group was called Youth for Allah?” he asked.

(The project seems an odd fit for the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, whose website says it will prefer “construction-ready” projects that can “be built during the 2009 and 2010 construction seasons.” Youth for Christ declined to answer questions from on how quickly construction can begin and when it can be completed. However, a spokesman for John Baird, who is responsible for the infrastructure program, said Youth for Christ is committed to finish by March 31 next year—just inside the fund’s final deadline.)

In Vancouver, the Insite safe-injection site for heroin addicts, which was once championed by federal Liberals like Allan Rock and Ken Dryden, learned Harper will appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in his long-running legal battle to shut the centre down.

Bookmark and Share
  • Sue

    This article praises the Conservative Party which wants to take us back 50 years – back alley abortions, more natives in jails, diminished human rights and a tarnished repuitation on the world stage (THE INTERNET IS BAD!). It is not even factually correc t. I would like to know the level of education of the average voter for the Conservatives and Liberals although I suspect the answer is obvious. Harper has a rap sheet as long as my arm and Canadians are learning how he and his people are not the model for what we aspire to. Why has he not surpassed the liberals in support?

  • George

    All the above discussion concerns the old Anglo religious crowd that settled mostly in the West and perhaps the new religious immigrants who still consider women as slaves.

    Fortunately, here in Quebec we have very few of this sort of people. Most young couples in Quebec live together and have kids without being married. We have daycare centers at $7.00 per day per child. We have University education for Quebecers at tuition fees of $2000 per year and that hasn't changed in the last 40 years or so. Quebec will never go for the social conservative crap described by Paul. And it is fortunate for Canada that Quebec is still part of it, otherwise you would have Stephen Hitler (sorry Harper) as dictator.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

      And it's darn good for Quebec to be part of a Canada which includes the west, which in turn provides Quebec so much of the money to keep tuition down and cheap daycare payments up. Quebec is an enlightened society all right. As long as someone else pays, they will go nowhere else.

      The BQ, as a separatist party by their own claim, does not want to do without federal subsidies. There may be a lot of university degrees held within the province of Quebec, but I know that without such degrees, common sense might rise to the surface more often than not.

  • Dot

    This comment board needs more critical thinking and less manufactured consent.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

      That'll be "D' day, eh!

  • Orson Bean

    I'm not a social conservative — in fact, I'm very socially liberal on most issues (e.g., drugs, abortion). But still, looking at the comments on this board, I'm disturbed and put off by the way that most liberals and left-wingers refer to social conservatives and the subject of social conservatives participating in Canadian public life. I honestly get the impression that the basic position of liberals and left-wingers is that social conservatives should not have the right to organize and have their views legitimately represented in Canadian politics and public life. I mean, these are people. These opinions are held by a significant portion of the Canadian population. A lot of the liberals and lefties on this board seem to think that if social conservative views are being expressed and advanced in the public sphere, it's like the onset of the apocalypse. How about a bit of balance and perspective here. Yeesh. I'm a social liberal, but none of what Wells writes about particularly alarms me. This is what democracy is supposed to be all about.

    • Holly Stick

      That's because you are not a woman. The views of social conservatives are expecially harmful to women.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

        I am a woman. I think Orson Bean's post is one of the better ones.

        Supposedly women can think for themselves, right? right???

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

    I'm terrified of a coalition government run by the NDP and Bloc ideologues.

    Quite frankly, The Conservatives and Liberals are both middle of the road parties. It is ludicrous to be terrified of a middle of the road party.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

      I disagree. I think we could see the division of party lines described as follows:

      NDP – collective toward individual
      CON- individual toward collective

      The LPC however is not know at all times where to begin. I hoovers between direction of collective toward individual or individual toward collective. They hoover without understanding their position.

      The BQ is nothing but an opportunistic party and so, within the above described explanation, I won't discuss here within the mainframe of federal political directions.

  • Bugzy

    I really like the idea Derek Lee floated of of incarcerating those three Tory ministers. :D

    So do I. The sooner the better. Maybe they can use this time to re-calibrate

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

      How sad it is to hear ordinary Canadians wanting to have their ministers incarcerated. Truly sad.

      • Holly Stick

        Why do Conservatives refuse to obey the laws of Canada? Contempt of Parliament when they refuse to obey the orders of Parliament; tantrums at airports and refusing to obey the rules for security; breaking their election law; breaking the Geneva convention in Afghanistan… We need more prisons to hold Conservative lawbrakers!

  • Observant

    THE NEXT ELECTION is going to be a doozer .. and all the plugs will be unplugged as the parties go for it. Harper must outright ask Canadians to elect a majority gov't, because if they don't they will be at the polls within months if not weeks … and if the Coalition Troika Junta attempt to form a gov't, the country will split like a coconut … bye bye Western Canada … hello separate Quebec … watch the Maritimes flounder … while Ontario cries for the Canada it has destroyed by voting Liberal only.

    If Quebec is willing to go it alone, why shouldn't Ontario and the Maritimes … because the West can form a viable independent country.

    • Burlboy

      Observant, do you have any facts or are you just a man of many opinions? It is wonderful to read the ramblings of someone as intelligent as yourself. Do you realize that people who spend all their time talking never learn anything. You need to listen to learn.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

    Fairly balanced piece, Mr.Wells.

    Of course the aspects of economic conservatism and social conservatism need to be united. Not because Harper suggests it but because reason suggests it. If individual freedom is the ultimate goal to be chased, then such freedom cannot be without reason. In fact, freedom is by reason. Where do we learn to reason? We learn to reason within decent family settings where guidance can be provided in coming to understand the collective versus the individual. Religion can form a strong component, not just as part of a decent family setting, but also in light of what mainstream religion ultimately teaches: do not onto others what you may not want done onto yourself (and such counts for all, including parents growing into their role successfully and the child growing into adulthood successfully).

    But reason, at times, finds it’s own tipping points. Current examples of those would be the abortion issue and the Afghan detainee issue. When abortion is considered to be a form of contraceptive, or when the Geneva Convention is understood by one warring party but not the other, then reason is at a loss. Hence those issues become great points of contention.

  • Tony

    So where are all these Social Conservatives – on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land? Did all these people swing to the right (find Jesus) since the last Liberal majority? I don't know, The Conservatives have around 33-34% level of support, and the Liberals around 28-30% in recent polls. Are these people currently pretending to be Liberals and Dippers?

    The reason the Conservatives gained power was because of the Gomery Inquiry . The reason they have maintained power is because the Liberals have bad leadership. I think this "swing to the social right" is wishful thinking by some conservatives or paranoia by some liberals

    Anyways, this is an interesting well written article. It will be interesting to see where you are going with it.

  • GREAT NEWS

    What the?Canadian conservatives are like Americas Hollywood Hugo Chaveze loving lefties.Our media ,both ctv & cbc are a joke.They have no clue whats going on down south.This media is worse than the media in Venezualia.There really is no true conservatives in Canada other than that wild rose party leader woman in Alberta Danielle something.Just read about her she is for small gov and dump the entitlements.Everyone has all these rights to whine bitc@ and complain untill they get their benifits.Canada has become a nation of cry babies.Whhaaa I need this,whaaa I need that.We are as socialist as a socialist society can be.Thank God America wants to be just like us over taxed and regulated to the hilt .With a million pencil tappers making double the private sector wage and benifits in gov.Now at least foreing investors might invest here more often. Now that America is becomming just like us.A special interest run socialist eutopia, with 0 difference between the NDP,LIBS,& CONS Parties.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tpholmes tpholmes

    It is quite conceivable that many, many Canadians would agree with both of the following statements:

    1. Abortion is morally wrong.
    2. Abortion should be safe, legal and available.

    I suspect most Canadians, like me, do not automatically feel it is the Government's role to impose their individual moral views on everybody else.

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

      There are two problems with your argument:

      (A) Believe abortion should be safe, legal, and available does not get you to the conclusion that we should fund it in the third world.
      (B) To hold the two statements you mention above, Canadians would also have to believe that abortion is not infanticide. But if it is then obviously (2) has serious problems. But if it's not, then (1) has serious problems. Why would abortion be wrong if it's not infanticide?

      Your argument works in the case of things like drug use. People might believe it's wrong and yet not want to impose that belief on others. It doesn't work, however, with something that involves killing a child. I suspect most Canadians who believe that abortion is morally wrong, believe so because a child gets ripped to shreds in the process. This is not something for which one can say "it's wrong but the government should stay out of it" any more than it would be for any other variant of child killing.

      • knick

        And the 'debate on abortion' that Harper & Co. 'do not want to raise' is raised. Clever tactic.

      • Craig O

        Gaunilon, there are potential views of a foetus that lie between it being a child and a part of a woman akin to an organ.

        I fully believe that, in general*, abortion is morally wrong, but not infanticide. A foetus, I don't believe to be a child, but it's not nothing either. The best way I can put it is that it is a potential child, something wonderful, but not as wonderful as a born and breathing human being, and so not afforded the same rights.

        I'm not asking you to change your stance, because I know that would be beyond foolish in this case, but I will ask you to accept that there is a grey zone, and that more people than you may think fall into it.

        That's my response to B). To A), I would remind you that we fund abortions here. Believing that abortion should be safe, legal and available can lead to the conclusion that we should fund it in the third world if you believe that the same standards should apply there as here, if it is possible to provide those same standards.

        Again, I don't expect you to accept these conclusions, because you're starting from a value position that's different from myself and others – I think it's only a slight difference, but it's quite meaningful. But please don't assume that those who reach those different conclusions are coming to them in an illogical fashion – for the most part, we're just not starting from the same set of assumptions.

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

          I appreciate your point CO, and in fact I've encountered this view before. It's never made sense to me though. What distinguishes a "potential child" from a child? Both are just a human being in an early stage of development, no? The distinction strikes me as purely arbitrary. In terms of objective criteria (has two human parents, grows up into a human adult, has unique human DNA, has gender, etc.) I don't see any reason to draw the line between "children" and "potential children" at birth. One has no objective reason to set the boundary there rather than at puberty, or at the age of reason, or at any one of a number of stages of development if one takes that approach.

          • Craig O

            Of course it's completely arbitrary. What we call a child is a definition that is a completely arbitrary one – we can define the properties of a child and say "that's what makes it a child!", but what those properties are still are up to us. There are no "objective criteria", because those criteria depend entirely on what you think they should be – if I use different criteria, and there's no reason I can't, then I come to a different definition than you do.

            I don't support late-term abortions, because as you say, the line is substantially blurred by that point, but in the first and second trimesters, there is a difference between a born baby and a 12-week old foetus. You may believe that those differences aren't consequential, and that's quite understandable, but can you accept that others might not treat those differences in the same way? Your view of a lack of a distinction is no less arbitrary than my view that there is one.

            There are very, very few instances where I don't feel there can be objectivity or reason to decide an argument, and this is one of them, because it's all based on definitions. Definitions are entirely human thought. Just as we have different languages that define things using different sounds or symbols, and different societies that even use the same language to define things differently, this is a situation where people define a foetus differently, and the logical progression about how to treat one follows directly from those differing definitions.

            Objectively, I don't see how objectivity can be claimed by any side or person in this type of discussion.

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

            "Of course it's completely arbitrary. What we call a child is a definition that is a completely arbitrary one – we can define the properties of a child and say "that's what makes it a child!", but what those properties are still are up to us."

            Um, no. If someone defines anyone prior to puberty as only a "potential human being" they're objectively wrong, I'm sure you'd agree. Objectively, a 4-year old is not a "potential human being", they're a "human being" even though they aren't fully developed.

            To say that the line is drawn between the the second and third trimester is just as arbitrary a decision, and just as objectively wrong. A fetus doesn't magically turn into a child after the 193rd day of pregnancy.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/AdenMurphy AdenMurphy

            I suppose a logical corollary of this would be the criminalisation of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Given that you view the foetus as a child and that alcohol consumption during pregnancy results in permanent and irreparable damage to the child, would you then support alcohol consumption during pregnancy being charged as aggravated assault causing bodily harm? What are your thoughts on the subject?

          • Friendly neighbor

            Dear Canada,

            We in the United States have already tried social conservatism. It was called "compassionate conservatism" and it reached its peak in the Bush years. It was a total failure. It redirected millions of people from productive sectors into the nonprofit sector, destroyed wealth, enhanced the welfare/entitlement culture, and worst of all, it made conservatives complacent about any form of big government and unable to tell the difference between merely burdensome regulation and hyper-destructive statism. It is directly responsible for bringing this country to its knees. Try it at your own peril.

          • biff

            Watch this fall. Republicans that run on anything other than a smaller government platform won't get into the game, and will lose their encumbancy (see Florida).

            As for the big government Dems? They're in a complete state of denial just how strong the anti-big government sentiment is right now. When Barbara Boxer has to look over her shoulder to save her political hide, you know its going to be bad for them.

            With the passage of this health bill, notwithstanding the public has loudly regected it, its going to be a political blood bath. Not too many Dems will be left standing.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/RobinBC RobinBC

    A great analysis, I hope it is true. Harper will get a majority government with no trouble if he goes against the left wing liberal agenda against families, religion and individual rights. A majority of Eastern Canadians, Quebecers, Ontarians and Westerners are social conservatives whose values have been ignored too long.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/RunningGag RunningGag

      How can you possibly assume that the majority of Canadians are social conservatives? Especially considering that right now the CPC is only holding onto power by moving its policies significantly towards the center, and by attracting disaffected Liberal Party supporters. Hell, if what you say is true, the 'hidden agenda' speak should have pushed more people into voting for Mr. Harper instead of pushing them away.

      In my inexpert analysis, that shows me that there are many fiscal conservatives in this country, but a fairly small minority of social conservatives.

  • Holly Stick

    A foetus is not a child. Abortion is not infanticide. The only way you could give rights to a foetus would be by taking them away from women.

    Stop thinking of women as nothing but walking wombs.

    • Steve M

      I'll have to remember to correct my pregnant female co-worker the next time she calls her bump "the baby".

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

      Dear Holly.

      Why do I get the impression that celebrating the female body and it's capabiltiies weighs down so negatively on you?

      I have always celebrated my female presence. I never had to resort to abortion. When engaging in sex, I was aware of the consequences and acted accordingly, most often in full cooperation with my male counterpart.

      If one is reasonable, one can indeed find pleasure galore.

      Unless being reasonable is not easy for you, I would suggest giving it a try.

      Regards,

      • Holly Stick

        You've received a false impression. I prefer honesty, and I get angry at liars. If you want reasonableness, be honest.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

    what evidence do you have that we are going to "massacring" the elderly? is fear mongering your meaningful contribution?

    • Holly Stick

      Gaunilon is quite ready to kill postborn women for the sake of "preborn" children.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/EdwinDuthie EdwinDuthie

    Youth for Christ is as scary as the The Young Men's Christian Association (the YMCA) or the Salvation Army. Then there's the United Way started by church leaders in Denver, the Christian Children's Fund and World Vision, whose original stated goal was "to follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God."
    As for Pat Martin's “What if this group was called Youth for Allah?”; I just attended an education meeting at the Edmonton Islamic Academy which has an Islamic charter, It also receives goverment funding and is doing excellent work with children in the area.

    I enjoy reading Paul Wells, but I wish he and Pat Martin would not have smeared Youth for Christ as evidence of some sinister religious take-over in goverment. It's a cheap attack and it's demagogic.
    Successive governments have worked with religious charities for years, and will continue to do so.

    • Craig O

      There's a difference between supporting charities based on religion and supporting religions by way of their charity.

      The former is a fantastic way for the government to provide meaningful opportunities for people and communities. I work for one of these organisations – it's founded on Christian values, supported financially by local churches, and is run largely by Christians from those churches. But it doesn't push that religion or incorporate it into its charitable efforts.

      Youth for Christ, from what I've been able to gather (including from their own website), pushes its religion a bit, beyond the scope of what the government should be supporting. It seems to put conversion in the mix of ways it tries to help, making it not a charitable organisation that draws on religion, but a religious organisation that draws on charity. Our government should not be providing aid for conversions.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Mike514 Mike514

      You forgot Habitat for Humanity.

  • James Wolfe

    What a joke. You clowns in the mainstream media know nothing about what the word right means, as usual. How about focusing on the truth, some hard facts for a change? Liberal, Tory same old story, both have destroyed Canadas history, both have destroyed our economy and the media with its right, left spin, a pathetic joke to most.

    I wonder if people realize what’s going on in this country. Quebec has spent the last 5 decades wiping out the English language and culture from the province with racist, anti-English language laws such as bill 22, 178, 101…This is a fact. Racism, intolerance, bigotry, ethnic language cleansing and human rights violations still going on in the province of Quebec.

    “First Quebec, then we take over the rest of the country, one step at a time…through bilingualism…” PT, “How to take over a country through bilingualism…” SD. That’s what’s really going on. Wake up, people!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    Three hundred and twenty-eight comments so far. One of the best Wells columns ever?

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

      I wouldn't measure the quality of the piece by the comment count, but I'd have to agree this was one of Wells's best columns. I'm thinking I'm going to lose my bet.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        Your bet seems quite prescient so far! We shall see.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

    I agree it's a good column by Wells.

    Regarding the number of responses? I would say quality counts over quantitee, not? How do you tally that scorecount so far?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

      High tallies for both quality and quantity.

  • orval

    Now 331! Good job. I am just back from spending 48 hours in downtown Toronto. I can report that nobody on Queen St West was talking about prorogation, detainees, hidden agendas etc. If discussion was on politics (other than Toronto mayoralty politics -ugh) it was about jobs and the economy (i.e, interest rates; parity with US dollar, unemployment rates, etc). Even on Queen Street West I saw more than a few "Canada's Economic Action Plan" signs in places where there have obviously been "shovels in the ground".

    I made the earlier point that PM Harper has already won a majority Government in ROC (136 to 99). Ignatieff's appeal to a 1968 Canada which no longer exists is not going to change the essential direction that Paul Wells is talking about. And Layton accomplishes nothing by yelling "faster, faster!" to those economic initiatives that the NDP voted against in the last Budget.

    I hate to break it to many on this thread but once PM Harper emerged unscathed from the Copenhagen Conference, as was inevitable as "climate change" and Kyoto was mostly a "we-hate-Bush" global phenomenon and now Bush is gone, (replaced by Mr Yes-We-Can), the only real weakness Harper had facing the ROC electorate is gone. The game is now in Quebec – are there enough Quebec bleus out there to ensure majority government nation-wide if/when francophone Quebeckers forsake the socialistic separatism of the Bloc for the old-fashioned good fiscal management and "emplois, emplois, emplois" focus of the Parti Conservateur du Canada?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/LeaSims LeaSims

      Harper has the power he has because Canadians are lazy.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

        and, some of his powers are constituted by law, of course.

    • Holly Stick

      This has been another episode of "Conservative Fairy Tales." We now return you to reality, as the world is getting warmer and 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on record SO FAR.

    • Canuckistanian

      if Kyoto was a "we-hate-Bush" phenomenon, then the world hated Bush years before he was even in power. Cool.

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

    My compliments to Macleans on the conduct displayed in this forum. Emotions are running high, people are speaking their minds freely, but on the whole it's a very civil discussion! Not only that, but Macleans is not censoring points of view. It is a true open exchange of honest views.

    This sort of forum for national debate is truly great; I can't adequately express how much I appreciate it and how impressed I am with how it's operating. You are providing a great service here and doing a superb job of it.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

      Yes, Macleans blog is one of the better dialogue-exchange available.

      On another note, Gaunilon, have you run into SMS comments regarding comments on NDP motion on prorogation (the so-called seven day inclusion) or any comments regarding the appeal by the opposition to the Speaker of the House?

      I've been searching today but couldn't find anything, really. Just wondering if you (or anyone else ) had found some interesting reads in this regard. (saves me time looking forever.

      I'm just curious why I can't find any commentary on the two going ons in Ottawa this week.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/LeaSims LeaSims

    I think at the end of the day, Canadians value and respect the privacy of other Canadians. Some of us may think that abortion is wrong but we would never impose our view of it on another Canadian. That is my hope, we just leave each other alone and get on with our business.

  • Holly Stick

    I should probably have said "Gaunilon is quite ready to allow postborn women to die for the sake of "preborn" children." But then banning abortion does condemn some women to death, so the distinction is not the large.

    And societies which have family planning tend to have fewer abortions. Think about that.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/ciotinga1 ciotinga1

    We have safe injection sites in Vancouver where the drugs junkies can safely and illegally put more crap in their veines. At the same time, if the average John Doe goes to apply for a job, he is tested for use of drugs and if tested positive he won't be allowed to work and put bread on his table and feed his kids.

    Bravo Harper!

  • Jahangir Watson

    When Harper was getting into his first national election campaign as Conservative leader, I scoured the web for anything he'd written, and found essentially nothing. He was remarkably trace-free in the public record. I did find the speech Mr. Wells has referred to. I think it's probably a fair hypothesis that it's the closest thing we have to a political manifesto and long-range statement of strategy from Mr. Harper.

    As an aside, Paul writes very useful and informative articles sometimes – specifically, when he's calmly assessing an issue rather than using his considerable talent to heap scorn contempt on some poor public figure with malicious wit, sometimes to an uncomfortable and, I've thought, unfair extent. May he continue in the sober and solid vein this excellent piece puts on display.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Mike514 Mike514

    I suggest re-reading the article. Wells quotes at least one pollster who states "the number of self-identified conservatives has been growing."

    The "63% didn't vote Conservative" statistic isn't the only note-worthy statistic.

    • kcm

      But they are not all so-cons – this gentlemen's point i think?.

From Macleans