Canadian conservatism is dead - Gerry Nicholls

[Hodgson]

I agree with those remarks Catonist. Albertans have never been particularly ideological.

What surprises me the most about the last election is that Albertans have allowed a woman with a radical social agenda to stay in power. People say the Wildrose were damaged by a social conservative spouting off about a biblical view of homos ... but no one said boo about roadside trial by breathalysers to punish non drunk drivers.

What is up with that? How did we allow social conservatives to be used as a foil to make a radical social agenda seem legitimate?

I think the drunk driving thing was over blown.
Basically cops don't want to steal people's cars because they had a burger and a beer an hour earlier. They Checkstop for the hammered folks that clearly shouldn't be driving.
You probably will never be pulled over for drunk driving unless you are hammered and shouldn't be driving.
Peter Goldring granstanding on civil rights was pointless. If he just had a couple and was asked, the correct answer to the question of "Have you had any alcohol tonight?" is simply...."No."
Move on.

As for Redford's radical social agenda.....I'm not convinced. She oversaw elections in third world countries for the U.N. The status quo remains in Alberta right now.
She's basically a bureaucrat that is not afraid to spend big money on public stuff like health and education.
The difference between her and the NDP is that she seems to understand you need an economy on fire in order to pay for it all.
I like that.
Plus, she has some solid conservatives in the party that will explain to her the ways of conservatism should she stray too far.

Social Conservatives can be as socially conservative as they want to be, but most folks don't want them involved with their own lives.

Yeah, Redford is a UN human rights lawyer hack. Solid conservatives? Who?

Rick McIver. Sandra Jansen.

[T.G.]

I played Taps for Canadian conservatism on my trumpet awhile ago.

[Smaug]

Social conservatism is a broad range of issues and ways of relating to those issues. People don't want So-Cons in government anymore because usually So-Con ideology leads to restrictions on others. Remember when airlines had to stop serving alcohol when flying over Alberta?
The relatively normal social standards that people accepted as normal 50 years ago is seen as needlessly oppressive for society as a whole today, so people don't want elected officials to weigh in on the side of legislated morality.
Social Libertarianism is what people want.

Social Libertarianism is what people want, hmm.
Over 70 percent tax on alchohol in Alberta.
Smoking banned in Alberta restaurants and bars.
Oppressive confiscation rules comming for people who have NOT surpassed the legal limit to drive.

Ali is more anti alcohol than the original prohibitionist. So why did the 'New Prohibitionist' win the election then if people want social libertarianism?

The left offer far far far more 'moralistic' preaching than any social conservative ever could. So, again, I ask, 'How did social conservatives allow themselves to get painted into the extremist corner?

[Faramir]

I agree with those remarks Catonist. Albertans have never been particularly ideological.

What surprises me the most about the last election is that Albertans have allowed a woman with a radical social agenda to stay in power. People say the Wildrose were damaged by a social conservative spouting off about a biblical view of homos ... but no one said boo about roadside trial by breathalysers to punish non drunk drivers.

What is up with that? How did we allow social conservatives to be used as a foil to make a radical social agenda seem legitimate?

I think the drunk driving thing was over blown.
Basically cops don't want to steal people's cars because they had a burger and a beer an hour earlier. They Checkstop for the hammered folks that clearly shouldn't be driving.
You probably will never be pulled over for drunk driving unless you are hammered and shouldn't be driving.
Peter Goldring granstanding on civil rights was pointless. If he just had a couple and was asked, the correct answer to the question of "Have you had any alcohol tonight?" is simply...."No."
Move on.

As for Redford's radical social agenda.....I'm not convinced. She oversaw elections in third world countries for the U.N. The status quo remains in Alberta right now.
She's basically a bureaucrat that is not afraid to spend big money on public stuff like health and education.
The difference between her and the NDP is that she seems to understand you need an economy on fire in order to pay for it all.
I like that.
Plus, she has some solid conservatives in the party that will explain to her the ways of conservatism should she stray too far.

Social Conservatives can be as socially conservative as they want to be, but most folks don't want them involved with their own lives.

Hodgon, as social conservatives, we DON'T want to interfer with the lives of others, unless you mean stopping a surgical knife from removing the life of a human being!

What we don't want is assholes like O'Connor standing up and saying that social conservatives are knuckle draggers.

Social conservatism is a broad range of issues and ways of relating to those issues. People don't want So-Cons in government anymore because usually So-Con ideology leads to restrictions on others. Remember when airlines had to stop serving alcohol when flying over Alberta?
The relatively normal social standards that people accepted as normal 50 years ago is seen as needlessly oppressive for society as a whole today, so people don't want elected officials to weigh in on the side of legislated morality.
Social Libertarianism is what people want.

I think people need to appreciate that social conservatism means different things to different people. It pisses me off to see lesbian shows on TV, but by no means do I want to regulate it. I suppose I wish pop culture wasn't scraping the bottom of the barrel, but I think you would find social conservatives of the right leaning bent tend to be those that oppose most censorship or interfering in the lives of others. It tends to be the purview of the secular left to want to regulate discourse and what we do with our bodies. Consider smoking bans, seatbelt laws, recycling laws, dietary laws, ect. While you would have found nanny statism on the very far fringe of social conservatism, I think these days it is the exception.

But you raise a great point, because it is the PERCEPTION of social conservatism that is the problem.

[Faramir]

Social conservatism is a broad range of issues and ways of relating to those issues. People don't want So-Cons in government anymore because usually So-Con ideology leads to restrictions on others. Remember when airlines had to stop serving alcohol when flying over Alberta?
The relatively normal social standards that people accepted as normal 50 years ago is seen as needlessly oppressive for society as a whole today, so people don't want elected officials to weigh in on the side of legislated morality.
Social Libertarianism is what people want.

Social Libertarianism is what people want, hmm.
Over 70 percent tax on alchohol in Alberta.
Smoking banned in Alberta restaurants and bars.
Oppressive confiscation rules comming for people who have NOT surpassed the legal limit to drive.

Ali is more anti alcohol than the original prohibitionist. So why did the 'New Prohibitionist' win the election then if people want social libertarianism?

The left offer far far far more 'moralistic' preaching than any social conservative ever could. So, again, I ask, 'How did social conservatives allow themselves to get painted into the extremist corner?

Exactly. The left has a morality of its own. I think CS Lewis spoke about this a fair bit - back then it was the ugly head of Post Modernism starting to rear its head. The left has a moral code it doesn't want to debate, but wants jammed down our throats.

[WestViking]

Social conservatives are generally in favour of maintaining strong family, community and social ethics and maintaining a time-tested set of social standards and values. They are generally not of the “me” or “I” generations and believe that the family is the cornerstone of a strong, stable and secure society and nation.

For decades, the left and progressives have demonized social conservatives, taking social conservative positions on the family, marriage and abortion for example, expanding and exaggerating them and then holding up social conservatives as the reincarnation of Attila’s Hun hordes. The demonizing is ridiculous, but the most hurtful aspect is that the left and progressives have done such a good job that far too many conservatives consider social conservatives to be a liability.

No political party striving to be democratic can stifle social conservatives and thrive. The CPC may survive but cannot thrive without making peace with social conservatives. Frankly the CPC leadership lacks the balls to face the critics of social conservatism honestly. If conservative candidates from Gopher Hole, Saskatchewan and Great Neck, Ontario express social conservative views, it is not a catastrophe; if local electors like that candidate and elect him or her, so be it. It is not the end of the world. We have no cause to silence them or to apologize for their views or to pay any attention to leftist or progressive noise.

[Faramir]

Social conservatives are generally in favour of maintaining strong family, community and social ethics and maintaining a time-tested set of social standards and values. They are generally not of the “me” or “I” generations and believe that the family is the cornerstone of a strong, stable and secure society and nation.

For decades, the left and progressives have demonized social conservatives, taking social conservative positions on the family, marriage and abortion for example, expanding and exaggerating them and then holding up social conservatives as the reincarnation of Attila’s Hun hordes. The demonizing is ridiculous, but the most hurtful aspect is that the left and progressives have done such a good job that far too many conservatives consider social conservatives to be a liability.

No political party striving to be democratic can stifle social conservatives and thrive. The CPC may survive but cannot thrive without making peace with social conservatives. Frankly the CPC leadership lacks the balls to face the critics of social conservatism honestly. If conservative candidates from Gopher Hole, Saskatchewan and Great Neck, Ontario express social conservative views, it is not a catastrophe; if local electors like that candidate and elect him or her, so be it. It is not the end of the world. We have no cause to silence them or to apologize for their views or to pay any attention to leftist or progressive noise.

Great post. The left has been setting the dialogue for some time. Which, as much as I hate pop culture, some like Brian Lilley make a great point. The culture needs to be changed. So maybe there is a great argument for more and more conservatives getting into the book writing and movie making world.

For instance, something I always thougth was the case, is that it was social conservatives that launched Prohibition. In fact it was launched by do-gooders progressives who didn't like the unwashed massive drinking too much and wanted to "reform" their behaviours. Ford was another sort of progressive who really enjoyed monitoring the acitivies of his workers off the plant.

I would go further and call liberation theology, launched by some left wing cardinals in Latin America, a progressive movement, that has the convenience of being able to attach the Christianity tag to it.

[WestViking]

I am far more disturbed over the knee jerk reactions of red Tories than I am with the positions of social conservatives. If we have a dozen or two social conservative candidates in a field of 308 we need to tell the Dippers and Liberals that they cannot silence public dialogue on social issues and still pretend to serve the electorate. To do that, we have to put our own house in order first.

[Faramir]

I am far more disturbed over the knee jerk reactions of red Tories than I am with the positions of social conservatives. If we have a dozen or two social conservative candidates in a field of 308 we need to tell the Dippers and Liberals that they cannot silence public dialogue on social issues and still pretend to serve the electorate. To do that, we have to put our own house in order first.

Brian vocalized exactly what you are talking about:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/feat ... 0824085001