Canadian conservatism is dead - Gerry Nicholls

[Hodgson]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... m-is-dead/

You know how in the The Wizard of Oz, the Wicked Witch of the East gets squished by Dorothy’s falling house? Well, today the hopes and dreams of Canada’s conservative movement are in pretty much the same flattened condition as that unfortunate witch. Basically all that remains now is for a Munchkin coroner to examine what’s left of conservative aspirations and proclaim, “they’re not only merely dead, they’re really most sincerely dead.”

Time of death: April 23, when Alberta’s conservative-leaning Wildrose Party, after being swept up high on the winds of the polls, came crashing down to Earth with a disappointing thud. What made this event the equivalent of an ideological house crushing is not so much the result of the vote, but rather how that result is being interpreted. Experts are blaming the Wildrose loss on its conservative agenda. They say Wildrose was just too radical to.....

[catonist]

We might not want to read too much ideological significance into this election.

Most of the people who voted Wildrose likely weren't voting for some well-understood idea of conservativism. They just thought the Tories had grown corrupt and authoritarian, and wanted them out.

And the liberals who got frightened into voting PC likely weren't endorsing whatever "UN Socialist agenda" that "REDford" was promoting, to the extent that she was promoting any such thing. They just got freaked out by a tub-thumping preacher talking about hellfire, and so wanted to make sure that his party stayed out of power. Had they been supporting a genuine left-wing alternative, they woulda gone NDP or maybe Liberal.

There is a tendency among ideologues, of both the left and the right, to assume that everyone else shares their urgent worldview. "Well, I'm just absolutely outraged by Alison Redford's trampling of free enterprise and traditional values, and by God, I'm sure all my friends and neighbours are as well." No. Most people don't have a clue about that sort of thing, they just know that they prefer things to be roughly the same as they've always been, with a few minor adjustments here and there.

And don't make the mistake of assuming that there was some Golden Age Of Free Dominion-Style Alberta Conservtivism that Wildrose could promise a return to. You all know that guy Peter Lougheed, who came out and called Redford the greatest thing since sliced bread, the true heir to his Vision. Well, he ruled Alberta for 15 years, with larger majorities than any of his successors have managed to attain. And that was back when there were far fewer "eastern socialist welfare bums from gay-pride cities" moving to Alberta than there are now.

[WestViking]

This is the sort of post-election bitter bile we endure from political insiders whenever the public fails to follow the predictions of pundits. Albertans were not ready to put their faith in the Wild Rose this election. To assume that means that conservatism is dead is a long stretch. Alberta PCs may be straying from conservative principles, but so far Albertans enjoy low unemployment, good wages and low taxes. The economic climate in Alberta does not call for a change in government. Ideologues chaff at the foolishness of the public, but are powerless to do anything about it. Alberta voters will decide when a change is due and have just said: "Not yet". Live with it Gerry.

[Smaug]

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?

[Smaug]

The economic climate in Alberta does not call for a change in government. Ideologues chaff at the foolishness of the public, but are powerless to do anything about it. Alberta voters will decide when a change is due and have just said: "Not yet". Live with it Gerry.

As always your a voice of reason WV.

Voters rarely change governments in good economic times. However, the Wildrose did manage to increase their support by something like seven hundred percent in a four years period from a time when they scarcely existed as a party to the present where they now form a very strong (by Alberta standards) opposition. This is a remarkable achievement especially considering the economy is very good.

That the Wildrose nearly managed to win in their first full slate election is, I think, an indication that Albertans know a change is necessary. Perhaps ideologues like myself thought too highly of Alberta voters and were sorely dissapointed, or perhaps I think too little of those same voters to realize that their decision to put the Wildrose in opposition for years learning political professionalism may well be the right thing for the province.

[Faramir]

I agree with Gerry. He saw it die first with the Ottawashing of the CPC over the last few years. As we all suspected, a majority government caused Harper to move even further left, NOT towards the centre.

This might be anecdotal, but from what I have heard is voters do NO want change. They rather stick with the horse they know and they are not about to embrace anything even smelling of libertarianism, or small c conservatism.

Harper failed to provide leadership to show Canadians that conservatism can work.

Danielle provided that leadership and I thought she made a cogent and great argument for common sense conservatism. Sadly it seems voters rather have George Bush styled compassionate faux conservatism.

[Hodgson]

We might not want to read too much ideological significance into this election.

Most of the people who voted Wildrose likely weren't voting for some well-understood idea of conservativism. They just thought the Tories had grown corrupt and authoritarian, and wanted them out.

And the liberals who got frightened into voting PC likely weren't endorsing whatever "UN Socialist agenda" that "REDford" was promoting, to the extent that she was promoting any such thing. They just got freaked out by a tub-thumping preacher talking about hellfire, and so wanted to make sure that his party stayed out of power. Had they been supporting a genuine left-wing alternative, they woulda gone NDP or maybe Liberal.

There is a tendency among ideologues, of both the left and the right, to assume that everyone else shares their urgent worldview. "Well, I'm just absolutely outraged by Alison Redford's trampling of free enterprise and traditional values, and by God, I'm sure all my friends and neighbours are as well." No. Most people don't have a clue about that sort of thing, they just know that they prefer things to be roughly the same as they've always been, with a few minor adjustments here and there.

And don't make the mistake of assuming that there was some Golden Age Of Free Dominion-Style Alberta Conservtivism that Wildrose could promise a return to. You all know that guy Peter Lougheed, who came out and called Redford the greatest thing since sliced bread, the true heir to his Vision. Well, he ruled Alberta for 15 years, with larger majorities than any of his successors have managed to attain. And that was back when there were far fewer "eastern socialist welfare bums from gay-pride cities" moving to Alberta than there are now.

This post says everything you need to know. 100% agree.

[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.

[Faramir]

This is the sort of post-election bitter bile we endure from political insiders whenever the public fails to follow the predictions of pundits. Albertans were not ready to put their faith in the Wild Rose this election. To assume that means that conservatism is dead is a long stretch. Alberta PCs may be straying from conservative principles, but so far Albertans enjoy low unemployment, good wages and low taxes. The economic climate in Alberta does not call for a change in government. Ideologues chaff at the foolishness of the public, but are powerless to do anything about it. Alberta voters will decide when a change is due and have just said: "Not yet". Live with it Gerry.

Redford was pretty clear about her pro-UN, pro-union, pro-human rights commission agenda. Was no one listening?

[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.

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

[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.

[catonist]

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.

Speaking as a non-driver, and as someone who hasn't had a drink for about eight years(no, not a recovering alkie, just don't like the stuff), I wasn't sure what to think of the drunk-driving legislation.

Most plausibly, it was an appeal to the "soccer mom" vote. I agree that it wouldn't likely result in some mass confiscation of vehichles from everyone who had one beer before hitting the road.

That said, from what I know of cops, a few of them wouldn't be beyond using the law to go after people in personal vendettas, if the bar for confiscation is set too low. These would be isolated cases, not a stalinist crackdown directed from the premier's office, but abusive nonetheless. Some of you may know about the adventures of an Edmonton journalist with the police, after he pissed them off in his newspaper column.

On November 18, 2004, seven members of the Edmonton Police Service targeted Diotte along with then-police commission chairman Martin Ignasiak in a controversial undercover drunk-driving operation at an Edmonton bar, the Overtime Broiler & Taproom. Police were staked out in anticipation of catching the two men driving home drunk, but both took cabs home.

Subsequent legal proceedings produced evidence, including police radio conversations from that night, showing officers set up the operation because they were upset by Diotte's newspaper columns about policing, including criticism of photo radar operations.

After an internal police investigation exonerated the officers involved in the unwarranted would-be sting, then-police chief Fred Rayner was fired from his position by the Edmonton Police Commission.

In September 2008, Alberta's Law Enforcement Review Board ruled a senior police officer abused his power by targeting Diotte because the law enforcement official was frustrated by the columnist's viewpoints on police matters.

One wonders what these power-tripping cops would have done had they had recourse to Redford's drunk-driving laws.

wikipedia

[catonist]

And hey, check out this map from CBC's vote compass.

Some real interesting results. The place that registers the deepest opposition to Redford's drunk laws(Issue 12) is Calgary, a city from which Wildrose was almost totally shut out. And Cardston, which is like Wildrose Central, registers support for the law that is among the highest in the province(almost certainly due to Mormon influence). The law is also more popular in some other rural ridings than it is in Nanny State Edmonton.

Lot of other interesting stuff on those maps. Calgary is more in favour of abortion funding than Edmonton. I'd put that down to Catholic influence in Edmonton, but that's just a semi-educated guess.

Vote Compass

[LAR]

Here in BC they use such laws to enforce any failure to obey authority. If you can't renew your driver's license or get insurance or have your property seized, everyone assumes it's for drunk driving but it could be for failing to separate your garbage..
Of course they use your desire to drive to enforce laws because most people want to drive. If people could see where it leads they'd be a lot more opposed.

[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.

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.