Ben started it. He made reference to "conservatism" - a concept that, as far as I am concerned, does not exits. It's a grouping of different, divergent and sometimes contradictory ideas. The odder idea is "liberalism" which is a word referencing non-being used by people who espouse "conservatism" that roughly translates as "bad" and serves no other purpose that to make people who can use the word "conservatism" with a straight face feel better about themselves. They are part of a great struggle, an unobservable battle not unlike the rabbit in Harvey that was so important to Jimmy Stewart's character.
Michael Valpy makes some related observations this morning in The Globe:
Over the past two decades, Canadians have been inching toward small-c conservatism, a slow, oozing shift in values and notions of how the country should be run, taking them further and further away from their one-time rah-rah support for the progressive state as the instrument of national collectivity. But the real seismic adjustment of the electorate is not from one ideological camp to another. Rather it's a drift from Canada's traditional small-l liberalism – or, perhaps more accurately, its red toryism – to a rejection of all ideology and theoretical ideas of governance and society that dramatically sets Canadians apart from their southern neighbours.
The problem is, of course, the central problem of dichotomy - the idea that we live in a on-off toggle world where things see-saw, have tipping points or are related to penduli...or is it pendulae? We like simplicity. We are lazy. Often, we tend in our weaker moments to default to formulaic propositions like if I am "X", you must be "Y" and the difference between the two must define the essence of each - forget all hope of similarity even though it represents 99% of our relationships.
The unhappy and the political cannot see that life is not like that toggle. What the rigid call "compromise" the vast majority know as "reality". And people are wise enough to know that there are more than two options. This plays out not only in the five parties competing this Canadian political season but also the factionalism to the south - will Clintonites vote for Obama, will the Bushians scuttle the McCainers? As a result, one can see that really we are not looking so much for an ideology as an approach to action, watching through the election not for who has the best policy but who offers the best glimpse of how they would administer process.
For all the bleating of the strident that this makes for "moral relativism" or, in the weighty but sadly empty words of Stephen Harper, "nihilism" - nothing turns on it. Most people are not picking from the candidates based on promises. People just want to figure out who will govern best. If half-baked political theories and weaving a movement from nothing inspire people to seek to administer, that is fine...but we are not looking for a guru. Whatever turns your crank will be humoured as long as you know how to show up at work and don't run a deficit, don't forget the poor and don't lose a war. Same as it ever was.
Comments
Jay Currie - September 21, 2008 2:56 am
To a point I agree with you Alan. What has changed is that people have realized that the government is not always the best solution. They have also realized that there is no source of revenue for the government save the taxpayer.
As well, people have had time to look at the fallout of the great expansion of government under Mr. Trudeau and, later, under Mr. Mulroney. I don't think they are terrifically impressed.
Which means that wandering about the country promising to spend a lot of money or create society changing programs is not as attractive as it once was.
David Janes - September 21, 2008 7:34 am
A we're a country that believes in antiismism. And of course, the dividing line between people believe this and those who don't define the antiismism schism.
Alan - September 21, 2008 9:31 am
I see a big difference between spending a lot of money or create society changing programs.
Were the promise to upgrade infrastructure by 70 billion - the real gem in the Grit platform - really structured in the proper way, it could be an anti-ism-istic infusion of government spending within the proper government realm that could be a corner piece of general economic expansion.
The Green shift, for God's sake, if presented with more emphasis of R+D support, could change society by leveraging private prosperity thought the brainiac sector as well as the manufacturing sector.
Neither would create societal goods or a vast increase in bureaucracy. But each would be based on hefty public spending where the government, frankly, does as good or a better economic job than the private sector. CPC retraction of government as a policy, in comparison, offers stagnation and slipping into deficit through imprudent management...as Tory-nomics always does.
Why can't the Grits frame their own argument in this way? How it is that they have abandoned the economic moral high ground that Chretien so skillfully asserted?
Jay Currie - September 21, 2008 4:53 pm
I'll leave the delights of infrastructure upgrades to those of you in the front lines - though why municipalities cannot simply raise the taxes they need to keep the bridges and sewers in repair is a bit of a mystery. What value do the feds bring to the infrastructure equation.
On the r&d elements of the Green Shift there are a couple of issues. First, the Greenies don't want to believe that there is a techno fix. From the religious perspective of the deep Greens this is the wrong sort of salvation. (And don't even think about nukes as they are the accused work of tech Satans.) Second, a lot of the promising r&d is already fully funded by private capital looking to make a buck. It is not an obviously efficient place for the feds to be spending money. (Remember Scientific Research Tax Credits - the feds are horrible at "picking winners" and frankly should not even try.)
The final thing: global warming is pretty much done as both a political and a scientific issue. The science has been downgraded to "climate change", the "consensus" (never very much more than a political sleight of hand) is falling apart and NASA is having a press conference Tuesday on the Sun, "“The sun’s current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system.” Dr. Hansen will not be present.
Alan - September 21, 2008 5:39 pm
"...though why municipalities cannot simply raise the taxes they need to keep the bridges and sewers in repair is a bit of a mystery..."
Well, the tax base is the issue. No corporate tax, hotel tax, income tax or sales tax powers allocated to municipalities yet municipalities stiffed with most infrastructure used on a daily basis. This is aside from the royalties that our "betters" in some provinces receive from the sap that flows from the ground.
So just looking at Kingston's new $115,000,000 sewer treatment facility upgrade, the 116,000 of Kingston would each have to pay over $1,000 for this one additional facility and only through real estate taxes. Which means I might have to pay over $10,000 on my modest 1960s bungalow as a one year premium given the distribution of realty taxes. Next year, I may have to pay that much for the next capital project, the next year another capital project - keeping in mind the basic capital infrastructure requirements are often mandated by regulation at the provincial or even Federal level.
Without the full range of revenue, no capacity to cover the full range of responsibilities. Mystery solved.
David Janes - September 21, 2008 6:35 pm
Well, someone's going to have to pay for it and it's not like no one else will need this sort of upgrade either! Municipal items such as water, sewer, roads etc. should amortized over long periods of time so that everyone who enjoys the benefit (e.g. future residents) will also help pay the cost. When you do that, the yearly cost of comes down quite significantly.
Alan - September 21, 2008 7:53 pm
And if you amortize the annual projects across the same limited tax base you have me spending an extra 10,000 in real estate taxes for multiple projects and interest - which is the exact same place.
And people on septic systems who regularly come into cities for all the benefits of urban centres don't pay for this stuff if it's all on the real property taxpayer.