The petulance of conservative “activism”
March 14, 2010 12:14 pm Canadian PoliticsBlog postings like this only confirm my growing suspicion that the shade of difference between many self-proclaimed conservative “activists” and social “activists” is that the former will claim a predilection for a Tim’s double-double over the latter’s allegiance to the fair trade decaf soy latté. And that is because the supposed champions of the right have as their mirror image the typical “pinko shit disturber” when it comes to bleating, “But that’s not fair!”
Case in point: the accusations against Stephen Harper that he is not moving sufficiently to the right in the current parliamentary environment. He has to govern within a minority Parliament. Simply put, he leads a party that does not enjoy the essentially automatic confidence of the House that comes with a majority of seats in hand.
I realize this smacks of remedial civics but see how so many in the blogosphere wilfully deny this fact. Suppose Harper introduces a bill to privatize the CBC. Not only would it be assured of defeat but it would certainly be deemed a matter of confidence and so result in an election. Between the vituperation of an institution under attack like the Mother Corpse and its familiars in the mainstream media, just try to see if the proposition of a Conservative victory would survive our version of the Clapham Omnibus test.
In retrospect it is now easy to see how the coalition debacle of 2008 flowed from the suggestion to phase out political party subsidies. Of course on paper it makes eminent sense and many Canadians would find merit in it. But how deluded must one be to imagine that the opposition parties would willingly commit seppuku for the benefit of the governing party?! Yes, the opposition acted out of craven self-interest: what else would you expect them to do?!
The reality of the current parliament is irksome for most, yet for some it is so profound an obstacle to the realization of their wishes that they ignore at the minimum, at the extreme denouncing it as unfair to their dreams. The difference between this and the mindset of the spoiled idle children who hit the streets for sundry causes like anti-globalization or denunciation of Israel is frankly asymptotic.
The activists love to berate those who toil in the trenches of conventional political warfare, in riding associations and on the electoral hustings. They thrill to the brazen pronouncements of solidarity with the true conservative cause on their web pages. The crowds at think-tank conferences content themselves with the smug satisfaction of those who are unstained by the base toil of genuine political work, it being the preserve of insular-minded hacks on the Hill.
And that is why such people are rendering all forms of assistance short of genuine help to the task of establishing a majority conservative government in Ottawa.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Glendronach
Alex :
Date: March 14, 2010 @ 12:49 PM
Awesome. Some damn good writing and I totally agree.
john :
Date: March 14, 2010 @ 1:19 PM
Would you rather he kept silent and then simply stayed home on election day?
Haper is a fine man. To place the blame of a left leaning “conservative” party onhis shoulders is unfair.
However, there are !!MANY!! blue Liberals in the CPC, who if allowed would turn the party so far to the left that it would be indistinguishable from the Liberals.
The voices of the lefty JiM Prentice types must be countered.
Nicola Timmerman :
Date: March 14, 2010 @ 2:10 PM
I don’t agree that fiscal conservatives like myself and many social conservatives don’t toil in the trenches. We have worked in election after election.
But I agree it is unrealistic to think PM Harper can drastically cut government spending with a minority government. However I don’t agree with more money over a longer time frame for defence. We need the money now to still play catch up for the years of neglect and to counter any inflation.
Glendronach :
Date: March 14, 2010 @ 3:01 PM
John,
I am not calling for an end to active discussion of the government’s agenda, merely a recognition of the old proven adage, “The spice must flow.”
I chafe when I come upon screeds that call for supposedly true conservatives to abandon the electoral process and bask in the warmth of their own civil society coccoon. That is the political equivalent of wetting yourself in a dark suit: you feel warm all over and no one notices the act.
As I have said on numerous occasions, I have met some of the best people through politics, but most of the worst by the same process. Nonetheless, it is the only process that matters.
Glendronach :
Date: March 14, 2010 @ 3:04 PM
Nicola,
I take nothing away from your contributions to the real toil of electoral effort. But some commentators such as the one to whom I linked exhibit an unfounded smugness towards the machinery of government and the simonpurity of their own political thinking that has be called out.
As I said in response to John, the spice must flow. I can see readily you appreciate that as well.
James :
Date: March 14, 2010 @ 4:20 PM
About time a real conservative made this point about the loud mouths who purport to be more dedicated than the rest of us, and chide the PM and others for not being ideologically pure enough for them. If we are ever to form a majority government we need to win over a large portion of average Canadians who agree with us about fiscal and economic management and most social issues, but are uncomfortable when some blabbermouth looking for attention makes some ill considered statement about Nelson Mandela (Anders), or Harper’s agenda(Flanagan) or foreign service officers who have been duped by the Taliban (MacKay). These kind of comments make it more difficult for us to build the kind of coalition we need in order to rid ourselves of the Trudeauist elites who continue to plague our nation.
duggan's dew :
Date: March 14, 2010 @ 4:22 PM
In my heart, I have faith in Mr. Harper. There is a majority government in his future, and on that day, he will come in one of the pre-chosen forms.
john :
Date: March 14, 2010 @ 5:21 PM
“to build the kind of coalition we need in order to rid ourselves of the Trudeauist elites”
James talks about “elites” and then dismisses several conservatives as “loudmouths” and “blabbermouths”.
Maybe Glenronach and James should consider something. The people who are critcizing the CPC are voters. They are not slaves. They can vote for whomever they wish or not at all.
Tell you what James you run out and curry the favour of your gay, polygamist, eco-freak welfare recipients and if your pamper them enough they might vote for you.
Meanwhile those who like Rob Anders and Flanagan will accomodate you and fade away since you despise them so much.
Maybe you will get your majority — then again, maybe not.
Have fun.
john :
Date: March 14, 2010 @ 5:31 PM
Also, Glenronach? I thank you for “toiling” on a campaign. but that doesn’t mean that as a voter I owe you anything.
As a political campaigner you are a salesman trying to sell me your party. I am not obliged to purchase no matter how hard you felt you have worked.
James :
Date: March 14, 2010 @ 7:11 PM
John, At not time did I suggest “we should curry the favour of the gay, polygamist, co freak welfare recipients” and it is dishonest of you to suggest I did. I suggested we need to win over average Canadians. If you think that average Canadians are gay, eco freak welfare recipients then you are sadly out of touch. I have no idea what you were trying to say about Anders and Flanagan, but I will say again that when Flanagan says Harper does have some kind of secret agenda it only helps the opponents of conservatism. We will get our majority if people like you will stop attacking from within, or are you actually a Liberal just hoping to make trouble ?
Glendronach :
Date: March 14, 2010 @ 7:18 PM
“As a political campaigner you are a salesman trying to sell me your party. I am not obliged to purchase no matter how hard you felt you have worked”
John, that is not the point in question. “Activists” like the blogger to whom I linked are not typical voters waiting to be persuaded at election time. These people claim to be the voice of a movement but refuse to acknowledge the real circumstances in which the electoral game is being played out.
It is one thing to be ahead of the pack when it comes to formulating opinion but these people are fleeing from hard reality so fast they are doppler-shifting.
john :
Date: March 14, 2010 @ 8:14 PM
“John, At not time did I suggest “we should curry the favour of the gay, polygamist, co freak welfare recipients” and it is dishonest of you to suggest I did.”
******************************
It was dishonest. You are correct.
However, I was exaggerating for effect. There are many within the CPC who ARE trying to appease eternally dissatified & vocal fringe groups.
When challenged these idividuals trot out the old line of making the CPC a “bigger tent”. What hogwash.
As a voter who leans conservative I am sick and tired of this politician’s habit of catering to social pressure groups. That is a tactic of the Liberals and the NDP. I would expect better of the conservative party.
The fact is I like & respect Harper but I trust the CPC about as far as I can throw them.
So far it’s only been Harper’s leadership that has kept me from abandoning any thought of voting CPC completely.
——————–
“Activists” like the blogger to whom I linked …. These people claim to be the voice of a movement”
*****************************
Perhaps they are. Maybe it’s just not a movement you care to listen to.
If you attack them, ridicule them and dismiss then it won’t be surprising if they stay at home during the next election.
If your tent is not big enough to allow traditional conservatives and so-cons to have a voice then why should they vote for the CPC?
Cytotoxic :
Date: March 14, 2010 @ 9:17 PM
Trash. Harper has been both made Canada more left-wing AND failed to achieve a majority against the 2 weakest Liberal leaders in recent memory. You are never getting that majority. Harper will never cut government. Deal with it.
Glendronach :
Date: March 14, 2010 @ 9:43 PM
John,
“If your tent is not big enough to allow traditional conservatives and so-cons to have a voice then why should they vote for the CPC?”
And where precisely did I make that argument in my posting? Nowhere.
My issue is not with traditional conservatives or social conservatives, it is with a certain variety of online activist who inexplicably thinks the CPC should pursue his pure vision of conservatism without regard to on-the-ground realities. And when that doesn’t pan out, his reaction is to decry the system, call for a retreat into a closed loop and brand those remaining within the process to be inadequate and impure.
That is shallow, self-defeating thinking that ought to be called out as such.
By all means we should feel free to take the Harper government to task: it just helps to do so outside of an intellectual vacuum.
James :
Date: March 14, 2010 @ 10:14 PM
John: I am not advocating abandoning principles or trying to water down our beliefs. Like you I find that distasteful and anyway it is unlikely to work. Rather I think we need to appeal to average Canadians who share our conservative values, but are still voting for opposition parties. Some of these good people would vote conservative,but keep hearing about an alleged secret agenda and other slurs. My complaint about some activists is that their comments bolster that fear in people. A true conservative would only speak publicly as a conservative when they have something useful to say.
I also agree with you that politicians should not cave in to every special interest group no matter how much press they get. That is what the Liberals did. It worked for a time, but now look at them. They do not know what they believe or what they stand for. When asked why anyone should vote for them all they can say is that they oppose us.
That is all the proof we need as to the wisdom of standing by our principles, values and beliefs.
lance :
Date: March 15, 2010 @ 12:59 AM
James said, “A true conservative would only speak publicly as a conservative when they have something useful to say.”
Shouldn’t that have been, “..as a Conservative when they have something useful to say.”
Gods, you’re a bit arrogant aren’t you.
“That is all the proof we need as to the wisdom of standing by our principles, values and beliefs.”
Umm…WHAT?
When at the last convention the “powers that be” changed _every_ line that read “A Conservative gov’t will…” to “A Conservative believes…”; when the last four budgets have all increased spending by half; when the gun-control registry is putting firearms owners behind bars; when the HRC’s have _increased_, the _last_ thing anyone can say is that the “Conservatives” have stood by any of their beliefs, values or principles.
Hugh MacIntyre :
Date: March 15, 2010 @ 4:20 AM
Politics is the art of the possible. I agree that it would likely not be possible in a minority government to do all the things conservatives would want done. But that does not excuse the behaviour of this government. They haven’t tried to restrain the budget, they allowed it to explode upward. How can you claim that a conservative minority ought to be less fiscally responsible than a liberal minority?
There are all sorts of things that this government has done that they didn’t have to. And all sorts of things that they could have done and didn’t. The argument of the Harper Truthers is basically that he couldn’t have done it all so it is okay that he has done nothing.
Glendronach :
Date: March 15, 2010 @ 7:38 AM
Hugh, you cite the old adage of politics being the art of the possible but you fail to make a case as to what would be possible for a submstantially different policy approach in the current minority parliamentary. If you question the fact of a difference, the onus is upon you to propose a plausible counter-argument.
That is not a blanket defence of all of the actions of the current government. As the archives will prove, I have lambasted Harper and his policies on numerous occasions. But I have done so in the knowledge that holding government is the key to change rather than parking oneself at a think-tank to churn out screed.
Furthermore, you overlook the power of appointment that resides with a government. Good people who are clear on the concept are steadily replacing Chretienite deadwood. Those appointees do make a difference in the machinery of government. And the power of the Manning Foundation to make such choices? Zero.
That is no substitute for a majority mandate but it is at least a path towards one.
Glendronach :
Date: March 15, 2010 @ 7:46 AM
Lance,
Just where are you getting your evidence for your latter claims? The long gun registry is being starved of budget funds and the minister has directed that it not be enforced with any vigour. Where are the mass arrests?
As for the CHRC, a colleague of mine pointed out here recently that the chairman’s appointment by Governor-in-Council can be rescinded only through legislative action, something that is not feasible in the current parliament. But that is not proof that Harper approves Jennifer Lynch’s reign of error. The fact that the CHRC is being exposed to the current degree of denormalization without any defence from other government institutions proves otherwise.
This all returns to my original point, that if you acknowledge the reality of minority government you need to get a clear bead on what change is actually feasible.
James :
Date: March 15, 2010 @ 9:28 AM
Lance: I stand by my posting as written. When I wrote “speak publicly as a conservative” I meant as someone who supports conservative values and principles, not as a member of the Conservative Party. If we are nitpicking about grammar then perhaps next time you ask a question such as “you are a bit arrogant aren’t you.” you might consider using a question mark rather than a period.
As for the substance of your posting you ignore the fact that with a minority of seats in Parliament Harper cannot just do as he pleases and needs the support of at least one opposition party just to survive. Minority conservative governments facing three left wing parties are not in a position to make the kinds of changes you seem to want and if they ignore the average Canadian in favour of pursuing an ideological agenda they are unlikely to ever win that majority.
john :
Date: March 15, 2010 @ 5:39 PM
Glenronach, James, I understand your position. I understand the minority position of the government.
What you must understand is that the CPC is suffering a credibility gap with many conservative supporters.
In the 1980’s conservatives were delighted when Joe Clark won a minority government only to piss it away and allow Trudeau to return.
The conservative party promtly tossed Clark away for a leader from Quebec (wow – “big surprise” – another PM from Quebec).
Mulroney then pissed away millions in an absurd circus of constitional navel gazing that tried to appease every dinky-assed little pressure group there was (natives, separatists, shrill women’s groups – you name it).
One thing that burnt my ass was when Mulroney pulled his phoney “free vote” in parliament regarding capital punishment. He had one of the biggest cabinets in Canadian hiostory and the called a free vote for all MPs EXCEPT cabinet members who were instructed to vote AGAINST capital punishment.
That (!?) is a free vote?
I can still remember that asshole hugging other MPs and laughing when the “free vote” not surprisingly failed to reinstate capital punishment.
Then we had Kim Campbell. What a twit she was. She was the one who introduced the firearms aquisition certificate. The precursor to the firearms license. She led the conservative party into a disasterous defeat.
Then the conservative party decided to dip into the Quebec well again (WOW! Another great “surprise!”).
Charest the man with 2 seats who hated the Reform Party so much that he refused to join forces with the Reformers so the Reformers could become the official opposition. He would rather see the Bloc become the official opposition than cooperate with a western conservative leader.
Nice, — and now he’s a fed bashing Liberal who hates the oil sands.
Whoa! A third big “surprise”.
Then the conservative Party came up with the genius idea of resurecting Clark the idiot. Remember him? The bonehead that advocated Canadians vote LIBERAL instead of for the CPC?
So guess what? Many former members & supporters of the Reform party have a deep seated mistrust of the CPC.
So when you start bitching at some conservatives for not gushing about every move you make, do try to remember, they’ve had had 30 years to build up distrust and it’s not going to disappear overnight.
If you want them to show up on election day you had better convince them that *IF* you get a majority it won’t simply be another bullshit blue-Liberal lie like previous administrations.
James :
Date: March 15, 2010 @ 10:32 PM
John, I do not disagree that Clark was an idiot and an appeaser and that Mulroney while he did accomplish some great things had many weaknesses and was not the true conservative he pretended to be. I agree the Charlottown Accord, authored by that fool Joe Clark was an abomination because it pandered to every special interest group in the country.
But I believe the new Conservative Party is a much better party led by a much better man. Stephen Harper is no Joe Clark , Brian Mulroney or Kim Campbell. Remember Harper left the old PC Party to help found the Reform Party. We should also remember that Joe Clark also fought the creation of the new party and several members of caucus refused to join the new party.
That is why I am prepared to give the Conservative Party a chance. Harper has done about as much as he can with a minority. Supporting our troops with proper equipment, standing up to terrorism, cutting funding to the horrible National Action Committee on the Status of Women, tightening up immigration abuses, writing a new citizenship guide that actually talks about Canada’s proud military record, standing up for Israel against the terrorists and their surrogates.
I have waited such a long time for someone to even begin to end the Liberal legacy of moral relativism, pandering to special interest groups, undercutting our military, corruption and cowardice that I am glad that we finally have not only an end to the damage the Liberals are doing to Canada , but a man strong enough to start to push back and return this country to genuine Canadian values of hard work, determination in face of great odds, family, sacrifice while helping the less fortunate, self respect, belief in the supremacy of God,personal accountability and self reliance.
That is why I support Stephen Harper and urge everyone else to do the same. He is not a perfect man and he is not in a perfect situation, but he is doing the right thing in the face of a Parliament where the opposition parties have a majority and where most of the mainstream press, especially the CBC, oppose almost everything he does.
john :
Date: March 16, 2010 @ 11:07 PM
I have read your posting and as I said above I like and respect Harper (always have). It’s many of the others around him I don’t trust *cough* (prentice) *cough*.
I’m hopeful but suspicious.