Clarion call

Stephen Taylor on the ideal-busting Conservative budget:

We can lament the budget delivered by our Conservative Party and complain that it goes against our instincts as conservatives. But yesterday, the Conservative government did it’s job, it presented a survivable budget in the current political climate. However, the conservative movement failed because it was unsuccessful in creating the conditions of ideological survivability for what should have been a sincerely conservative budget.

So what are we going to do about it?

It is difficult to be politically realistic without appearing cynical, but Taylor walks this fine line. He is also absolutely correct. The battle for idealogical conservatism in this country will not be won on parliament hill, even though it is a theatre of said battle. Rather, national support for conservatism needs to come through the concerted effort from the supporters themselves. The Left have done a impressive job in infiltrating all aspects of our culture, developing the arguments and boundaries by which we debate key issues. From schools to local community organizations to the arts to the civil service to industry to the environment movement and so on, the debate has been framed to suit a more liberal (in the modern sense) and socialistic agenda. While this re-framing was done with good intentions, the result is a governing ideology that cannot credibly mount an argument for fiscal prudence and the conservative values, especially those values that promote tradition, responsibility, self-sacrifice, and individual success.

In other words, conservatives must not yield their positions in the aforementioned fields because they have lost the war of attrition. The argument has not been won on ideological grounds but because of guilt, guilt of our successes, our wealth, and our freedoms. Believe me; having grown up Catholic, I know all there needs to be known about the power of guilt.

That our society was not perfect 50 years ago allowed for modern liberal and socialist ideas to permeate and, ultimately, dictate the accepted norms. Chief among these norms is the meme that socialism is compassionate while conservatism is harsh, cold, uncaring. Conservatives lost this ground, even though conservatism can be — nay, is — compassionate as any ideology can muster.

Conservatives must re-take that argument. Conservatives must not be over-run by fantastiful delusions that by allowing central authority to rule over most aspects of our lives, our society will improve as a result.

The past few decades have shown this to be completely false. In that time, modern liberal states have done nothing more than our conservative predecessors in preventing crime, poverty, or social ills. What they have been successful in doing is taking away rightfully earned dollars and pissing them away in huge money pits that only serve to preserve status quo, rather than advance the nation’s interests. Can anyone, for example, argue that the Canadian health care system is now the envy of the world? Can anyone say that the $10 billion thrown toward native groups each year has done anything to improve the lives of our aboriginal citizens? Can anyone credibly argue that unions have not been a drain on productivity in our civil service, social service or industry?

I am not advocating that we scrap these institutions, funding, or policies outright. I am however calling for a renewal in a conservatism that can confidently question policies now considered sacred by our self-anointed elites.

Unfortunately, that confidence is lacking, the country will have to pay as a result of it.

The time has come to change all this. Canada needs conservatism more than ever, and conservatives themselves must define exactly what that means.

I thought Karl Rove was to blame

I came across the following letter in the Star-Phoenix today that read with all the subtlety of a giant bull’s eye on the back of a white tail buck:

Wrong group in charge

It is easier for media commentators to decide what went wrong with the economy than to propose how to fix it.

The “Chicago School” economic fundamentalism preached by Milton Friedman held that an unregulated market was best, because it worked on entirely rational principles. The American government, with Allan Greenspan as its adviser, endorsed this policy, as did industry and some other national governments.

U.S. President Barack Obama referred to today’s “culture of greed and scheming.” It’s a culture that throws a monkey wrench into Friedman’s ideas. Some people are so indoctrinated that they won’t believe the system has flaws. Greenspan now admits he was wrong.

Deregulation and privatization are so entrenched in our minds of government leaders that they aren’t likely to find the solutions to turn around the economy.

Washingston’s aid package was not as effective as it could have been because the Bush administration delayed its passage. It’s been suggested that we should not expect much change from the Obama administration because a lot of his campaign money came from lobbyists who represent industry, banks and the health-care industry, such as drug makers.

Governments have cut funding in areas such as education, agriculture and culture, but quickly found billions to bail out financial institutions. They got it wrong, of course. Taxpayers were not protected, but the corporate leaders who got the banks into trouble collected millions in bonuses.

Neo-conservatives have trouble deciding what went wrong. Should they now be in charge of changing our system?

Lorne Jackson

Riverhurst

I wrote my own letter in response, though I’m not holding my breath for its publication:

Re: “Wrong group in charge,” Letters, Jan. 28

It is easier for some letter writers to come up with an exhaustive list of straw men to blame for what went wrong with the economy than to offer any suggestions as to how to fix it. Take Lorne Jackson. Please.

In his letter, Jackson rolls out the usual suspects, namely the “Chicago School”, Milton Friedman, Allan Greenspan, “industry”, the “culture of greed and scheming”, “deregulation and privatization”, the Bush administration; lobbyists, corporate leaders and, of course, neo-conservatives. I suppose Dracula, the boogeyman, and the Wicked Witch of the West were excluded due to space restrictions.

Jackson felt no need to place any blame on stupid homeowners who borrowed money they could not possibly afford to pay back, or American government policies designed specifically to promote sub-prime mortgages while penalizing institutions that refused to invest in potentially delinquent files. No, the cause of the crisis was instead due in part to cutting funding to “education, agriculture and culture.” Sure, it was.

Most tellingly, Jackson does not suggest who ought to be “in charge of changing our system,” leaving the reader to guess at the possibilities. In lieu of an ailing Fidel Castro, perhaps Jack Layton would suit his preference?

The economic crisis was the result of the complex convergence of many factors that exposed some of the weaknesses of the free market system. That said, while there are flaws with this system, they do not negate the fact that capitalism is largely responsible for the unparalleled successes of our own society, the richest, most advanced and prosperous the world has ever seen. It’s a pity that there are members of this society who remain willfully ignorant to this fact.

I wish I were more eloquent.

I also wish letter writers could refrain from spewing out ideas stolen from Naomi Klein and have an original thought or two themselves.

Government Stimulus

Any suggestion that the $85 billion government deficit in the next five years is meant to stimulate the economy should be rightly met with loud cries of derision. As has been mentioned elsewhere, any irrational and unsustainable increase in spending by the government is designed not as “economic stimulus” — because it will hurt the economy in both short- and long-term — but rather “government stimulus” — because it allows the government broad latitude in involving itself further in the lives of the citizenry.

Kelly McParland’s not-so-witty-yet-on-the-mark commentary on the budget line items express this better than anyone. Most of the spending increases would never be passed by a true conservative government, with a majority at least.

I would be livid except for these three words: Finance. Minister. Layton. Yes, children, it could have been worse.

But it could have been so much better.

Prime Minister Harper, I urge you: grow a pair.

Test my litmus

The good Count Ignatieff deigned himself to write me a pleasant, personal note thanking me for my heretofore unknown contribution to his “litmus test” “economic listening tour” done since he took over as leader of the Liberal Party in a stunning display of democratic showmanship last December.

His letter below.

Dear Robert,

During my January economic listening tour – and by way of thousands of emails – you provided me with a litmus test for the upcoming budget, and I shared your views with Mr. Harper. I told him that in order for his budget to earn the support of the Liberal Party, it must do three things: 1) protect the most vulnerable Canadians – those hardest hit by these difficult times, 2) protect the jobs of today, in every region of the country, and 3) create the jobs of tomorrow, strengthening Canada’s competitiveness and productivity without leaving our children to inherit a legacy of debt and deficit.

Later today, when the government releases its budget we will be looking to see if it meets this test and whether Stephen Harper is serious about addressing the economic challenges we face after failing to act for so long.

In order to make the right decision for Canada, I will be taking some time to review the contents of the budget, and will return with our Party’s decision on Wednesday. In the meantime, I want to hear from you. Please let me know if you think the budget meets your test.

As I’ve said before, we are in this crisis together and we will get out of it together. I look forward to hearing from you.

Michael

Count Michael “Michael” Ignatieff then directs me to a link on his own website where I may offer my response. For prosperity’s sake, I copied my own response here.

I think you should let the budget pass only if funding for political parties is scrapped — in addition to tax credits for private donations to said parties.

Money is tight and political parties need to feel the burn like the rest of us.

Other than that, I believe that you are doing a terrific job leading the Liberal Party down into the gutter of history where it belongs. Keep up the good work!

“Signed”, etc.

Thanks for the note

From Scott Brison, Member from Kings-Hant:

Robert,

The budget surplus that Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty projected just eight weeks ago does not exist. The Liberal Party and Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) were deeply suspicious of Harper and Flaherty and that suspicion is now confirmed.

The PBO is predicting that the budgetary deficit for 2009-10 will be $13 billion, even before any stimulus spending is allocated.

In order for next week’s budget to earn the confidence of Parliament and of Canadians, the numbers can’t lie. Stephen Harper must be frank and honest with all of us about the true state of our economy and the steps necessary to dig us out of the mess his government has created.

The simple issue is trust, and as I write this letter to you today, I can unequivocally say that Stephen Harper is going to have to work hard to earn the trust he squandered. The Harper Conservatives mismanaged the economy in good times, with excessive spending and ill-advised tax policy. Now, when the need for action is greatest, the cupboard is bare.

Worse, according to the PBO, some of the measures currently under consideration could create a permanent deficit that would hamstring our economy long after the current recession has passed.

As the clock ticks down toward budget day, Michael Ignatieff, and the Liberal team, are committed to protecting your interests and are working to ensure that Canadians can look forward with a sense of hope in the future. We will keep you informed as developments unfold.

Yours sincerely,

Scott Brison
MP, Kings-Hants, Nova Scotia

And my response:

Mr Brison (I would call you ‘Scott’ but I have never met you and would feel uncomfortable in attempting to be so familiar):

Thank-you for your impassioned letter in which you called the prime minister of Canada and the finance minister of Canada liars. That is the sort of rhetoric that the political discourse in this country is desperately lacking. Kudos to you, sir!

I note your concern with the utter fiscal dispair that we are now facing. I do hope that you will follow up your concern with real action that will make a positive impact. In that, I look forward to the Liberal Party encourage the government to slash all public funding for political parties. My hope is also for parties of all stripes to call for program cuts across the board in order to get government spending under control before any stimulus spending (i.e. deficit spending) is incurred on the back of the Canadian taxpayer.

And so I respectively ask you, sir: Which government programs will you specifically call to be scaled back or eliminated altogether? And which taxes will you specifically call to increase?

Please keep me informed if this particular development unfolds. I’m dying to know.

Until then, thank you again for your sincere message that was completely and utterly devoid of partisan self-interest.

Yours,

Rob Huck
Saskatoon, SK

I would have post-scripted a “and stop trying to take my money and indenture my grandchildren, you self-absorbed careerist hack” but I thought that would have been too obvious.

Inauguration Day

I want to capture my thoughts on the day in which a new president is inaugerated. The world has changed dramatically since George Walker Bush took office eight years ago and, despite plenty of commentary otherwise, some of it has been for the better.

I do not hide the fact that I did not support Barack Obama in his presidential bid, as inconsequential as my support would have been. That isn’t to say that John McCain would have been a better president — he had his own problems — but at least McCain had plenty of experience and a clear vision on foreign policy, especially on trade policy and the War on Terror, the two areas that concern me most.

Be that as it may, Obama got the big win after an almost perfect campaign. It is his victory to savour.

It is a well-known axiom that a week is a long time in politics, and once you start measuring time in years instead of days, events and attitudes become ancient history. With this in mind, the meme of the Obamerica changed in the eon of a few weeks, from rejoiceful adulation to one of hesitant optimism, with the assumption that the electorate has a short memory, which is does. Even on election day, the excuses began bandying about, beginning with the media and followed by knee-jerk supporters, that Obama just might not be evidence of the Second Coming. Not yet, anyways. You see, they say, Obama inherited two wars, an economic crisis, global warming, a divided nation, and a sick puppy (probably). I’m told he (“He”?) might need two terms to solve all these crises.

Leave aside the fact that George W Bush also inherited the events on September 11 and the spectre of an increasingly confident Saddam Hussein from his predecessors, yet he never used that as an excuse to shirk his responsibilities.

Obama wasn’t forced into office. Personal compulsion is not the same thing as indentured servitude. He asked for the job, the people gave it to him, and he does not deserve pre-emptive excuses before he even takes the oath.

This applies doubly-so for a man who did everything in his power to project an image of other-worldiness — remember the Greek columns at the DNC, the unilateral declaration of lower sea levels, the be-everything-to-everyone without promising anything specific? The reason he has impossibly-high expectations is because he carefully crafted those expectations himself. He’ll get no pity from me.

If he isn’t up for the job, old Dubya would be more than happy to take it off his hands. I’m sure that going back to organizing communities will give Obama all the opportunites to avoid responsibility that he needs.

Speaking of which … As president, unlike anything Obama has done before, he will actually have to make decisions. Those that derided Sarah Palin on her mere governorship of a minor state, in addition to her mayoralty of a minor town in said minor state, conveniently forget that as chief executive of both governments, Palin had to make choices. These choices had real outcomes, they affected real people. Sometimes (most times?) people supported those decisions, while on other times, other people were disappointed. That’s what leaders do; they decide and are not given the choice to vote “present”.

Unfortunately, Obama has not given much of an indication of what he’ll actually accomplish, outside of curing lepers and changing water into wine, of course. Therefore, given the self-imposed expectations, he will likely disappoint many of his supporters. To which I say, I hope so. Too many of his supporters have too many stupid and destructive ideas. If he rejects these ideas outright and adapts a pragmatic streak, all the better. If not, however, then God (the real God, that is) help us.

However, any criticism of the Obama administration will be done in the light of the recent past. I, for one, will not forget the attitudes of Obama or his followers during the Bush presidency. The utter disrespect toward the office and the institutions of the nation in general were shameful and embarrassing. While I’ll be the first person to criticize any government at any moment, and will defend the right to do so in others, I also believe in fair, rational criticism. I especially loathe hypocricy, and especially in myself, and the hypocritical attitudes of Bush-haters/Hope-and-changers is beyond parody.

If it wasn’t for that second virtrue, then I could easily fall into the trap of the past eight years. I could refer to Obama as a fascist (as opposed to the extreme socialist that he is — or has been up until now), and I could refer to him as “Baboon Insane OMcHitlerama” or something so clever and witty that Bill Maher himself might have coined it. I could spend my days making fun of his cadence (which to be honest is starting to grate on my nerves), or his physical appearance, or his relationship with his parents, or whatever inconsequential detail might pop up from time to time.

But I’m not going to do that. Not because of the disingenuous calls for “unity” by our self-anointed elites in the media and (ahem!) Hollywood. These people have set a clear example as to how not to behave when you do not support The Man.

No. I simply pledge to remember the sullying, distasteful effects of Bush Derangement Syndrome every time Obama makes a decision that I cannot personally support. I pledge to keep my criticisms objective and avoid the ad hominem attacks. I pledge to not be a condescending jerk when I argue policy on blogs or through other internet media. I pledge that I will not rudely assume someone else agrees with my politics and offer my unsolicited commentary if and when the president becomes unpopular. I pledge I won’t call for Obama’s assassination or burn his figure in effigy. I pledge that I won’t compare America to Nazi Germany, ever.

Most importantly, I pledge to support my friends and neighbours in the only nation that actually attempts to spread liberty and democracy in the world with action, not just with talk through committee, and that this support will not ebb and flow with whoever sits in the Oval Office.

It is with this pledge that I will act with decency and honesty while I participate in this great thing known as responsible government. I may not always be right but at least I’ll be true to myself, and I’ll be able to look back at my behavior during the next four years with honour and respect.

God bless our ally, the United States, and God bless the new president.

Palin in 2012!