• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Conservatism needs work

Status
Not open for further replies.
ERC, I believe that the Romney campaign, and the Republican SP, will not go even lower than President Obama and is supporters. I believe Romney will pull the SP back if they try. Possibly I am naive.

ERC:
Sadly who wins in America does matter, to Canada and the world, but we will get a second rate government: White House, Congress and State Houses because Americans will, in ever smaller numbers, vote AGAINST something, not FOR America.

America voted FOR America last time and look where it got the country.

As a side note: Could you imagine Biden, or, for the two year time frame as the Speaker, Pelosi heading the US in any possible scenario?

I am not a citizen, cannot vote, but live in the USA for six months. There, we live and participate in the community, including for a significant time volunteering to assist wounded service personnel and their families.
 
Rifleman62 said:
ERC, I believe that the Romney campaign, and the Republican SP, will not go even lower than President Obama and is supporters. I believe Romney will pull the SP back if they try. Possibly I am naive.

ERC:
America voted FOR America last time and look where it got the country.

As a side note: Could you imagine Biden, or, for the two year time frame as the Speaker, Pelosi heading the US in any possible scenario?

I am not a citizen, cannot vote, but live in the USA for six months. There, we live and participate in the community, including for a significant time volunteering to assist wounded service personnel and their families.


I think America voted against "more of the same" in 2008, not, really, FOR change. I know it's a slight difference but I think the voting AGAINST thing started in the Bush(41)/Clinton election.
 
Rifleman62 said:
ERC, I believe that the Romney campaign, and the Republican SP, will not go even lower than President Obama and is supporters. I believe Romney will pull the SP back if they try. Possibly I am naive.
...


You should be right; Romney and the GOP should be campaigning on the issues on which President Obama is most vulnerable: the sad state of the US economy, but - and this is the same tissue of lies behind which President Obama tries to hide - the SuperPACs can "go rogue" and e.g. run ads aimed at Obama's race or citizenship or religion, and another but is that "rogues" like Todd Akin may derail the best laid plans by changing the narrative.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Reports are floating around that Prime Minister David Cameron will announce, today, a series of World War I commemorative events. My guess is that Canada will follow suit.


As part of Prime Minister Harper's plan to reshape Canadians' self image and sense of themselves I expect a major awareness campaign to commemorate World War I. I expect 2017 to be the keynote, 150 years since Confederation and 100 years since Vimy Ridge. I just hope no pins/medals are involved but I cannot imagine that they, whoever they are, can resist a medal with enormous consequential angst re: who gets it.
 
I cannot imagine that they, whoever they are, can resist a medal with enormous consequential angst re: who gets it.

Everyone who was there and is still alive.....
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I just hope no pins/medals are involved

That was my first thought - get rid of one cheap, crappy, made-in-China pin just in time for another.

Maybe it'll have two pins on the back so that it doesn't spin around, at least.
 
GAP said:
Everyone who was there and is still alive.....

Lessee:

ERC, Old Sweat and George then........

(Fleeing now).
 
It's a rare day - like that moment, twice a day when a clock is right - because I think Lawrence Martin is right in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from iPolitics:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/11/01/have-canadians-changed-trudeau-and-obama-suggest-otherwise/
Have Canadians changed? Trudeau and Obama suggest otherwise
 
By Lawrence Martin

Nov 1, 2012

Are Canadians becoming more conservative? Two developments give pause on the notion.

One is the strong popularity of Barack Obama in this country as compared to Republican Mitt Romney. Polling suggests Canadians would elect Obama in a landslide. Romney would get less than twenty percent of the vote. He couldn`t get elected dog catcher up here, not even on the Prairies.

Another is the striking support level for Justin Trudeau — he of the supposedly written-off Liberal Party. A poll this week, following other flattering opinion surveys, found that as Liberal leader he would defeat Stephen Harper’s Conservatives handily.

While this should be taken with many grains of salt, while it may just be a boomlet, it’s still extraordinary to see. Most Conservatives were of the view that the Trudeau name was no longer viable. They wrote derisively of Justin just a few months ago, saying he shouldn’t enter his party’s leadership race. They mocked him for the charity boxing match, saying going into the ring at the risk of being humiliated showed no courage at all.

They shouldn’t be too surprised by his standing or that of Obama. It suggests that the majority of the Canadian population is still, as it always has been, of a progressive persuasion. The electoral success of the Reform-rooted Conservatives has been impressive, but it doesn’t mean the people have migrated rightward. Policy is moving that way. It is evident in areas like the environment, criminal justice, taxation, the military and foreign affairs. The country, as a result, has a more conservative reputation. But reputation doesn’t always reflect the underlying reality.

What the high regard for Obama and Trudeau suggests is that it’s a matter of getting the right people to carry your banner. It is something Liberals haven’t had in many years. Their defeats were due more to the frailties of their leaders than to their policy frameworks.

What is worrisome for the Conservatives is that though they have been effective in keeping their support above one-third of the population, they have been unable, despite many years of trying, to raise those numbers. The ceiling appears to have been hit.

One reason may be that Stephen Harper governs like an autocratic bully. People don’t like autocratic bullies. His personal support level is now lower than it has been in some time. If it starts running consistently lower than that of his party, party members will start to wonder if he has reached his due date.

Trudeau’s numbers likely will fall back the more he is scrutinized. It may take just one silly statement or action for the media to change tack and go after him as a latter-day Stockwell Day. We recall what happened a decade ago after Day, then Alliance Party leader, staged a press conference in a dripping wetsuit on the sands of an Okanagan beach. He never recovered.

The main criticism is that Trudeau is policy-light. While this may have validity, no candidate, as the Trudeau camp rightfully points out, rolls out a big slate of policies to begin a leadership campaign. In politics, there is a belief that the more popular you are, the more vague you should be. Don’t give opponents a target to shoot at.

One goal of Justin’s has been to distance himself from being seen as a clone of his father. On the second day of his campaign he went to Alberta and trashed his old man’s National Energy Program. He has been pointed on environment policy and in some other areas. He has yet to say much on democratic reform but his camp is looking at it as a possible major policy area for him. He is the candidate of next-generation appeal and a plan to remake Canadian democracy would fit that rubric nicely. But we shouldn’t hold our breath for him to come out with anything that amounts to much more than tinkering.

The plan is for him to get out there and listen to Canadians. All leadership candidates say this — and after their listening tours they usually come back with a suitcase full of platitudes.

While Justin Trudeau’s popularity is newly manifest, Obama has been highly popular in Canada since 2008. It’s interesting to note how his popularity here has remained intact — despite the difficulties he has faced and his inability to live up to overly high expectations.

The woeful presidency of George W. Bush certainly hurt the image of American conservatives in Canada. In his wake, the party’s radicalism — manifested in the Tea Party — didn’t help either. Mitt Romney has appeared more moderate on occasion and is trying to do so as election day approaches. But he has been all over the map, at one point defining himself as an extreme conservative, at another sounding like a peacenik. If he wins the election, he will come under tremendous pressure from his party’s ultraconservative wing to do its bidding.

Obama’s progressive values strike a chord north of the border, whether they be on social issues, war and peace, health care or the economy. He speaks to a rational — as opposed to an ideological — way forward. He speaks a moderate language that sounds quite Canadian — as in the Canada that was, before the arrival of the new Harper Conservatives.

Harper has handled relations with Obama astutely, realizing it would be foolish to cross swords too often with him, given his stature here. In Justin Trudeau, Harper faces another popular progressive. He won’t hesitate to cross him, however.

The name Trudeau is anathema to Stephen Harper and always has been. If anything, it will give him more motivation to stay and fight more elections.

© 2012 iPolitics Inc.


His points:

+ Canadians support Obama over Romney by an overwhelming majority; and

+ Trudeau is wildly popular;

    ~ Therefore "the majority of the Canadian population is still, as it always has been, of a progressive persuasion,"

    ~ "The electoral success of the Reform-rooted Conservatives has been impressive, but it doesn’t mean the people have migrated rightward," and

    ~ "The country [as a result of policy changes] has a more conservative reputation. But reputation doesn’t always reflect the underlying reality."

Further: "Trudeau’s numbers likely will fall back the more he is scrutinized. It may take just one silly statement or action for the media to change tack and go after him as a latter-day Stockwell Day."

Finally:

+ "Harper has handled relations with Obama astutely, realizing it would be foolish to cross swords too often with him, given his stature here. In Justin Trudeau, Harper faces another popular progressive. He won’t hesitate to cross him, however;" and

+ "The name Trudeau is anathema to Stephen Harper and always has been. If anything, it will give him more motivation to stay and fight more elections."
 
Funny how the "reality based community" of "data driven people" is like a bunch of cheerleaders around the captain of the football team over two empty suits in two different countries.

Every notable statesman must excel at two skills: campaigning, and statecraft.  Too many people confuse the former with the latter, or assume the latter must be present wherever the former is.  "Salesmen" or "campaigners" are common as dirt, and should be attributed approximately the same value until they demonstrate real achievement at something less critical than "executive".
 
Walter Russell Mead on a possible vision of Post Progressive society. I'm not going to say that this is indeed the model that will emerge, and indeed history tells us the true danger during the chaotic transition periods is "The man on the white horse" who offers stability and safety. Still, it is worth thinking about what sort of society you want to live in , and what you want to pass on to your children:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/01/16/life-after-blue/

Life After Blue
Walter Russell Mead

In the last couple of years I’ve been writing about the death of the blue social model. By that I mean that the characteristic form of 20th century industrial democracy has come unglued, and that the advanced industrial democracies around the world must adjust to basic changes in the way the world works.

For those who missed those earlier essays or want to take another look at them, the American Interest put out a summary; you can read it here. Briefly, the idea is that after World War II America was organized around a group of heavily regulated monopoly and semi-monopoly companies. AT&T was the only telephone company; there were three big networks, three big car companies and so on. There was very little foreign competition, and these companies were able to offer stable, lifetime employment to most of their workers. The workforce was heavily unionized, and the earnings of the big companies were divided between shareholders, managers, workers and government in a predictable way. An intellectual and administrative class of planners, social scientists and managers ran the big institutions and administered the government.

Several forces came together to break up this system. Foreign competition, first from rebuilding Germany and Japan after World War II and then from low wage newly industrializing countries around the world, eroded the market position of companies like the Big Three auto manufacturers. The rise of offshore banking eroded the tight financial controls of the postwar era. Growing consumer impatience with the high prices and poor quality offered by monopoly companies like the telephone monopoly led to political pressure to deregulate and introduce more competition. Technological change, especially in information processing and communications, led to disruptive changes that shifted the advantage to nimble and lean companies and left the bureaucratic, slow moving giants of the Blue Age behind. American society became increasingly individualistic, with both the left and the right rebelling against the authority of experts and bureaucrats.

As a result, the old way of doing things doesn’t work anymore. Some of the changes—like the multiplication of gadgets and rise of the internet—are widely considered to be wonderful things. Others, like the rise of instability in financial markets, the polarization of incomes and the consequences of the collapse in manufacturing employment for blue collar employment and wages, are much less popular. But the reality is that there is no going back to blue; Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall and he can’t be patched up. The question is what do we do now.

The “death of blue” theme has gotten a lot of attention. Hundreds of thousands of readers have come to these posts, and they’ve been discussed widely in the blogosphere and in print. AI ran several responses to these ideas in an issue last year; you can find them here and here and here. A common theme in these responses, and it’s a fair point, is that I’ve said more about why the blue model is failing than about how we can build something new. While a new social model doesn’t spring full grown out of somebody’s head like Athena emerging from Zeus, it’s still worth trying to think about the ideas that can help us move forward into the new kind of society that we must now build and one of my new year’s resolutions is to take a stab at describing what a post-blue social model might look like.

Liberalism 5.0

The first thing to say about a post-blue social model is that it will be liberal. That is to say it will be a further exercise the development of the concept of “ordered liberty” that has been the guiding light of Anglo-American civilization since the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The synthesis of enlightened, forward looking governance resting on the acknowledged and inalienable liberties of the people at the heart of the liberal vision remains the best foundation humanity has yet found for running a society in a world of rapid change. The next stage in our history will see us living this vision more fully and working out the consequences more radically in changing conditions, but the core concepts will carry the stamp of the liberal tradition that so profoundly shapes American life. I’ve written about the four stages of liberalism we’ve seen since 1688: the Whig liberalism or liberalism 1.0 of the Glorious Revolution itself, the 2.0 republican liberalism of the American founders, the 3.0 liberalism (sometimes called Manchester liberalism) of the nineteenth century with its emphasis on universal suffrage and a laissez-faire state, and the 4.0 progressive liberalism of the twentieth century. What we need to think about now is liberalism 5.0, a recasting of this modern heritage for the information-based economy of the 21st century.

At the heart of the enduring liberal ideal is a truth that is often forgotten in today’s political debates: the relationship between order and liberty does not have to be zero sum. More government can mean less freedom, and more freedom can mean less government—but things don’t always work out that way.

At one level this is obvious; people don’t so much surrender their liberty by forming a government and agreeing to live in an ordered society as they defend it. Life in an anarchy governed only by the law of the jungle is less free than life as a member of a democratic commonwealth. But this non-zero sum relationship holds in other ways. To have the freedom to drive at 65 miles per hour on an interstate highway, I must accept a lot of rules and restrictions. But the end result of all the requirements about driver’s licenses, insurance, registration and traffic laws is that I can go much faster and farther than I could in a state of nature. There is more order and more liberty in a modern industrial democracy than there is in the forest where our ancestors lived.

The secret of Anglo-American civilization has been its ability to combine the two elements of order and liberty at successively higher levels of both. To think constructively about our future we shouldn’t be thinking about a zero sum tradeoff between order and freedom; we should be thinking about how to build the kind of order that extends our liberty in new and important ways.

An example of this thinking might involve new approaches to illegal drugs. As we’ve argued on this site, simply abolishing all drug laws is likely to create serious problems, but the status quo can hardly be called satisfactory. What’s needed isn’t the abolition of all laws about drugs but the creation of a legal, social and regulatory infrastructure that provides for more personal liberty about drugs but guards against certain potential consequences of the wider use of the these drugs: strong penalties for sales to minors, routine drug testing in many jobs, taxes on drug sales to support treatment for addicts, greatly expanded DUI laws and enforcement procedures and a major overhaul of the drug prescription system. There would have to be methods established to test newly created recreational drugs for safety and there would have to be laws aimed at preventing narco-trafficking cartels from dominating the legal drug business. There presumably would be zoning laws to keep drug dispensing retail outlets away from schools. There would be mandatory warning labels and, one suspects, there would still be stiff penalties for violating the restrictions that remained (selling to minors, reselling prescription painkillers, black market sales without paying tax, selling bootleg meth instead of the official, certified stuff and so on).

People would have more freedom to take drugs recreationally than they do now, and there would likely be many fewer people serving jail time for drug offenses, but we might also have more drug laws and a larger enforcement and treatment complex than we do now. The social order would be more complex, but the zone of individual freedom would grow.

Intellectual property law is another field in which the right kind of law limits freedom in some ways but when properly framed a good system of intellectual property law gives more freedom than it takes. The right kind of intellectual property laws (and it is by no means clear that our current lobby-devised laws are the right ones) provides protection to creators and owners of intellectual property so that more new property will be created. I lose the right to download unlimited content from the internet for free, but in return I have much more content from which to choose. Government power and individual freedom in this case grow side by side.

The 21st century, if we get things right, won’t see either the triumph of an all-powerful government or the return of the Articles of Confederation. The government will do more than it does now, and regulate activities that are unheard of today, but individuals will have more choices than they currently do and their rights and their property will be better protected.

One clarification, it seems very clear that Mead's "Liberalism" is not Progressiveism", but rather an evolution of the precepts of Classical Liberalism.
 
More from Walter Russell Mead. The vision of Post Progressive society may not be the model that eventually arises, but the releasing of millions of people from "gatekeepers" via the Internet and the myriad of technologies that have evolved and sprung from it is a good thing overall. We see hickups all around (such as groups antithical to freedom, like the Muslim Brotherhoods, using social media like Facebook to promote their message of intolerance), and like most tools, there will always be people who use them in unproductive, malicious or evil ways, but there is still a solid cultural foundation for Western Civilization (just maybe not where our so called elites live and work), so *we* can still maintain the cultural advantages that allow us to use these tools to the greatest effect:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/01/28/another-road-the-blue-elites-are-wrong/

Another Road: The Blue Elites Are Wrong

Walter Russell Mead

The blue vision of the future, as I wrote in my last essay, is a bleak one in many respects. If the establishment liberals of our time are right in their future vision, most of the population will be economically surplus; globalization and automation will empower a creative class on Wall Street and in Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Most of the rest of the country will be stuck in low productivity, low wage jobs as manufacturing fades and is replaced by … nothing, unless you count government benefits and food stamps. The blues think that a redistributive and regulatory state (naturally enough administered by wise and well intentioned people such as themselves) can pump enough money from the growing parts of the economy onto the plebs and the proles in the post-industrial doldrums, providing at least a degree of middle class life to the sidelined majority.

The blue technocrats now influential in the national administration and in many of the country’s most important universities and foundations are reacting to real problems. In the last thirty years the transformation of the American economy has contributed to income polarization. The old industrial middle class, based on mass employment in unionized oligopolies, has been hollowed out, and no comparable source of stable high income employment has emerged. Large groups in America today are living on transfers from the profits of the healthy portions of the private sector recycled through government spending and subsidies. It is easy to see how rational people can conclude that the only hope of preserving mass prosperity in America comes from transfers and subsidies. If we add to this the belief that only a powerful and intrusive regulatory state can prevent destructive climate change, then the case for the blue utopia looks ironclad. To save the planet, save the middle class and provide American minorities and single mothers with the basic elements of an acceptable life, we must set up a far more powerful federal government than we have ever known, and give it sweeping powers over the production and distribution of wealth.

But what if this isn’t true? What if the shift from a late-stage industrial economy to an information economy has a different social effect? What if the information revolution continues and even accelerates the democratization of political, social and cultural life by empowering ordinary people? What if the information revolution, like the industrial revolution, ultimately leads to a radical improvement in the way ordinary people live and opens up vast new horizons of human potential and freedom?

Obviously nobody knows what the future holds, and anything anybody says about the social consequences of the information revolution is mostly conjecture; still, the elegantly paternalistic pessimism of our elites about the future of the masses seems both defeatist and overdone. The information revolution, one should never forget, may be disruptive but more fundamentally it is good news. Human productivity is rising dramatically. If the bad news is that fewer and fewer people will earn a living working in factories, the good news is that a smaller and smaller percentage of the time and energy of the human race must be devoted to the manufacture of the material objects we need for daily life. Just as it’s good news overall when agricultural productivity increases and the majority of the human race no longer has to spend its time providing food, it’s good news when we as a species can free ourselves from the drudgery and monotony of factory work.

The economic transformation is also good news for the greens, if they can open their minds wide enough to understand it. A post-industrial economy depends less on metal-bashing and stuff-moving than an industrial one and the information revolution means that developing countries can reach affluence without repeating the mistakes of the past. The implications for issues like climate change are staggering if the information revolution is pushing the advanced countries toward a lower carbon economy and opening a path to development for countries like India and China that doesn’t require them to retrace US and European history in the 20th century.

Thinking about how the transition to an information economy can be made to work and made to work especially for the middle class is the single most important political question before us today. It’s hard to think about the future in a time of rapid change, but fortunately history does give us some guidance that can help us see the opportunities and problems ahead a little more clearly.

The best guide we have for how things might go is inexact but useful: the industrial revolution. This huge transformation, still unfinished today in many parts of the world, is the only thing at all comparable to what we face now. If we look carefully at that history we can get some sense of what may lie ahead.

The industrial revolution actually consisted of several big changes that were related but that worked out in different ways. Most historians concentrate on the rise of the industrial economy, but that era also saw two other enormous shifts: the collapse of agricultural employment and a population boom as better medical knowledge and rising food supplies transformed the demographic picture. For Americans, the agricultural collapse had two consequences: it created a crisis in rural America and led to a series of migrations from the countryside to the city culminating in the Great Migration of African Americans into northern cities from World War I onwards, and it was responsible for the waves of European immigration from the Civil War to the imposition of strict immigrant quotas after World War I. The combination of the collapse of agricultural employment in the Atlantic world and the population boom helped drive 100 years of American history—and since World War II has played a leading role in Hispanic and Caribbean immigration to the United States.

The collapse of manufacturing and clerical employment, the disappearance of assembly lines and stenography pools, is not creating a social crisis as profound or long lasting as the collapse of agriculture, but it is the major source of the inequality and income stagnation that we see today. (In the United States, the consequences have been exacerbated by immigration caused in part by changes in agriculture south of our border.) The conventional picture of inexorably rising inequality assumes that new jobs won’t be created to take up the slack in the labor market as the old jobs dry up.

This was true at times during the industrial revolution and there were times when the resulting imbalances in the labor market drove wages and living standards down. There was a lot of talk at various points about the polarization of income, the growing inequality of society, and the danger of social revolution if these trends weren’t checked. In the end, though, in the advanced industrial economies the industrial revolution created enough manufacturing and clerical jobs to improve labor’s bargaining position and usher in a much more egalitarian and affluent era.

This didn’t happen all by itself. A whole set of major social changes was needed to prepare the way for the affluent industrial middle class societies of the last half of the twentieth century. Universal education both equipped the children and grandchildren of displaced farm workers and urban migrants with the skills needed for factory work and conditioned them socially to live in the more regimented, clock-driven urban world. The progressive state arose to provide services like education, public health, food and drug regulation and the many other needs that industrial, urban societies needed that pre-industrial societies did not. Finance, transport, medicine, consumer marketing: industry after industry was born or transformed during the greatest revolution in human affairs since the Neolithic Revolution and the arrival of farming.

The population as a whole had to move to a higher level of consciousness, education and awareness to make this transition. Formal education was a part of it, but for peasants to become workers and participants in modern society and politics many lessons had to be learned, much social capital had to be created, and much cultural change had to be embraced. The simple world of the village was replaced by the complicated urban and suburban landscape we know today; that transformation took time and work, and few observers in 1800 could have predicted how well educated, well traveled, seasoned, sophisticated and skilled the common people would become by 2013.

The task facing America today looks something like the task we faced after the Civil War. How do we manage the transition from a well-established political and social system to something more productive? Both then and now, many of the negative features of the transformation appeared first, while the benefits came slowly. The population boom and the agricultural transition drove millions into cities looking for work when there wasn’t yet enough factory employment. There were many people in the 19th century like our gentry liberals today who believed that the new world would pauperize the majority, and who thought that the elite had to band together to defend the values and practices of a vanishing past. Fortunately, history rolled right over them and Americans were ultimately able to build a society that was both more prosperous and more free than anything the pre-industrial world had ever seen.
 
While most of us know this implicitly, the argument against intrusive government is laid out in very clear language here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/02/26/shepherds_and_sheep_117152.html

Shepherds and Sheep

By Thomas Sowell - February 26, 2013

John Stuart Mill's classic essay "On Liberty" gives reasons why some people should not be taking over other people's decisions about their own lives. But Professor Cass Sunstein of Harvard has given reasons to the contrary. He cites research showing "that people make a lot of mistakes, and that those mistakes can prove extremely damaging."

Professor Sunstein is undoubtedly correct that "people make a lot of mistakes." Most of us can look back over our own lives and see many mistakes, including some that were very damaging.
What Cass Sunstein does not tell us is what sort of creatures, other than people, are going to override our mistaken decisions for us. That is the key flaw in the theory and agenda of the left.

Implicit in the wide range of efforts on the left to get government to take over more of our decisions for us is the assumption that there is some superior class of people who are either wiser or nobler than the rest of us.

Yes, we all make mistakes. But do governments not make bigger and more catastrophic mistakes?

Think about the First World War, from which nations on both sides ended up worse off than before, after an unprecedented carnage that killed substantial fractions of whole younger generations and left millions starving amid the rubble of war.

Think about the Holocaust, and about other government slaughters of even more millions of innocent men, women and children under Communist governments in the Soviet Union and China.

Even in the United States, government policies in the 1930s led to crops being plowed under, thousands of little pigs being slaughtered and buried, and milk being poured down sewers, at a time when many Americans were suffering from hunger and diseases caused by malnutrition.

The Great Depression of the 1930s, in which millions of people were plunged into poverty in even the most prosperous nations, was needlessly prolonged by government policies now recognized in retrospect as foolish and irresponsible.

One of the key differences between mistakes that we make in our own lives and mistakes made by governments is that bad consequences force us to correct our own mistakes. But government officials cannot admit to making a mistake without jeopardizing their whole careers.

Can you imagine a President of the United States saying to the mothers of America, "I am sorry your sons were killed in a war I never should have gotten us into"?

What is even more relevant to Professor Sunstein's desire to have our betters tell us how to live our lives, is that so many oppressive and even catastrophic government policies were cheered on by the intelligentsia.

Back in the 1930s, for example, totalitarianism was considered to be "the wave of the future" by much of the intelligentsia, not only in the totalitarian countries themselves but in democratic nations as well.

The Soviet Union was being praised to the skies by such literary luminaries as George Bernard Shaw in Britain and Edmund Wilson in America, while literally millions of people were being systematically starved to death by Stalin and masses of others were being shipped off to slave labor camps.

Even Hitler and Mussolini had their supporters or apologists among intellectuals in the Western democracies, including at one time Lincoln Steffens and W.E.B. Du Bois.

An even larger array of the intellectual elite in the 1930s opposed the efforts of Western democracies to respond to Hitler's massive military buildup with offsetting military defense buildups to deter Hitler or to defend themselves if deterrence failed.

"Disarmament" was the mantra of the day among the intelligentsia, often garnished with the suggestion that the Western democracies should "set an example" for other nations -- as if Nazi Germany or imperial Japan was likely to follow their example.

Too many among today's intellectual elite see themselves as our shepherds and us as their sheep. Tragically, too many of us are apparently willing to be sheep, in exchange for being taken care of, being relieved of the burdens of adult responsibility and being supplied with "free" stuff paid for by others.
 
Preston Manning on where the limits of free speech might lie. (I, as a libertarian, am in favour of a much more expansive vision of free speech, but as Manning correctly suggests, enemies of free speech are not interested in debate or using "better speech", but using "Gotchas" to shut down or end debate)

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/09/preston-manning-on-the-conservative-movement-and-free-speech/

Preston Manning on the conservative movement and free speech

Special to National Post | 13/03/09 | Last Updated: 13/03/09 5:35 PM ET
More from Special to National Post
Preston Manning: “All of these people who self-identify as some kind of conservative are part of the conservative family.”

Former Reform Party leader Preston Manning gave this keynote address at the Manning Networking Conference on March 9, 2013:

From my perspective, and I hope yours, all of these people who self-identify as some kind of conservative are part of the conservative family. All have something to contribute and the support of all is required to win electoral majorities if our aim is to form governments that can act on conservative values rather than merely talk about them in opposition. Thus the fiscal brother cannot say to the progressive sister “We have no need of you in the family”. Nor can the libertarian uncle say to the social conservative aunt “There is no place for you at the family table” – if we want the family as a whole to be united and electorally successful.

But if the breadth and depth of this coalition is its strength, what is its weakness, its Achilles’ heel, its greatest vulnerability? Is not its greatest weakness intemperate and ill considered remarks by those who hold these positions deeply but in fits of carelessness or zealousness say things that discredit the family as a whole, in particular, conservative governments, parties, and campaigns?

Two recent examples from Alberta:

• A derogatory reference to homosexuals by a social conservative candidate, made in the past but dredged up during the recent provincial election to derail the Wildrose campaign in that province.

• A questionable comment by a prominent libertarian and a good friend of mine, which seemed to imply that the freedom of an individual to view child pornography had no serious consequences for others.

A genuinely free society and the broad conservative movement itself may tolerate such comments out of our commitment to free speech, and employ free speech to qualify, mitigate, counter, or denounce such comments. But at the same time, in an era of intense partisan competition and “gotcha journalism,” conservative governments, parties, and campaigns simply cannot afford to be blindsided and discredited by these incidents when the individuals involved are clearly identified with those governments, parties, and campaigns.

In addition, these incidents provide perverse incentives and opportunities for human rights commissions and the courts – as in the recent Whatcott decision of the Supreme Court of Canada – to further restrict rather than safeguard or expand freedom of speech.


To be honest, I must confess to personally contributing to this problem at one time and not addressing it early or resolutely enough. In the early days of the Reform Party, we were so anxious to allow our members the freedom to express contrary views that we virtually let them do and say as they pleased. But in later years I have come to see the wisdom of Edmund Burke’s observation that before we encourage people to do as they please, we ought first to inquire what it may please them to do.

So, three suggestions for reducing these discrediting incidents and their impacts to a minimum:

(1) Expand training efforts to teach our spokespersons and candidates, especially when dealing with value-laden issues, to be “wise as serpents and gracious as doves” – not vicious as snakes and stupid as pigeons.

(2) Democratically debate within the conservative movement where the lines in the sand should be drawn when we speak as free individuals and when we purport to speak for conservative governments, parties, campaigns, or organizations. This subject, difficult as it is, is better discussed at conferences like this than at party conventions.

If I am only speaking for myself and I am the primary bearer of the consequences of what I say, the horizons of free speech should be as broad and expansive as the sky. But if in speaking we are identified with a conservative organization made up of many others who will also bear the consequences of what we say, there are limits to what we can say defined by that line in the sand and the responsibility we owe to colleagues.

(3) For the sake of the movement and the maintenance of public trust, conservative organizations should be prepared to swiftly and publicly disassociate themselves from those individuals who cross the line.

This does not mean that we as individual conservatives on a personal level ostracize or disassociate ourselves from those who cross the line. Everyone makes honest mistakes, conservatives believe in second chances, and we need to rally around those who have been lured across the line by opponents rather than “piling on.”

The Canadian public, however, has a right to say to any and all aspirants to political office and the rest of us active in the political arena: “If you can’t govern your own zeal, if you can’t govern your own prejudices, if you can’t govern your own tongue – why should we trust you to govern us?” We earn the right to govern others by first learning and practising the government of ourselves.
 
George W Bush borrows from Alexis de Tocqueville (who noted America is a nation of associations) and the great Classical Liberal thinkers and distills their thinking in a small line in his dedication on the opening of his Presidential Library. The full meaning and impact of his words should be pondered by anyone thinking about how to articulate the Conservative point of View (or any of the other subsets of Classical Liberalism for that matter):

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/05/02/eleven-great-words-from-george-w-bush/

Eleven great words from George W. Bush

William Watson | 13/05/02 2:35 PM ET
More from William Watson

The State isn’t the only way to get things done

George W. Bush said something wise and deep at the inauguration of his presidential library last week. (Have I got your attention? Most Canadians seem to believe wisdom and depth are way beyond the former president, who was widely lampooned while in office for his malapropisms and inarticulateness.)

What Mr. Bush said was that “Independence from the State does not mean isolation from each other.” Despite the acclaimed rhetorical skills of the current president, that’s as nicely turned a phrase as we’ve had out of the White House since the Bush years ended. Just 11 words. Fully 83 characters short of a tweet. Of course, it would be a mistake to fill it out to its full 140. As with all epigrams, and this just about qualifies as an epigram, its strength is in its economy.

Related
Trudeau favours trade. So far so good
U.S. housing crash wasn’t an inside job

Mr. Bush may not be articulate himself, but he has great taste in speech writers. His first inaugural was widely praised as the best since Kennedy’s, while a speech to the NAACP during the 2000 campaign contained a phrase that will last: “Some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged children to rigorous standards. I say it is discrimination to require anything less — the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

“Independence from the State does not mean isolation from each other.” Its 11 words get across a lot. Capitalizing “state,” even if his library audience couldn’t see it, indicates how big and all-powerful the State has become. The capitalization also subliminally hearkens back to 18th-century and earlier political philosophy, where interior capitals were standard form. The point Mr. Bush is making is one Madison or Burke would have made.

That point is that, despite the governing assumption about government in Canada, the State is not the only thing that brings us together. It may not even be the main thing that brings us together. Actually, it may not bring us together at all, if Question Period is any indication (though revulsion at Question Period probably does unite Canadians).

Nor is the State the only vehicle for getting good things done. There’s also “civil society” or what Burke referred to as the “little platoon we belong to in society,” love of which is “the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind.”

Civil society became a really big deal after the fall of the Soviet Union. Lots of people warned that the USSR had left its component territories ill-provided with little clubs, groups and associations that could take over the community role (possibly the gentlest term ever applied to Soviet tyranny) central authority was now abdicating. The result, they feared, would be an atomistic society in which people acted only as individuals.

Much as we economists might regret it, since it might make some of our models work better, we humans don’t actually do atomism very well. We’re a generally social species. We’re joiners. We love to get together in clubs, groups, associations, platoons (not to mention cliques, cabals and conspiracies).

Nevertheless, on the left the idea began to become common that civil society itself needed support. The way to ensure the platoons flourished was to give them State sanction and aid. Unfortunately, the form-filling, oversight and free finance the State may cause many to languish, not flourish. Never mind the illogic that you could get the bottom-up yeastiness on which societies depend from the top down. Nor the obvious fact that in many cases the greatest detriment to the platoons was the State’s decision to supplant them with mega-ministries.

Mr. Bush’s epigram is a sharp antidote to such thinking. Taming the State does not mean people can’t get together to solve problems. In doing so, we build regional and national identity and character and participate in a common experience.

It doesn’t always go perfectly. Another part of Mr.Bush’s speech that sticks in the mind is its peroration’s discussion of American character. He saw it, he said, in NYPD firefighters climbing the flaming towers to help people. He also “saw it in the people in New Orleans who made homemade boats to rescue their neighbors from the floods.”

That’s a characteristically brave reference, given that the slow and inefficient response of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Hurricane Katrina is widely regarded as a main failure of the Bush presidency. If FEMA had been there, maybe people wouldn’t have had to make homemade boats.

On the other hand, maybe the real lesson of FEMA is that excessive reliance on central government to provide critical services is a mistake. Yes, a better-managed FEMA might have done a better job in Katrina. But does anyone really want to bank on that?
 
There was a recent Maclean's article about Kenney's role as the immigration minister, that hinted that Kenney may just be the next pick for PM, given his role in reaching out to immigrant communities and getting them to vote Conservative. The said article also stated that his outreach work was behind the Tories winning around seven majority immigrant ridings (some of which were traditional Liberal strongholds) in the past Federal election, if I can recall correctly. As an immigrant myself who came here in 2006 and was naturalized as a full Canadian citizen in 2011, I admire this outreach effort on the part of the Tories; one of our Tory MPs here in Richmond, BC, Alice Wong, is an immigrant herself. Still, from how I see it, the Conservatives have to continue to emphasize the pro-trade side and the fiscal side (less gov't.) of their platform if they want to continue to appeal to this growing immigrant base. This is because a growing number of these immigrants are in the business/investor class category who would identify more as being pro-business and thus more fiscally conservative, regardless of their country of origin.

Creating a continued awareness of the importance of Canadian history and duties as a citizen (e.g. following the law, helping or serving the community, getting a job and supporting one's family, or the importance of serving one's country such as through the CF...), as emphasized in the citizenship test and ceremonies, also has helped create a greater sense of an inclusive, Canadian identity for many in this group.

National Post

Young, suburban and mostly Asian: Canada’s immigrant population surges

OTTAWA — The debut of Canada’s controversial census replacement survey shows there are more foreign-born people in the country than ever before, at a proportion not seen in almost a century.

They’re young, they’re suburban, and they’re mainly from Asia, although Africans are arriving in growing numbers.

But the historical comparisons are few and far between in the National Household Survey, which Statistics Canada designed — at Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s behest — to replace the cancelled long-form census of the past.

The new survey of almost three million people shows that Canada is home to 6.8 million foreign-born residents — or 20.6 per cent of the population, compared with 19.8 per cent in 2006, and the highest in the G8 group of rich countries.

It also shows that aboriginal populations have surged by 20 per cent over the past five years, now representing 4.3 per cent of Canada’s population — up from 3.8 per cent in the 2006 census.

Almost one in five people living in Canada is a visible minority. And in nine different municipalities, those visible minorities are actually the majority.


However, Statistics Canada isn’t handing out detailed comparisons to the results shown in the 2006 census.

That’s because many comparisons with the past can only made reliably at a national or provincial level, said Marc Hamel, director general of the census. He said the agency suppressed data from 1,100 mainly small communities because of data quality, compared with about 200 that were suppressed in 2006.

“For a voluntary survey, it has very good quality. We have a high quality of results at a national level,” said Hamel.

Until 2006, questions on immigration, aboriginals and religion were asked in the mandatory long-form census that went to one-fifth of Canadian households. When the Conservatives cancelled that part of the census in 2010, Statistics Canada replaced it with a new questionnaire that went to slightly more households, but was voluntary instead of mandatory, skewing the data when it comes to making direct comparisons.

The result is a detailed picture of what Canada looked like in 2011, but it is a static picture that in many instances lacks the context of what the country looked like in the past at the local level.

What the NHS does show is that, overwhelmingly, most recent immigrants are from Asia, including the Middle East, but to a lesser degree than in the early part of the decade. Between 2006 and 2011, 56.9 per cent of immigrants were Asian, compared with the 60 per cent of the immigrants that came between 2001 and 2005.

The Philippines was the top source country for recent immigrants, with 13 per cent, according to the National Household Survey — although a footnote warns that the survey data “is not in line” with data collected by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. China and India were second and third as source countries.


(...)

Mr. Campbell, if I can recall correctly from past posts, you continue to emphasize engagement with India and China not only because of the growing economic and political power of both, but the history of these two countries' diaspora groups in Canada. However, as the last part of this article shows, immigration from the Philippines has surpassed these two groups and continues to be the current top source of immigrants to Canada and this has been true since even before 2011.

Since Filipinos come from a predominantly Catholic country, most are socially conservative, and thus would identify more with Tories when it comes to social issues such as opposition to abortion. Since they are also from a former US colony where English is an official language, they are able to integrate quickly into greater Canadian society and generally do not cluster into their own immigrant enclaves.

Furthermore, if one looks at the Filipino diaspora in the United States, many tend to join the military in large numbers; this stems in part from the fact the Philippines was the only foreign country (other than American protectorates like the Mariana Islands) from which the US Navy recruited its enlisted sailors (only until 1991 when Subic Naval base in the Philippines was closed down).  Many of those in the Fil-American diaspora who join the US military today are usually the offspring of the thousands of those sailors who enlisted in the US Navy since 1946.
 
My views (and prejudices) are informed,(uninformed many will say ;) ) by my experiences.

You are correct that a minor part of my push to engage both China and India rests on the diaspora populations of each that we have in Canada. I have seen "overseas Chinese" exploit their family connections to facilitate deal making in China. I'm guessing that India is about the same.

My limited experience in/with e.g. Malaysia and Philippines is that they are less culturally developed than China, India, Japan, Singapore, etc. I agree that the Conservatives - all parties, actually - should reach out to the Filipino-Canadian community, as they should to all ethnic minorities, and for all the good partisan political reasons. I am less enthusiastic about the prospects of successful business relationships with the Philippines - less enthusiastic about the prospects but still eager to try, I should say.

As to the military, it is my belief (I have no proof) that the military benefits for a rich diversity of people.


 
Although an American example, this piece by Governor Palin is a quite articulate look at the dangers that demagogues using emotion to whip up the polulation are to the body politic. (Of course you can read similar accounts in the "History of the Peloponnesian Wars", as demagogues whip up the Athenian jury to vote for various schemes):

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359114/freedom-destroys-itself-sarah-palin

As Freedom Destroys Itself
Laws can’t protect a society that has lost its way.
By Sarah Palin

All of us were horrified by the murders at the Washington Navy Yard this week. Once again, in the aftermath of a shooting, a new installment of the debate about gun laws has broken out. But what we really need is a new discussion about what kind of people we are and what kind of country we want to be.

It’s no secret which side I’m on in any debate involving the Second Amendment (or the whole Constitution, for that matter). We call Alaska America’s Last Frontier, and firearms are a big part of our lifestyle here because they are part of our frontier tradition. And, as I tell my daughters, the ability to use a firearm responsibly and to defend yourself is also part of our heritage as American women.

The iconic musket over the fireplace wasn’t just for the menfolk on the frontier. Those stalwart women who crossed oceans and wilderness to settle our country knew how to protect themselves and their families. (One of my favorite scenes in the miniseries John Adams is when Abigail Adams, alone with her children in besieged Massachusetts while her husband is away at the Continental Congress, shoulders the family musket to protect her little ones when she hears the distant sounds of battle. That’s our heritage, ladies.)
Hunting is an integral part of our lifestyle in the 49th state. Using guns isn’t just recreation for us; it’s how many of us get our dinner. Granted, today, with a grocery store on virtually every corner, there isn’t the actual necessity to live a “subsistence lifestyle” that there was a generation ago in Alaska when I was growing up, but my family still lives by the motto “We eat; therefore, we hunt.” We live off the healthy organic protein provided by Alaska’s wild fish and game.

Todd and I have taught our kids how to handle firearms responsibly, just as my dad taught me. In fact, we took our girls for a special hunt on Mother’s Day this year at our cabin looking out at the distant majestic peak of Mt. McKinley, and we had a blast teaching twelve-year-old Piper mounted shooting in warm Montana this summer.

I’m proud of my frontier heritage, and I’ll fight vehemently against anything that would limit the constitutional rights of Americans. But I can certainly sympathize with the many well-meaning Americans who desperately feel the need to find a way to prevent these senseless killings. Who among us doesn’t feel sadness, anger, and even despair after these tragedies?

But we must remember that emotion won’t make anybody safer or protect our rights. Beware of politicians who exploit our emotions in an attempt to pass laws that even they admit wouldn’t have prevented the violence.

CNN’s Don Lemon recently saw the light on this issue and highlighted the Centers for Disease Control study showing that so-called military assault rifles account for a small fraction of gun violence. The overwhelming majority of gun-related deaths are inflicted with handguns, but a ban on handguns is not only politically untenable; it would also hinder the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves (especially Americans who live in troubled urban areas where the police are slow to respond to emergency calls).

Instead of offering real solutions based on facts, reactionary politicians offer us the politics of emotion, which is the opposite of leadership. It is the manipulation of the people by the political class for their own political ends. It is so very self-serving, but, worse, it is destructive.

The first thing politicians ask after these tragedies is essentially: “What can we do to limit the freedom of the people?”

And that is the wrong question. The question we should be asking is: “What can we do to nurture and support a people capable of living in freedom?”

Earlier this year I spoke at the NRA convention and reminded a conscientious, patriotic audience that our country’s Founders asked themselves that question and knew the answer. They understood that a free people must either nurture morality or lose their freedom. John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Not coincidentally, he wrote that to the officers of the Massachusetts militia when the young republic was on the verge of war with France. He reminded those officers who were charged with leading armed men that the freedoms secured by the Constitution take for granted a decent and civil society.

This isn’t just a question for American society. It’s a civilizational question for all humanity. Margaret Thatcher spoke eloquently of this co-dependence of freedom and morality. She said, “Freedom will destroy itself if it is not exercised within some sort of moral framework, some body of shared beliefs, some spiritual heritage transmitted through the Church, the family, and the school.”

I’m reminded of that quote every time I see politicians reach for the easy answers instead of asking the hard questions after tragedies like the one this week. When they seek to strip away our Second Amendment rights instead of suggesting that those who hide behind the First Amendment need to act more responsibly, they are helping freedom destroy itself. When Hollywood glorifies violence with its movies and music, but then underwrites efforts to take away our rights, it is helping freedom destroy itself. When those incorporating virtue into their lives are criticized, mocked, and bullied while pop culture’s kingmakers elevate and celebrate a self-centered “I’ll do what I want and consequences be damned” mentality, those kingmakers and bullies are helping freedom destroy itself. And when We the People shrug our shoulders and duck our heads while society becomes more cynical and our sense of family and community atrophies, we’re all helping freedom destroy itself.

Americans have always had access to firearms. Guns certainly aren’t any more pervasive now than they were back when the Minutemen were stockpiling weapons at Lexington and Concord. But something definitely has changed since then. It’s not the weapons. It’s us.

Instead of rushing to find some magical legislative solution, we need to ask ourselves a few hard questions: Are we creating a culture that can live and thrive in freedom? Do we have bold leaders willing and able to nurture such a culture? Do we have artists whose works reflect and inspire such a culture? Consider the answers to these questions carefully, because, if the answers are no, then we are in much more trouble than any new law can fix. (Interpolation: Governor Palin is quite correct in pointing to cultural values rather than leagal formulas as the basis of a safe, cohesive and productive society)

A decent and moral society is guided by voluntary self-restraint. The less moral we are, the more legalistic we become. But more laws can’t protect a civilization that has lost its way. At most, they’re just tiny speed bumps for a runaway truck.

The solutions we seek won’t be found in the halls of Congress or state legislatures. Might I humbly suggest that we step back from the TV, take a breath, hug our kids, reach out to friends and neighbors, and say a prayer.

— Sarah Palin is the former governor of Alaska and was the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee.
 
I'm not sure this belongs here, but I'm even less sure about where else to put it, and I think that conservatism, by which I believe our friend Thucydides, the originator of the thread meant classical liberalism, is part of the cure for the disease which historian and public intellectual Victor Davis Hanson describes in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Review Online:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356805/american-satyricon-victor-davis-hanson
national-review-online-logo.jpg

An American Satyricon
Our elites would be right at home in Petronius’s world of debauchery and bored melodrama.

By Victor Davis Hanson

AUGUST 27, 2013

Sometime in the mid-first century a.d., an otherwise little known consular official, Gaius Petronius, wrote a brilliant satirical novel about the gross and pretentious new Roman-imperial elite. The Satyricon is an often-cruel parody about how the Roman agrarian republic of old had degenerated into a wealth-obsessed, empty society of wannabe new elites, flush with money, and both obsessed with and bored with sex. Most of the Satyricon is lost. But in its longest surviving chapter — “Dinner with Trimalchio” — Petronius might as well have been describing our own 21st-century nomenklatura.

For the buffoonish libertine guests of the host Trimalchio, food and sex are in such surfeit that they have to be repackaged in bizarre and repulsive ways. Think of someone like the feminist mayor of San Diego, Bob Filner, who once railed about the need to enforce sexual-harassment laws, now only to discover ever creepier ways to grope, pat, grab, squeeze, pinch, and slobber on 18 co-workers and veritable strangers, whether in their 20s or over 60. Unfortunately, the sexual luridness does not necessarily end with Filner’s resignation; one of his would-be replacements is already under attack by his opponents on allegations that as a city councilman he was caught masturbating in the city-hall restroom between public meetings.

In good Petronian fashion, the narcissist Anthony Weiner sent pictures of his own genitalia to near-strangers, under the Latinate pseudonym “Carlos Danger.” Was Eliot Spitzer any better? As the governor of New York, he preferred anonymous numbers — “Client #9” — to false names, real to virtual sex, very young to mature women, and buying rather than romancing his partners. Is there some Petronian prerequisite in our age that our ascendant politicians must be perverts?

Transvestitism and sexual ambiguity are likewise Petronian themes; in our day, the controversy rages over whether convicted felon Bradley Manning is now a woman because he says he is. The politically correct term “transgendered” trumps biology; and if you doubt that, you are a homophobe or worse. As in the Roman Satyricon, our popular culture also displays a sick fascination with images of teen sex. So how does one trump the now-boring sexual shamelessness of Lady Gaga — still squirming about in a skimpy thong — at an MTV awards ceremony? Bring out former Disney teenage star Miley Cyrus in a vinyl bikini, wearing some sort of huge foam finger on her hand to simulate lewd sex acts.

The orgies at Trimalchio’s cool Pompeii estate (think Malibu) suggest that in imperial-Roman society Kardashian-style displays of wealth and Clintonian influence-peddling were matter-of-fact rather than shocking. Note that in our real version of the novel’s theme, Mayor Filner was not bothered by his exposure, and finally had to be nearly dragged out of office. Carlos Danger would have been mayor of New York, but the liberal press finally became worried over its embarrassment: Apparently two or three sexting episodes were tolerable, but another four or five, replete with more lies, risked parody.

Spitzer is again running for office — comptroller of New York City — and may well win. After all, Bill Clinton, feminist champion, protector of female subordinate employees from workplace harassers, survived Monicagate. John Edwards might have saved his political career had the tabloid National Enquirer not caught him red-handed with his mistress during the 2008 campaign, while his wife was dying of cancer. To an unimpressed masseuse, Al Gore appeared as a “crazed sex poodle.” That sobriquet did no more damage to Gore’s green empire than Trimalchio’s randy escapades imperiled his latifundia.

Another farce in the Satyricon involves the nonchalant ignorance of Trimalchio and his guests. The wannabes equate influence and money with status and learning and so pontificate about current events, with made-up mythologies and half-educated references to history. When Trimalchio and his banqueters begin to sermonize on literature, almost everything that follows turns out to be wrong — as Petronius reminds us how high learning has become as inane a commodity as food or sex, and only sort of half consumed, rather like the 2008 campaign of faux Greek columns and Vero possumus, which were supposed to convey gravitas.


It was the phrase "nonchalant ignorance" that caught my eye because it seems to sum up the "state of play" in politics in America, especially, but also in Australia (as far as I was able to follow the recent election campaigns), Britain and Canada, too. Bromides have become accepted wisdom; deep (and effective) polling about everything from public safety to economic policy has replaced policy analysis as the basis for political manifestos; and we have, as Susan Delacourt explains, in a new book which I highly recommend, become political consumers who are informed by the same advertising that sells us cars and feminine hygiene products. In short, like Trimalchio and his dinner guests, we have lost touch with our liberal political roots and we are now being manipulated by forces for whom principles are unimportant but power matters.

Liberals, of the small 'l' variety, need to take control of whichever of the (relatively) liberal political parties seems most vulnerable and boot the conservatives (as John Stuart Mill described them)* out, back to the "pop cultural," easy answer, consumer universe in which they thrive. We need to find a way to persuade liberals to agree, once again, to stand for office ~ I think our horrid fascination with the private lives of celebrities has infected politics and driven good men out and we need to remember and other quote, attributed to Edmund Burke.** The "triumph" is not of evil, per se, it is, as Victor Davis Hanson suggests, of "nonchalant ignorance" and we are all guilty of allowing it to prosper. 

We need a liberal leader; in my opinion, the last ones were Lester Pearson, John Diefenbaker (even though I disapproved of his brand of prairie populism) and, of course, Louis St Laurent. I think that all leaders since Pearson - Trudeau, Stanfield, Clark, Turner, Mulroney, Campbell, Manning, Chrétien, Charest, Martin, Dion, Ignatieff and Harper (and, of course not forgetting Broadbent through Mulcair and Bouchard through Duceppe ) have been, more or less, both a) conservative, and b) retail politicians, driven to buy our votes based on modified market research rather than on principles.

_____
*  "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative."
      John Stuart Mill, in a parliamentary debate on 31 May 1866
** "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
      Attrbuted to Edmund Burke
 
There are Conservatives and conservatives and conservatives and this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Financial Times/i] compares and contrasts British, overly rational, Conservatives with American irrational, conservatives:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fbd50f34-55dd-11e3-96f5-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#axzz2lkBcybws
Financial-Times-Logo.jpg

Cameron must reclaim his party from the rationalists
The UK centre-right needs to relaunch to save conservatism from the Conservatives

By Janan Ganesh

November 25, 2013

Critics of conservatism usually equate it with irrationality. They sense something of the counter-Enlightenment in the US Republican party’s religious fervour and no less faith-based approach to economics. But British conservatism is different. Its electoral agonies flow from too much rationality, not too little. Twenty-one years since the Tories last won an election, eight since they began to “modernise” under David Cameron’s leadership, the party still takes a view of politics that is best described as stupidly logical.

This view, which has spread from the rightwing to contaminate the leadership, runs as follows: parties must find out what people think about the issues of the day, align themselves with those opinions and watch the votes pile up. And so Tories cockily recite their polling advantage over the Labour opposition on welfare, immigration and Europe to the last percentage point. Call them rightwing and they brandish a chart showing their views are mainstream.

Theirs is a model of almost mathematical clarity – and childlike credulity. As a guide to how politics really works, nothing has bettered the research finding that sits halfway through Smell the Coffee, a psephological study of the Conservatives’ third consecutive election defeat in 2005. When a tough immigration policy is read out to voters, they approve. When they are told it is a Tory policy, they recoil. In other words, the party’s reputation is so foul that some people would rather shun an idea they like than endorse its Conservative authors. “Brand” is a shallow-sounding word for a very important thing. “Policy” is a serious-sounding word for something that politically matters much less.

This is why Mr Cameron opened his leadership with no great intellectual treatise but vivid and surprising gestures in favour of the environment, delinquent youths and anything else that would disrupt settled impressions of Conservatives. This is why the suspension of that good work when the recession came was a folly of existential consequence for his party. And this is why the continuing retreat from it in government is so unwise.

In the struggle for the Tory soul that predates and will outlast Mr Cameron’s leadership, the deepest faultline does not lie between right and left but between rationalists and those with a more impressionistic take on politics. Rationalists make a data-driven case for Mr Cameron’s tough noises on Europe, immigration and green taxes; issue-by-issue polling is on their side. But impressionists know the spectacle of a Tory leader saying predictably Tory things about classical Tory subjects keeps the party’s overall image in the same low place where it has festered for a generation.

Rationalists hold excruciating weekend conferences of the “101 policies to win the next election” variety. Impressionists search for spectacular gestures to remake the party’s reputation at a stroke. Rationalists lament the loss of Tory voters to the fringe UK Independence party. Impressionists are more worried about the 42 per cent of voters who refuse even to consider ever voting Conservative. Rationalists are literal and study detail. Impressionists are intuitive and see the big picture. Rationalists are from Mars, impressionists are from Venus.

Were both tribes vying for Mr Cameron’s ear, he could at least craft some kind of synthesis, what with his English taste for balance. But his best impressionists have gone: Steve Hilton, a roving strategist who left Downing Street in 2012, and Andrew Cooper, the first moderniser, who has just departed from an advisory role. The prime minister is left with a kitchen cabinet of clout, forensic intelligence but almost uniform rationality.

Modernisation is being jeered out of fashion, and out of existence, by cynics who say that eight years of it have failed to decontaminate the Conservative brand. Last week they shouted down Nick Boles, the planning minister and moderniser’s moderniser, for suggesting the Tories should set up a parallel National Liberal party and campaign alongside it.

In truth, there were only two years of modernisation, and they managed to lift the party to 50 per cent in the polls by 2008. The modish greenery, the smarmy talk of inclusiveness, the reticence on tax cuts: it all worked. And it worked because, when a party’s brand is hideous, creating a different impression – almost regardless of what that is – constitutes an improvement. The crash was not the time to suspend these efforts but to extend them to the heavier terrain of economic inequality, housebuilding and consumer rights. Mr Boles’s only mistake was not going far enough. Modernisers should ask whether the entity known as the Tory party is salvageable, or whether the centre-right must relaunch to save conservatism from the Conservatives.

The swing voter is not a brother of homo economicus, coldly appraising each party’s manifesto for compatibility with their own interests. They respond to the general aroma emitted by a party. That, modernisation’s central insight, is being forgotten. And so the Tory brand continues to reek, and a party in thrall to vulgar rationalism still strains to smell the coffee.


But I think there is more than just two extremes. I doubt that US style conservatism - irrational and based on beliefs, as Mr Ganesh suggests - is exportable in its current form. Mr Ganesh gets one of the reasons right, right at the top. US conservatism has a strong religious component but the data suggests that the USA, in its strong religiosity, is sui generis is the modern, Euro-Asian world - only the Islamic Crescent and parts of Africa have similar levels of religious attachment. 

I would liken the different level of conservatism to art schools. I see Cameron's British Conservatives as something akin to the 15th century Northern European school ~ think e.g. Jan van Eyck

438px-Van_Eyck_-_Arnolfini_Portrait.jpg

Van Eyck - the Arnolfini Portrait, 1434. Note the almost excruciatingly
realistic detail, down to the reflection in the mirror


On that basis American conservatives are more like 20th century cubists:

Pablo_Picasso%2C_1909-10%2C_Figure_dans_un_Fauteuil_%28Seated_Nude%2C_Femme_nue_assise%29%2C_oil_on_canvas%2C_92.1_x_73_cm%2C_Tate_Modern%2C_London.jpg

Picasso - Figure dans un Fauteuil, 1910. You can see the woman, but she is not, to the rational eye, nude, as Picasso suggested

There is, I think, a third way - an impressionistic way ...

800px-Pierre-Auguste_Renoir%2C_Le_Moulin_de_la_Galette.jpg

Renoir - Le Moulin de la Galette, 1876. The "message" is not in the details, nor is it in beliefs, it is, rather, in the "feeling" which
the style adds to the image


I suspect that Australia and Canada are, already, in the impressionistic phase and that Britain wants, maybe needs to move there, too.

I also suspect that America has a way to go ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top