bwfleabanner28a.jpg

March 11 | Main | Bigotry is not conservatism

June 19, 2004

Liberalism

Most of the people I meet and interact with express one or another version of loony academic out-to-lunchery or the style-bubble crypto-politics of the People's Republic of the Annex. Needless to say, advocacy for a strong military, a robust internationalist and interventionist foreign policy and real free market capitalism are not popular points of view. None of these positions are necessarily conservative either. Conservatism and nativism often go together in ways that make it difficult to cooperate with allies - the giant to the south in particular - and can lend themselves to protectionist economic policy. These may especially be the case when the interests of local elites might be compromised in the process.

This last complex of ideas has been more closely associated with Canada's Liberal party than our splintered conservative parties through the last ten years. Family oil interests and the jobs of establishment media came before Canada's traditional commitments to democracy. Liberalism under M. Chretien was a far cry from the assertive peacekeeping, pro-nuclear arms, autopact Liberalism of Lester Pearson. Mr. Pearson's Canada is anathema to many of the people I meet day to day. For them, the fantasy of Canadian generosity ignores our pathetic commitment to international peace and development. Equally, it fosters a laughable sense of superiority to our southern neighbours which ignores our worse record on energy efficiency, pollution and so much else. These are people would will be delighted to learn Michael Moore thinks of himself as a Canadian at heart. Self-deprecating, unworthy and mendacious.

Posted by Ghost of a flea at June 19, 2004 10:28 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ghostofaflea.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/709

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Liberalism:

Michael Moore in Toronto from Being American in T.O.
June 19 - Michael Moore is in Toronto. However can I contain my joy? He and I seem to agree on one thing: media coverage of the war in Iraq is disgusting. It's a very brief article, but concludes with... [Read More]

Tracked on June 19, 2004 12:23 PM

Comments

"Needless to say, advocacy for a strong military, a robust internationalist and interventionist foreign policy and real free market capitalism are not popular points of view."

True, unfortunately.
I believe our American cousins had ways to refer to this kind of "muscular" liberalism: "Cold War liberals", "liberal hawks", later "Reagan Democrats".
It's ironic (and emblematic of the VERY short historical perspective of modern leftists) that some of these same features of old-style liberalism are excoriated now that some of them are incorporated into the policies of the "neoconservatives"
What is today described as "conservatism" is better described as liberalism. "Paleoconservatives" are the actual conservatives(Kevin Michael Grace would probably agree that present "conservatism" is merely liberalism in wolf's clothing:)). Finally, there is already a convenient label to describe the "loony academic out-to-lunchery or the style-bubble crypto-politics of the People's Republic of the Annex."
Socialism.

Posted by: Jim at June 21, 2004 10:25 AM

Both Flea and Jim hit some nails squarely and unblinkingly, but these days I'm not sure what most people do or don't value.

Roger Simon referred to himself as a "disaffected liberal" and I think pretty much wraps it up.

Modern day liberalism - with it's racism and sexism (and that's what patronizing lectures about "understanding root causes" conceals) was never what I signed up for back in the day.

Modern day liberalism, with it's blind acceptance of brutal tyrants like Mugabe as legitimate, betrays every single liberal value.

Liberals worship at the Shrine of Stability which means they are incapable of challenging ethnic cleansing in the Sudan.

Jim is right: they never believed in liberal values but gave lip service to them in order to pursue a Socialist agenda.

They made common cause with an Islamofacist named bin Laden - like fascists and communists never made deals before - and the blinders have come off for those willing to see.

The questions is to what extent the Islamofascists believe there is an alliance (I think it's a one-sided alliance, making the liberals even more the fools.)

Posted by: Debbye at June 21, 2004 05:24 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in. Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?