FleaInNYCbanner.jpg

? Solitary Experiments: Watching Over You | Main | Tragedy 1 : Farce 1 ?

September 22, 2008

Why I will not vote Conservative

Voting Conservative is not the same thing as voting conservative. I do not have a clue who is standing for the party in Trinity-Spadina and what is more I do not care. Next door in Toronto-Centre, the party has abandoned its candidate (and its principles and common sense) for committing thought crime. Chris Reid had the temerity to speak the truth and, I expect, thereby endanger Stephen Harper's milquetoast agenda.

Mr. Harper, you may get your majority. You will use it to carry on the same liberal government this country has determined to be its fate. You will do with it exactly what Brian Mulroney did with his majority: Piss it away and earn the contempt of his countrymen. Pierre Trudeau was wrong for Canada. You, Mr. Harper, are not even wrong. At this point I would prefer to see Jack Layton as Prime Minister. It is possible his beliefs -- while misguided -- are sincere.* And at least the rest of us would know who to throw rocks at.

I am too angry to write. Thank God Kathy Shaidle has said everything I could possibly have had to say on the subject.

The Conservative Party of Canada is a gang of grasping, tiny minded, unprincipled jackoffs.

She is just getting warmed up. Please read the whole thing.

On a directly related note: Every once in a while somebody tells me I should stand for office. Perhaps, but it would have to be in Australia. There is a remote chance they still elect men to their Parliament.

* If we had a conservative government we would be standing by our allies in Iraq. If we had a conservative government the so called human rights commissions would have been shut down. If we had a conservative government it would be possible to publish this blog without second guessing every word against the whims of Canada's thought police.

Update: Jay Currie calls it "Harper's cringe." And Blazing Cat Fur could not be more right: "We already have a brokerage party, they're called the Liberals."

Also, Five Feet of Fury updates.

Being an anarchist for so long, I never quite got 100% behind the whole "voting" thing, and only do it now because of my belated, guilt ridden realization that (duh) men died and women bitched so I could do so.

But as anarchists like to say, "If God had meant us to vote, he would have given us candidates..." -- and this situation illustrates that perfectly.

Posted by Ghost of a flea at September 22, 2008 07:07 AM

Comments

We have several conservatives left to us. In Oregon, I fear, the cards are so stacked against us that a return to conservative values may have to wait until the socialist gamut has had its run. Thankfully, we live in a republic, so the financial ruin of one state won't have much impact on our country as a whole.
.

Posted by: OregonGuy [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2008 12:19 PM

I disagree completely that Harper is going down the path of Mulroney. I think, in fact, he's trying to avoid exactly that fate.

Harper is playing the long game. His "hidden agenda" is to move the Canadian electorate to the right of the political spectrum. But he knows that can't be accomplished in one mandate, or even two. It requires a long-term normalization of small-c conservative viewpoints. Only then will he have achieved success.

Sure, last election he defeated the nationalized child care policy of Ken Dryden. But what do we see in the Liberal and NDP platforms this election? The same thing. Success isn't a single defeat of such proposals, but to educate the populace on the failure of the state to be an all encompassing provider of everything, so that Canada is never put at risk by such proposals in the future. Keep asking the question "who should spend your money, you or the state?" as they have in recent ads.

However, by playing the long game, Harper does become much like the Liberals in the interim - focused on power, not guided by rigid principles on every issue, because he needs to remain moderate. Canadians aren't ready to switch to Libertarianism cold-turkey. As such, Harper is forced to evaluate every issue on this political calculus. For example, is it better to have a housing program to enable low-income people to purchase homes more easily (clearly a bad idea given what we've seen south of the border), than to have the Liberals put $2B of a surplus into a slush fund outside of Parliamentary oversight for the nebulous prospect of solving the low-income housing problem? I'd take the Liberal-lite approach of Harper over the real thing. But only in the context of the long game. Victory for conservatives isn't a majority this election, but the possibility of forming a majority in every future election.

Posted by: Anshu [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2008 02:29 PM

I hope you are right. I really do. Because if our enemies get just one device past customs I won't be the only one saying "Game over."

Posted by: Ghost of a flea [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2008 02:45 PM

Meaning no disrespect, and noting that I am a foreigner to your great nation, but haven't things been pretty much all downhill up there since y'all abandoned the Red Ensign?

Posted by: Clayton Barnett [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2008 10:13 PM

Yes. Absolutely.

Posted by: Ghost of a flea [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2008 10:21 PM

Post a comment

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

(This comment system is not reliable. Half the time it won't let me comment on my own blog. Please don't take it personally if it does not work for you. Alternative suggestions would be welcome but best remember I am technologically incompetent. Thanks for your patience.)


Remember me?