"Liberal" What does that term mean? to Canadians? to Americans? How do we see Liberals in each other's country?
20 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I don't think that whether you are from Canada or the USA makes a difference in how you think of the word "liberal" or how you use the word. The real difference is found in whether you embrace "liberal" values or more conservative values. If you talk to liberal USA people or liberal Canadians, they will naturally have a more positive view of the word "liberal" than if you talk to "conservative" people in either country. Having said this, it seems clear to me that there are more "liberal" people in Canada compared to the USA. Canada is further left-of-center, the USA is more right-of-center. Perhaps part of the reason is that there is a stronger unifying tradition in the USA that makes up USA identity - something to 'conserve'. Whereas in Canada there is a weaker sense of a unifying national identity, less to "conserve", and with more multiculturalism, more of a sense of the need to let people live however they want (as long as we aren't obviously hurting others).
I should clarify what I think "liberal" commonly means (in Can/USA):
Regarding social policies, to be "liberal" is: to value the individual freedom to choose, above the value of the government promotion of traditional patterns for various social practices (i.e.: marriage, child care, etc).
Regarding government use of money, to be 'liberal' is: to value more government intervention to create equality of social benefits (i.e.: government run health care, childcare, education, welfare, etc.).
I agree with you on your definition of liberal for the use of money, but (in the US at least) in general it is more of a conservative view to value the individual freedom to choose. Liberals want MORE laws for everything... There are only two (major) issues where conservatives are pushing for laws--the marriage amendment (to protect families) and to see roe-vs-wade overturned (because babies should have the right to choose life).
Liberals in the US want government involvement in everything...for example, liberals are against home schooling your children and they believe the government should provide childcare for anyone who wants it. They are for more gun laws, affirmative action laws, and universal health care.
As far as homosexuality goes, liberals want more laws ensuring that companies give equal benefits to this "special class", where as conservatives believe in allowing individual companies to determine the benefits they give to their employees--and feel sexual orientation should be left out of the mix. Both sides want to see a marriage amendment put into play--the conservatives want to conserve the traditional view of marriage, the liberals want to make the traditional view illegal (for example, already in California, you cannot get married as "bride" and "groom", you have to get married as "party 1" and "party 2".) A conservative would say that the marriage amendment would just be clarifying the initial views of the founding fathers because a conservative believes in upholding what this country was founded on.
So basically, I wouldn't make a distinction between social/money issues. Liberals in the U.S. generally want more government involvement in everything, Conservatives (for the most part) want less government involvement in everything.
However, I understand what you were saying in that conservatives want to "conserve" traditional values--that is definitely an accurate statement--they would just rather do it without government involvement at all.
Its true in Canada also, regarding what you say about liberals wanting "more laws" to enforce certain social issues such as affirmative action, promoting 'gay equality', becoming more strict on gun control, devaluing homeschooling, etc.
Liberals want "freedom to choose" but they also want more "government intervention" to enforce/promote a certain ideal of universal equality of social benefits; and they don't tend to trust individual freedom when it comes to certain issues (like homeschooling or guns or hiring policies, etc.).
Conservatives also value "freedom to choose"... but they just don't want "freedom to choose" when it comes to changing certain traditional social understandings like the definition of marriage or the definition of human life (at conception). They feel there is a "natural order" in society that ought to be maintained and promoted by governement, including certain traditional understandings of marriage and human life.
Both liberals and conservatives say they value "individual freedom" and both want some kinds of "government intervention" (which neccesarily restricts certain kinds of freedoms)... they just disagree about what they want the government to enforce and/or not enforce (Liberals: pure social equality, or Conservatives: true natural order).
Chris! Welcome! (Was the early "Nancy" post you as well?)
Everyone, Chris is Nancy's husband and has been forced to be best friends with Josh and myself since Nancy started dating him! :) He's a seminary student and very good at keeping straight all the different groups of theological thought!
Chris, if you want introductions to everyone, just give me a call!
I think there needs to be a real disconnect between the names of various political parties and the values they espouse. It only makes it more difficult to figure out what we all mean! It becomes especially funny when you look back into history and see parties named "Liberal Conservatives." :) For instance, I would not consider the Cdn Consrvative party to be paleoconservative, but neoconservative- big difference in terms of economic principles and the power of the central government. On the other hand, I would see our Cdn Liberal party as more economically paleoconservative but socially socialist. From earlier conversations, I would put out the thought that (at least southern) Americans have a very different view of the term "liberal"- even a derogitory view of the term- than how Canadians take the term. I believe that Canada is rather alone in the world in NOT taking "liberal" to mean something dangerous or outrageous. Chris- Liberals: pure social equality, or Conservatives: true natural order- I think that's a really good synopsis of American policies- except I would put Democrats instead of Liberals since that term is used more closely to how we would use "progressive" in Canada. Would you consider the Cdn Conservative party to be looking for true natural order? At any rate, perhaps my original question would have been better put "what do you think when you hear the term "liberal"?
I do think the Canadian Conservative party would at least try to reinforce the traditional definition of marriage and work against abortion, if they could... Most of their members personally believe in pro-life and traditional marriage. However the Cdn Conservatives know that abortion rights and homosexual affirmation is far too powerful in Canada. Even when they try to pass a law to protect unborn children from aggressors of pregnant women there is an uproar against them. Conservative thinking is far stronger in the USA; that's why its slower for them to adopt homosexuality and there is still talk about overturning abortion.
But can you explain the difference between "new-conservative" vs. "paleo-conservative"...
Kimberly seems to make a big deal out of labels :-D.
I'm kind of like you chris...she keeps talking about neo-conservatism and I'd never heard of it until I looked it up on wikipedia. The average American doesn't label the different shades of conservatism. Some people are just "more" conservative than others...paleo-conservatives seem to be the most conservative if I understand wikipedia correctly...neo-conservative seems to be more liberal conservatives...
I don't think that Americans necessarily think of 'liberal' as a bad or derogatory term -- it depends on whether you're asking a liberal or conservative. ;) Because plenty of liberals probably think of 'conservative' (or at least 'Republican') as a derogatory term, and I often feel like most people are liberal -- at least according to the media, so I guess maybe not in reality, huh? ;)
Chris- Do you really think the Conservative party would do anything about abortion rights or gay marriage? They stood by while Morgontoller got the Order of Canada. They changed C-484 before the election- and then called an election which killed even the rewrite. They effectively stopped all debate about gay marriage. Either they are really good at getting messed up (when they've managed to pass every other bill they have wanted to) or they really don't care and are just trying to look like they do to get the religious right vote.
Harper is a neo-conservative- and abortion and gay marriage is really not on their agenda. It's on Bush's because that got him to power and he is a religious guy in and of himself. It's not on Cheney's. Yes I make a big deal out of labels ( :) ) because they matter! It matters whether a leader is a neo-conservative or a paleo-conservative. Big diferences! One is big government and a believer in the military industrial complex. Pre-emptive war is a neo-conservative ideology, as is the student as a consumer. Paleo-conservatives are small government, usually isolationist, deregulation people. The Republican party of the US has basically become neo-conservative. The Cdn Conservatives have been heading that way since Mulroney.
Its true that Bush and the Republicans (especially Palin) are noticeably more conservative (and passionate) than Harper regarding social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. But Harper and the Cdn Conservatives are surely more conservative than any other Cdn party regarding social issues. When we talk about liberal vs. conservative labels we are talking in terms of degrees. I would say that Harper and the Cdn Conservatives are still slightly more conservative than the USA Democratic party regarding abortion and gay marriage; even if they can’t (or won’t) do anything to change the status quo.
From most conservative to most liberal, regarding gay/abortion issues, I would put it as follows:
Palin, Bush, McCain, Harper, Biden, Obama, all other Cdn leaders much more liberal than Obama.
According to the definitions above, I would say the Cdn Conservatives are paleo-conservative, while McCain/Palin are somewhat of a mix between neo and paleo. They all seem to want smaller government, less spending and lower taxes, but McCain/Palin are much more “big military” than Harper (Cdn conservatives leader).
Harper is not as isolationist as the other Cdn parties, and does support the Afghanistan mission until 2011, but I don’t think the Cdn Conservatives can be described as a “big military” party in comparison to other Western nations in general.
Kim, are there “neo-liberal” and “paleo-liberals” also? If the agenda of neo-conservatives is “big government” and “big military,” and paleo-conservatives are “small government, isolationist (small military), deregulation… what’s the agenda of liberals?
If Harper was a paleo-conservative, he would have offered a tax break for parents with children instead of $100 a month. That is bigger government and the citizen as a consumer.
There are certainly different types of liberals as well, with different names. Democratic socialists, communists, classical, protectionists, etc etc etc. In general, I would classify liberals (at least in Canada- I don't know much about liberalism in Europe) as people who see the government as a social program consortium. For example- the military used in that light both in Canada and around the world.
Perhaps I didn't explain the different kinds of conservatives well. "Neoconservatism" is a term much like "Postmodernism." It has very little to do with traditional conservatism (which is now called paleo-conservatism to draw a difference.) In fact neo-cons are in many ways the opposite of traditional conservatism, even though it grew out of that movement. I would put out the thought though, that it grew much more out of the military industrial complex than traditional conservatism. Canadians neo-cons seem to be getting their ideas from the think tanks in the States.
Chris- "But Harper and the Cdn Conservatives are surely more conservative than any other Cdn party regarding social issues." Which social issues are you referencing here?
Kim - I was referring to the social issues of abortion and homosexual marriage. The Cdn conservatives are the only Canadian party that don't outright endorse and push for abortion rights and homosexual marriage; and the only party to have had a majority of their members to vote for the traditional definition of marriage.
I agree that the $100/month was not a "paleo-conservative" thing to do. But they do lower taxes in general and work for a smaller government than the other Cnd parties. They are working to reform the Cnd senate and place limitations on senators terms, and to cut government spending for programs that are deemed unimportant or ineffective; while other parties seem to promise more spending for more programs and to raise government income by raising taxes overall.
I'm not sure how "small" of a government is needed to be considered paleo-conservative, or how "big" it needs to get to be considered "neo-con."
Furthermore, although the Cnd military is bigger under the Cnd Conservatives than it would be with the other 4 parties, our only big mission is in Afganistan, and that's only until 2011. Our military was much bigger before the 70s. I'm not sure how big it needs to get to be considered "neo-con." What if a country has no military and then develops one for a certain mission - does that movement toward a slightly "bigger military" make them "neo-con"?
I think the problem with labels is that it's easy to apply one to yourself, and agree with everyone who applies the same labels to themselves. It's easy to pick one or two issues and find a party that agrees with you there, but then find out that you disagree with most else of what they support.
Pretty much every federal party supports senate reform, with the proviso that they have provincial support. It's that lack of provincial support that killed the changes that were in the Meech Lake accord, and again in hte Charlottetown accord. The Bloc and the NDP want to abolish it completely, which surprised me, since they are generally considered the most socialist of our parties.
Tax-wise, I don't think either the Liberals or the Conservatives will be that much different in the end. Both have been consistantly cutting programs and taxes, and will do so as long as our economy is selling enough oil to hold it up. It was a Conservative govonerment that brought in the GST in the first place. The Liberal's "green shift" is supposed to be revenue neutral, and they plan on paying off at least $3 Billion a year in debt. The tories haven't released a budget on their website, and neither have the NDP, so I have no idea what the details of their plans are. Both the Greens and the NDP claim that they will not run a deficit, although the Green's budget does not have any plans for continuing to pay off the debt.
I'm really not sure who to vote for this time around. The NDP candidate is pretty much guaranteed to win here, so it doesn't really matter all that much for whom I vote, but I'd like to do so all the same.
There really isn't much difference, policy-wise, between the Conservative Party and Liberal Party in Canada, other than the new "Green-Shift" Plan of the Liberals. I would feel comfortable voting for either the Liberal or Conservative MP in my area. What Nancy and I read about the Green Shift plan (on their website), however, did not inspire lots of confidence with us; so the Conservatives (with no Green Shift) seem more safe in my view.
The main reason I don't feel compelled to vote NDP is that I don't see lots more need to increase government spending and to get rid of corporate tax cuts. I can imagine this being needed sometimes, but I don't see why its needed these days (to raise taxes and increase government spending). I don't think we need universal childcare, for example.
And I am not convinced about the radically different ideas of the Green Party to lower the value of the Canadian dollar to 80 cents; slow down the oil industry in Alberta (temporarily); and affirm a different "Green Shift" plan. And they don't seem experienced enough, either.
So that's why I feel comfortable with either Liberal or Conservative options. But I basically choose the Conservatives because they seem more predicable/safe in comparison to the Green Shift plan; and they seem to have basically delivered in the core things of what they promised last election (lowered GST by 2%, paid off more than &37 billion of our deficit since taking office, increased the police-force, worked for tougher laws, for example).
If you think that the Green Shift plan is really a good idea, however, I would be interested in finding out why. (that seems to be the major difference between Conservatives and Liberals, policy-wise, isn't it?)
My wording doesn't sound right in my last question... I should have asked:
Do you think that the Green Shift plan might be a good idea?
I am open to thinking it might be a good idea. It sounds like it would be potentially very good for the environment, reducing carbon emission by taxing all big-carbon usage. But would it really be good for the economy?
My concern would be that it would raise taxes for companies and everything that involves shipping (food, clothing, ect.). Most truckers seemed opposed to the idea, as far as I have heard.
For companies that pollute (like the Mine in Thompson, for example) wouldn't that raise their costs a lot? Might not that lead to fewer jobs? Wouldn't added taxes on carbon affect the transportation companies and effect everything that is shipped by big trucks?
Or would there be other effects, that I haven't thought about yet, that would negate those possible bad effects? I know that there would be a taxes break for individuals. That would be good. But if jobs and the price of everything is effected in a negative way, I'm not sure how that would all balance itself out.
Its not really clear to me how the Green Shift plan would actually help the economy. It sounds more concerned about the environment than the economy, from what I understand of it.
So do you understand something that I don't understand about the Green Shift plan?
(This is the main issue that makes me lean to vote Conservative Party in this election, when comparing Liberals and Conservatives). When I hear "Green Shift Plan" I hear "Environment priority, economic question mark."
We need to make the price of items reflect the environmental cost. By taxing the use of carbon, you pass that cost along on items that require more fossil fuels to produce. It’s ridiculous that it costs me more to take the bus to work than it does for me to drive my minivan by myself. The incentive to ride the bus is pretty low when in addition to taking two or three times the time, I don’t even get to save any money. If it is more environmentally friendly to take the bus, then a carbon would eventually cause that to be reflected in gas / bus prices. The other advantage to taxing carbon is that it helps to localize the economy. It’s crazy that we’re importing beef from the United States, while they’re importing beef from us. It’s even crazier that we’re importing so much from China, when the same things can be made here in Canada. Yes, employment costs are higher here, so in the short term it’s cheaper to manufacture out in China, but as we start taxing imports based on the carbon they use (including shipping), these things start to balance out. Obviously some sort of international system will have to eventually be implemented to make this work better, but doing something is a start. The Liberals don’t have enough details on their “Green Shift” to really understand how it will effect things, which is a bit of a worry to me. I think that the cap and trade system makes a little more sense to me, since it invokes the market economy to price things out, but it’s nearly impossible to implement such a system in a fair and useful way. Most scientists and economists that I’ve heard from say that either type of system would be effective in reducing emissions (looking at countries that have already implemented such systems). In the end, we can’t afford to not get in early on the non-fossil fuel based economy. We don’t have near unlimited coal like the U.S. does. Our oil supplies will eventually dry (and sooner if the conservatives keep giving special tax-incentives to the oil companies). By encouraging investment in new technologies and energy sources, we can ensure that when that happens, we’ll have something else to rely on. In the meantime, we’ll have jobs in research and development, and eventually new manufacturing jobs as other countries start looking around for countries that have already done the research. Iceland is enjoying the benefits of selling all its geothermal technology. At the same time, the oil reserves are a valuable natural resource that we can’t afford to stop producing, but the answer isn’t to pump them dry as fast as we can. Alberta already can’t keep up with all the people moving in. The intensity-based targets allow the oil companies to continue expanding at increasing rates in order to satisfy demands for larger profits and increasing shareholder value. We need to maintain the current rate of production (or even reduce it) until the infrastructure out there can catch up. It needs to be managed as a resource that will be used up eventually, and exploited with caution to make the most of it, not with the near total abandon that we are at present. You can argue about whether global warming is human-caused or not, and whether global warming would even be harmful to us here, being away from any oceans, and living in a fairly cold climate anyway. The opening of the Northwest Passage would be an economic lottery win for Churchill, and most of Manitoba. I lean towards believing that global warming is happening and is at least partially caused by human pressures. But regardless of how you view that, building our economy on a non-renewable resource is just bad foresight. It was a bad idea back in 1970 and it’s a bad idea now. I don’t think the Conservative plan is responsible management of the limited resources we have. The other plans have their flaws, but I think they are better starts. My priority list is pretty similar to yours, but in my mind, the Liberals win out on the economy, criminal justice and the environment. I definitely lean towards restorative justice and away from things like publishing young offenders’ names. Health care is also somewhere on my list, and I don’t like Harper’s record on that.
Thanks for your explanation. That helps, but it still leaves me with a number of similar questions and doubts about the Green Shift idea…
1. With diesel being taxed, the bus system will only increase in cost (the minivan will be more attractive still); and everything that is transported by semi will go up in price! 2. As you allude to, the big reason why our economy is not localized is because of global inequality of wages. The problem with so much importing from China has nothing to do with Canadians underpaying for oil (cost of transportation is always included in the cost of products that are shipped here – those shipping rates are not the reason why such products are cheaper, wages in China are the reason). If there is a problem with us buying too much from China, the answer is simply to make tougher importing taxes, restrictions, fees. 3. As cost of oil goes up already, it just seems like the carbon tax is trying to intensify the problem now, so that it will force people to try to change more quickly toward a Green Economy. But, in my opinion, the better option is not to play with the whole system of the economy right now, but simply to add incentives, tax breaks, funding for Canadian Green innovation. Innovation does not need to be pushed for by added immediate strain on all carbon usage in our economy, in my opinion. 4. Regarding conserving our limited resources of carbon… oil will run out eventually anyway. The market pressures concerning energy will only increase over the next several years. The Innovation field is feeling the pressure to find answers already! I agree that slowing down the Alberta oil production does make sense, as you say. But that needs to be dealt with more directly; not by a green shift plan that alters virtually every aspect of the economy through tax on everything. Have the Liberals said anything about limiting the Alberta oil production in a more direct way (other than through Green Shift)? I know the Greens talked about it, but how are the Conservatives and Liberals different in how they would deal directly with Alberta oil production?
thanks for your thoughts, I’ve got to go now; happy thanksgiving…
Feel free to sign in or just comment as "anonymous." However, if you do comment as anonymous, please sign it with some name, number or symbol so that it is easier for everyone to keep the conversation players strait. Thanks!
"It's always safer for one's sanity when you only say what you would be willing to hear from someone with whom you disagree."
Purpose
The idea behind this site is that it will serve for a forum for a continuing discussion that has been occuring on several different websites. I've asked many roving questions and some friends have valiently been answering them over the past few months. This site will hopefully organize the conversation and allow others to participate. I recognize that some topics may not make a whole lot of sense, as there has been a significant amount of conversation up until now. Feel free to ask questions to clarify the ideas and history of the authors.
I reserve the right to moderate the discussion and delete any comments that are offensive. I will attempt to be in contact with the author prior to any action.
The goal is to inform and learn, not to attempt to change people's ideas.
I am a history lover, especially that of the average person at any point in time. While it is often easy to dismiss people that do not think as one does as "crazy," it is my hope and purpose to instead understand differing viewpoints than I hold, and therefore to have a greater grasp on events as they unfold. While it is not possible to interview people from the past, it is very possible to do so for the many different cultural groups that exist in our world today. Real people are much more interesting than a history textbook (as much as I love a good read!)
My viewpoint is not the purpose of this site, although undoubtibly I will have to explain where I come from as well. In fact, in the emails between friends, it has come to that point, so it will most likely be an early post. The hope, in that case, is that others who share my experience will aid me in explaining it!
20 comments:
I don't think that whether you are from Canada or the USA makes a difference in how you think of the word "liberal" or how you use the word.
The real difference is found in whether you embrace "liberal" values or more conservative values.
If you talk to liberal USA people or liberal Canadians, they will naturally have a more positive view of the word "liberal" than if you talk to "conservative" people in either country.
Having said this, it seems clear to me that there are more "liberal" people in Canada compared to the USA. Canada is further left-of-center, the USA is more right-of-center.
Perhaps part of the reason is that there is a stronger unifying tradition in the USA that makes up USA identity - something to 'conserve'. Whereas in Canada there is a weaker sense of a unifying national identity, less to "conserve", and with more multiculturalism, more of a sense of the need to let people live however they want (as long as we aren't obviously hurting others).
I should clarify what I think "liberal" commonly means (in Can/USA):
Regarding social policies, to be "liberal" is: to value the individual freedom to choose, above the value of the government promotion of traditional patterns for various social practices (i.e.: marriage, child care, etc).
Regarding government use of money, to be 'liberal' is: to value more government intervention to create equality of social benefits (i.e.: government run health care, childcare, education, welfare, etc.).
I agree with you on your definition of liberal for the use of money, but (in the US at least) in general it is more of a conservative view to value the individual freedom to choose. Liberals want MORE laws for everything... There are only two (major) issues where conservatives are pushing for laws--the marriage amendment (to protect families) and to see roe-vs-wade overturned (because babies should have the right to choose life).
Liberals in the US want government involvement in everything...for example, liberals are against home schooling your children and they believe the government should provide childcare for anyone who wants it. They are for more gun laws, affirmative action laws, and universal health care.
As far as homosexuality goes, liberals want more laws ensuring that companies give equal benefits to this "special class", where as conservatives believe in allowing individual companies to determine the benefits they give to their employees--and feel sexual orientation should be left out of the mix. Both sides want to see a marriage amendment put into play--the conservatives want to conserve the traditional view of marriage, the liberals want to make the traditional view illegal (for example, already in California, you cannot get married as "bride" and "groom", you have to get married as "party 1" and "party 2".) A conservative would say that the marriage amendment would just be clarifying the initial views of the founding fathers because a conservative believes in upholding what this country was founded on.
So basically, I wouldn't make a distinction between social/money issues. Liberals in the U.S. generally want more government involvement in everything, Conservatives (for the most part) want less government involvement in everything.
However, I understand what you were saying in that conservatives want to "conserve" traditional values--that is definitely an accurate statement--they would just rather do it without government involvement at all.
Its true in Canada also, regarding what you say about liberals wanting "more laws" to enforce certain social issues such as affirmative action, promoting 'gay equality', becoming more strict on gun control, devaluing homeschooling, etc.
Liberals want "freedom to choose" but they also want more "government intervention" to enforce/promote a certain ideal of universal equality of social benefits; and they don't tend to trust individual freedom when it comes to certain issues (like homeschooling or guns or hiring policies, etc.).
Conservatives also value "freedom to choose"... but they just don't want "freedom to choose" when it comes to changing certain traditional social understandings like the definition of marriage or the definition of human life (at conception). They feel there is a "natural order" in society that ought to be maintained and promoted by governement, including certain traditional understandings of marriage and human life.
Both liberals and conservatives say they value "individual freedom" and both want some kinds of "government intervention" (which neccesarily restricts certain kinds of freedoms)... they just disagree about what they want the government to enforce and/or not enforce (Liberals: pure social equality, or Conservatives: true natural order).
Chris! Welcome! (Was the early "Nancy" post you as well?)
Everyone, Chris is Nancy's husband and has been forced to be best friends with Josh and myself since Nancy started dating him! :) He's a seminary student and very good at keeping straight all the different groups of theological thought!
Chris, if you want introductions to everyone, just give me a call!
I think there needs to be a real disconnect between the names of various political parties and the values they espouse. It only makes it more difficult to figure out what we all mean! It becomes especially funny when you look back into history and see parties named "Liberal Conservatives." :) For instance, I would not consider the Cdn Consrvative party to be paleoconservative, but neoconservative- big difference in terms of economic principles and the power of the central government. On the other hand, I would see our Cdn Liberal party as more economically paleoconservative but socially socialist.
From earlier conversations, I would put out the thought that (at least southern) Americans have a very different view of the term "liberal"- even a derogitory view of the term- than how Canadians take the term. I believe that Canada is rather alone in the world in NOT taking "liberal" to mean something dangerous or outrageous.
Chris- Liberals: pure social equality, or Conservatives: true natural order- I think that's a really good synopsis of American policies- except I would put Democrats instead of Liberals since that term is used more closely to how we would use "progressive" in Canada. Would you consider the Cdn Conservative party to be looking for true natural order?
At any rate, perhaps my original question would have been better put "what do you think when you hear the term "liberal"?
I do think the Canadian Conservative party would at least try to reinforce the traditional definition of marriage and work against abortion, if they could...
Most of their members personally believe in pro-life and traditional marriage.
However the Cdn Conservatives know that abortion rights and homosexual affirmation is far too powerful in Canada. Even when they try to pass a law to protect unborn children from aggressors of pregnant women there is an uproar against them.
Conservative thinking is far stronger in the USA; that's why its slower for them to adopt homosexuality and there is still talk about overturning abortion.
But can you explain the difference between "new-conservative" vs. "paleo-conservative"...
:-D
Kimberly seems to make a big deal out of labels :-D.
I'm kind of like you chris...she keeps talking about neo-conservatism and I'd never heard of it until I looked it up on wikipedia. The average American doesn't label the different shades of conservatism. Some people are just "more" conservative than others...paleo-conservatives seem to be the most conservative if I understand wikipedia correctly...neo-conservative seems to be more liberal conservatives...
I don't think that Americans necessarily think of 'liberal' as a bad or derogatory term -- it depends on whether you're asking a liberal or conservative. ;) Because plenty of liberals probably think of 'conservative' (or at least 'Republican') as a derogatory term, and I often feel like most people are liberal -- at least according to the media, so I guess maybe not in reality, huh? ;)
Chris- Do you really think the Conservative party would do anything about abortion rights or gay marriage? They stood by while Morgontoller got the Order of Canada. They changed C-484 before the election- and then called an election which killed even the rewrite. They effectively stopped all debate about gay marriage. Either they are really good at getting messed up (when they've managed to pass every other bill they have wanted to) or they really don't care and are just trying to look like they do to get the religious right vote.
Harper is a neo-conservative- and abortion and gay marriage is really not on their agenda. It's on Bush's because that got him to power and he is a religious guy in and of himself. It's not on Cheney's. Yes I make a big deal out of labels ( :) ) because they matter! It matters whether a leader is a neo-conservative or a paleo-conservative. Big diferences! One is big government and a believer in the military industrial complex. Pre-emptive war is a neo-conservative ideology, as is the student as a consumer. Paleo-conservatives are small government, usually isolationist, deregulation people. The Republican party of the US has basically become neo-conservative. The Cdn Conservatives have been heading that way since Mulroney.
Its true that Bush and the Republicans (especially Palin) are noticeably more conservative (and passionate) than Harper regarding social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
But Harper and the Cdn Conservatives are surely more conservative than any other Cdn party regarding social issues.
When we talk about liberal vs. conservative labels we are talking in terms of degrees. I would say that Harper and the Cdn Conservatives are still slightly more conservative than the USA Democratic party regarding abortion and gay marriage; even if they can’t (or won’t) do anything to change the status quo.
From most conservative to most liberal, regarding gay/abortion issues, I would put it as follows:
Palin, Bush, McCain, Harper, Biden, Obama, all other Cdn leaders much more liberal than Obama.
According to the definitions above, I would say the Cdn Conservatives are paleo-conservative, while McCain/Palin are somewhat of a mix between neo and paleo.
They all seem to want smaller government, less spending and lower taxes, but McCain/Palin are much more “big military” than Harper (Cdn conservatives leader).
Harper is not as isolationist as the other Cdn parties, and does support the Afghanistan mission until 2011, but I don’t think the Cdn Conservatives can be described as a “big military” party in comparison to other Western nations in general.
Kim, are there “neo-liberal” and “paleo-liberals” also? If the agenda of neo-conservatives is “big government” and “big military,” and paleo-conservatives are “small government, isolationist (small military), deregulation… what’s the agenda of liberals?
How do “socialists” fit in with these labels?
If Harper was a paleo-conservative, he would have offered a tax break for parents with children instead of $100 a month. That is bigger government and the citizen as a consumer.
There are certainly different types of liberals as well, with different names. Democratic socialists, communists, classical, protectionists, etc etc etc. In general, I would classify liberals (at least in Canada- I don't know much about liberalism in Europe) as people who see the government as a social program consortium. For example- the military used in that light both in Canada and around the world.
Perhaps I didn't explain the different kinds of conservatives well. "Neoconservatism" is a term much like "Postmodernism." It has very little to do with traditional conservatism (which is now called paleo-conservatism to draw a difference.) In fact neo-cons are in many ways the opposite of traditional conservatism, even though it grew out of that movement. I would put out the thought though, that it grew much more out of the military industrial complex than traditional conservatism. Canadians neo-cons seem to be getting their ideas from the think tanks in the States.
Chris- "But Harper and the Cdn Conservatives are surely more conservative than any other Cdn party regarding social issues." Which social issues are you referencing here?
Kim - I was referring to the social issues of abortion and homosexual marriage. The Cdn conservatives are the only Canadian party that don't outright endorse and push for abortion rights and homosexual marriage; and the only party to have had a majority of their members to vote for the traditional definition of marriage.
I agree that the $100/month was not a "paleo-conservative" thing to do. But they do lower taxes in general and work for a smaller government than the other Cnd parties. They are working to reform the Cnd senate and place limitations on senators terms, and to cut government spending for programs that are deemed unimportant or ineffective; while other parties seem to promise more spending for more programs and to raise government income by raising taxes overall.
I'm not sure how "small" of a government is needed to be considered paleo-conservative, or how "big" it needs to get to be considered "neo-con."
Furthermore, although the Cnd military is bigger under the Cnd Conservatives than it would be with the other 4 parties, our only big mission is in Afganistan, and that's only until 2011. Our military was much bigger before the 70s. I'm not sure how big it needs to get to be considered "neo-con." What if a country has no military and then develops one for a certain mission - does that movement toward a slightly "bigger military" make them "neo-con"?
I think the problem with labels is that it's easy to apply one to yourself, and agree with everyone who applies the same labels to themselves. It's easy to pick one or two issues and find a party that agrees with you there, but then find out that you disagree with most else of what they support.
Pretty much every federal party supports senate reform, with the proviso that they have provincial support. It's that lack of provincial support that killed the changes that were in the Meech Lake accord, and again in hte Charlottetown accord. The Bloc and the NDP want to abolish it completely, which surprised me, since they are generally considered the most socialist of our parties.
Tax-wise, I don't think either the Liberals or the Conservatives will be that much different in the end. Both have been consistantly cutting programs and taxes, and will do so as long as our economy is selling enough oil to hold it up. It was a Conservative govonerment that brought in the GST in the first place. The Liberal's "green shift" is supposed to be revenue neutral, and they plan on paying off at least $3 Billion a year in debt. The tories haven't released a budget on their website, and neither have the NDP, so I have no idea what the details of their plans are. Both the Greens and the NDP claim that they will not run a deficit, although the Green's budget does not have any plans for continuing to pay off the debt.
I'm really not sure who to vote for this time around. The NDP candidate is pretty much guaranteed to win here, so it doesn't really matter all that much for whom I vote, but I'd like to do so all the same.
I agree that labels are often very misleading.
There really isn't much difference, policy-wise, between the Conservative Party and Liberal Party in Canada, other than the new "Green-Shift" Plan of the Liberals. I would feel comfortable voting for either the Liberal or Conservative MP in my area. What Nancy and I read about the Green Shift plan (on their website), however, did not inspire lots of confidence with us; so the Conservatives (with no Green Shift) seem more safe in my view.
The main reason I don't feel compelled to vote NDP is that I don't see lots more need to increase government spending and to get rid of corporate tax cuts. I can imagine this being needed sometimes, but I don't see why its needed these days (to raise taxes and increase government spending). I don't think we need universal childcare, for example.
And I am not convinced about the radically different ideas of the Green Party to lower the value of the Canadian dollar to 80 cents; slow down the oil industry in Alberta (temporarily); and affirm a different "Green Shift" plan. And they don't seem experienced enough, either.
So that's why I feel comfortable with either Liberal or Conservative options. But I basically choose the Conservatives because they seem more predicable/safe in comparison to the Green Shift plan; and they seem to have basically delivered in the core things of what they promised last election (lowered GST by 2%, paid off more than &37 billion of our deficit since taking office, increased the police-force, worked for tougher laws, for example).
If you think that the Green Shift plan is really a good idea, however, I would be interested in finding out why. (that seems to be the major difference between Conservatives and Liberals, policy-wise, isn't it?)
My wording doesn't sound right in my last question...
I should have asked:
Do you think that the Green Shift plan might be a good idea?
I am open to thinking it might be a good idea. It sounds like it would be potentially very good for the environment, reducing carbon emission by taxing all big-carbon usage. But would it really be good for the economy?
My concern would be that it would raise taxes for companies and everything that involves shipping (food, clothing, ect.). Most truckers seemed opposed to the idea, as far as I have heard.
For companies that pollute (like the Mine in Thompson, for example) wouldn't that raise their costs a lot? Might not that lead to fewer jobs? Wouldn't added taxes on carbon affect the transportation companies and effect everything that is shipped by big trucks?
Or would there be other effects, that I haven't thought about yet, that would negate those possible bad effects?
I know that there would be a taxes break for individuals. That would be good. But if jobs and the price of everything is effected in a negative way, I'm not sure how that would all balance itself out.
Its not really clear to me how the Green Shift plan would actually help the economy. It sounds more concerned about the environment than the economy, from what I understand of it.
So do you understand something that I don't understand about the Green Shift plan?
(This is the main issue that makes me lean to vote Conservative Party in this election, when comparing Liberals and Conservatives). When I hear "Green Shift Plan" I hear "Environment priority, economic question mark."
Good questions!
Josh has been researching it for the past few weeks so he's going to look a little closer and then get back to you.
We need to make the price of items reflect the environmental cost. By taxing the use of carbon, you pass that cost along on items that require more fossil fuels to produce. It’s ridiculous that it costs me more to take the bus to work than it does for me to drive my minivan by myself. The incentive to ride the bus is pretty low when in addition to taking two or three times the time, I don’t even get to save any money. If it is more environmentally friendly to take the bus, then a carbon would eventually cause that to be reflected in gas / bus prices.
The other advantage to taxing carbon is that it helps to localize the economy. It’s crazy that we’re importing beef from the United States, while they’re importing beef from us. It’s even crazier that we’re importing so much from China, when the same things can be made here in Canada. Yes, employment costs are higher here, so in the short term it’s cheaper to manufacture out in China, but as we start taxing imports based on the carbon they use (including shipping), these things start to balance out. Obviously some sort of international system will have to eventually be implemented to make this work better, but doing something is a start.
The Liberals don’t have enough details on their “Green Shift” to really understand how it will effect things, which is a bit of a worry to me. I think that the cap and trade system makes a little more sense to me, since it invokes the market economy to price things out, but it’s nearly impossible to implement such a system in a fair and useful way. Most scientists and economists that I’ve heard from say that either type of system would be effective in reducing emissions (looking at countries that have already implemented such systems).
In the end, we can’t afford to not get in early on the non-fossil fuel based economy. We don’t have near unlimited coal like the U.S. does. Our oil supplies will eventually dry (and sooner if the conservatives keep giving special tax-incentives to the oil companies). By encouraging investment in new technologies and energy sources, we can ensure that when that happens, we’ll have something else to rely on. In the meantime, we’ll have jobs in research and development, and eventually new manufacturing jobs as other countries start looking around for countries that have already done the research. Iceland is enjoying the benefits of selling all its geothermal technology.
At the same time, the oil reserves are a valuable natural resource that we can’t afford to stop producing, but the answer isn’t to pump them dry as fast as we can. Alberta already can’t keep up with all the people moving in. The intensity-based targets allow the oil companies to continue expanding at increasing rates in order to satisfy demands for larger profits and increasing shareholder value. We need to maintain the current rate of production (or even reduce it) until the infrastructure out there can catch up. It needs to be managed as a resource that will be used up eventually, and exploited with caution to make the most of it, not with the near total abandon that we are at present.
You can argue about whether global warming is human-caused or not, and whether global warming would even be harmful to us here, being away from any oceans, and living in a fairly cold climate anyway. The opening of the Northwest Passage would be an economic lottery win for Churchill, and most of Manitoba. I lean towards believing that global warming is happening and is at least partially caused by human pressures. But regardless of how you view that, building our economy on a non-renewable resource is just bad foresight. It was a bad idea back in 1970 and it’s a bad idea now.
I don’t think the Conservative plan is responsible management of the limited resources we have. The other plans have their flaws, but I think they are better starts.
My priority list is pretty similar to yours, but in my mind, the Liberals win out on the economy, criminal justice and the environment. I definitely lean towards restorative justice and away from things like publishing young offenders’ names. Health care is also somewhere on my list, and I don’t like Harper’s record on that.
Thanks for your explanation. That helps, but it still leaves me with a number of similar questions and doubts about the Green Shift idea…
1. With diesel being taxed, the bus system will only increase in cost (the minivan will be more attractive still); and everything that is transported by semi will go up in price!
2. As you allude to, the big reason why our economy is not localized is because of global inequality of wages. The problem with so much importing from China has nothing to do with Canadians underpaying for oil (cost of transportation is always included in the cost of products that are shipped here – those shipping rates are not the reason why such products are cheaper, wages in China are the reason). If there is a problem with us buying too much from China, the answer is simply to make tougher importing taxes, restrictions, fees.
3. As cost of oil goes up already, it just seems like the carbon tax is trying to intensify the problem now, so that it will force people to try to change more quickly toward a Green Economy. But, in my opinion, the better option is not to play with the whole system of the economy right now, but simply to add incentives, tax breaks, funding for Canadian Green innovation. Innovation does not need to be pushed for by added immediate strain on all carbon usage in our economy, in my opinion.
4. Regarding conserving our limited resources of carbon… oil will run out eventually anyway. The market pressures concerning energy will only increase over the next several years. The Innovation field is feeling the pressure to find answers already!
I agree that slowing down the Alberta oil production does make sense, as you say. But that needs to be dealt with more directly; not by a green shift plan that alters virtually every aspect of the economy through tax on everything.
Have the Liberals said anything about limiting the Alberta oil production in a more direct way (other than through Green Shift)?
I know the Greens talked about it, but how are the Conservatives and Liberals different in how they would deal directly with Alberta oil production?
thanks for your thoughts,
I’ve got to go now; happy thanksgiving…
Post a Comment