Conservatives and Collegiality
Jan. 9th, 2007 11:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ciroccojLMAO over this one:
Got a call from Marie, who had just opened up her MacLean's and read all about my brother in law Michael (yeah, CR Michael) and had to call to let me know. I'd heard Maclean's was doing an article, but hadn't seen it, so I went looking online. Didn't find Michael's article (will make sure to pick up a paper copy tomorrow... I feel so retro, buying paper news), but I did find this one instead:
Starting the Revolution Without Us
Americans are being told our country is riding a wave of conservatism. The numbers tell a slightly different story.
Aaron Wherry, Macleans.ca | Updated Monday, January 8, 2007, at 04:33 EST
Almost everyone, at one point or another, says they want a revolution. The reasons for this are obvious: Change is good, complacency is bad, overthrowing the British sounds like fun and so forth. It's hard to argue with the basic concept of revolution.
In Canada, though, we have little actual experience with such stuff. A couple hundred years ago, the Americans politely dropped by and asked if we'd like to take part in their revolution, but we couldn't be bothered. Years later, we experienced a few notable skirmishes, but these were so relatively inconsequential that we now remember them merely as "rebellions."
In modern times, we've generally kept out of the fray. We took part in the Industrial Revolution and the Digital Revolution, but skipped both the Communist Revolution and the Carnation Revolution. Of our own accord we stuck to movements like the Common Sense Revolution and the Quiet Revolution - revolutions that were, by their very names, somewhat less than thrilling.
Given our leanings toward the unassuming and gradual, then, it's not entirely surprising that we may have altogether missed our most recent adventure in revolutionary change: the Conservative Revolution.
Writing this month for The New Republic Online, Gregory Levey - a Ryerson professor and former speechwriter to Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon - assesses Canada is no longer the land of weed-smoking peaceniks who want nothing more than to sit in front of the fire each Saturday night and watch hockey. No, we are now a conservative nation - still seemingly obsessed with hockey, but now ready to take on all comers, from Iran to Kyoto to same-sex marriage.
"For the past year, Canada has been governed by a Conservative Party whose policies and strategies might have come straight out of a Republican playbook," Levey explains. "Stephen Harper, who took office last February, has a deep respect for the Bush administration and has introduced a hawkish foreign policy and a very conservative social and domestic agenda."
Indeed, Canada is governed by a man named Stephen Harper. And, yes, this Stephen Harper seems fond of U.S. President George W. Bush and interested in pursuing a largely conservative (if not social conservative) agenda. But whether this has amounted to much of a revolution is another matter.
Consider, for starters, the results of the last federal election. Harper's Conservatives won that day with a little over five million votes, 36.2% of the total ballots cast. Add to that the relatively small totals won by the Christian Heritage, Libertarian and Western Block parties and approximately 5.4 million Canadians expressed predominantly conservative views.
Unfortunately, this leaves the Canadian right about four million votes shy of their counterparts on the left. Combine all the parties that Levery would presumably consider to be even slightly left-of-centre (including the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Greens, the Marxist-Leninists, the Marijuana Party, the Communists, the Canadian Action Party and the Animal Alliance), and you get roughly 9.3 million votes.
Even if we move the Greens to the right side of the ledger, on account of their possible status as social conservatives, this is not a close race.
To put Harper's performance in the 2006 election in further perspective, consider how conservative parties have fared in the six federal elections since Brian Mulroney won an impressive 50% of the vote in 1984. Combining the vote totals for Reform, Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties before the most recent uniting of the right, the results look like this:
1988: 43%
1993: 35%
1997: 38%
2000: 37%
2004: 30%
2006: 36%
By those numbers, and polling numbers virtually unchanged from a year ago, we're no more conservative a country than we were 14 years ago - and actually less conservative than we were in the late-'80s.
Of course, it matters that Harper's share of the national vote was enough to win him power. And it matters what he has done with this power. But even in this regard, he has stopped somewhat short of storming the Bastille.
On Harper's watch, Canadian forces have pursued a more aggressive approach in Afghanistan. But it was the last government's decision to put us there in the first place. And poll after poll (after poll after poll after poll) has shown Canadians to be deeply conflicted about our mission.
Much has been made of Harper's religious beliefs and his corresponding political base, but it's difficult to say what, if anything, this not-very-well-hidden agenda has amounted to. Its most notable moment of 2006 came when Harper, as promised, offered Parliament a chance to re-open the same-sex marriage debate - and MPs promptly opted not to, closing an issue most Canadians seem satisfied with.
If anything, Harper's trademark has been a sort of practical conservatism. While he obviously leans right-of-centre, he is not entirely willing to let stubborn principles jeopardize a party that's still effectively rebuilding itself. Even the PM's use of the phrase "God Bless Canada" to close speeches - cited by Levey as evidence of Canada's turn to the right - was toned down for his New Year's address.
This is the problem with revolution. Though you may have a perfectly reasonable idea, you can't go about revolutionizing even the average high school student council without widespread - or at least pitchfork-wielding - support. And for now, Harper finds himself in charge of population most concerned with trees and polar bears than rewriting abortion laws or bombing various Middle Eastern nations.
None of this is to say Harper isn't capable of great change. He may very well be just getting started. But if Canada is now a "conservative nation" - if, in just a year, Harper has changed everything - it has a funny way of showing it.
Good for a chuckle, if you're familiar Canadian history/politics; probably puzzling if you don't. And BTW, the article sounds a bit like it's making fun of an American who's spouting off nonsense about a country he knows little about, but the laughingstock here is actually a Canadian who'sspouting off nonsense about a country he knows little about expressing views that the author of the article finds amusing.
ETA: BTW, disclaimer here: while I do find the article funny, its contents should be considered the property of the author and Maclean's, and do not necessarily reflect the views of this livejournal ;)
***
In other news, I'm having great fun with my Aboriginal Law class, despite the crushing reading load. However.
Attn: Society for the Prevention of Educational Weariness (SPEW), Overused Academic Phrases Division
Please for to be removing the following words/phrases from the lexicon of the English language:
alienating
authenticating
critique
culturalism
dynamism
futuricity
Hegelian
historicity
humanization
manifestation
necessitate
nuanced
transformation
colonization of the mind
and, of course, the perpetually recurring and unconsciously ironic "alienating intellectualism."
Got a call from Marie, who had just opened up her MacLean's and read all about my brother in law Michael (yeah, CR Michael) and had to call to let me know. I'd heard Maclean's was doing an article, but hadn't seen it, so I went looking online. Didn't find Michael's article (will make sure to pick up a paper copy tomorrow... I feel so retro, buying paper news), but I did find this one instead:
Starting the Revolution Without Us
Americans are being told our country is riding a wave of conservatism. The numbers tell a slightly different story.
Aaron Wherry, Macleans.ca | Updated Monday, January 8, 2007, at 04:33 EST
Almost everyone, at one point or another, says they want a revolution. The reasons for this are obvious: Change is good, complacency is bad, overthrowing the British sounds like fun and so forth. It's hard to argue with the basic concept of revolution.
In Canada, though, we have little actual experience with such stuff. A couple hundred years ago, the Americans politely dropped by and asked if we'd like to take part in their revolution, but we couldn't be bothered. Years later, we experienced a few notable skirmishes, but these were so relatively inconsequential that we now remember them merely as "rebellions."
In modern times, we've generally kept out of the fray. We took part in the Industrial Revolution and the Digital Revolution, but skipped both the Communist Revolution and the Carnation Revolution. Of our own accord we stuck to movements like the Common Sense Revolution and the Quiet Revolution - revolutions that were, by their very names, somewhat less than thrilling.
Given our leanings toward the unassuming and gradual, then, it's not entirely surprising that we may have altogether missed our most recent adventure in revolutionary change: the Conservative Revolution.
Writing this month for The New Republic Online, Gregory Levey - a Ryerson professor and former speechwriter to Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon - assesses Canada is no longer the land of weed-smoking peaceniks who want nothing more than to sit in front of the fire each Saturday night and watch hockey. No, we are now a conservative nation - still seemingly obsessed with hockey, but now ready to take on all comers, from Iran to Kyoto to same-sex marriage.
"For the past year, Canada has been governed by a Conservative Party whose policies and strategies might have come straight out of a Republican playbook," Levey explains. "Stephen Harper, who took office last February, has a deep respect for the Bush administration and has introduced a hawkish foreign policy and a very conservative social and domestic agenda."
Indeed, Canada is governed by a man named Stephen Harper. And, yes, this Stephen Harper seems fond of U.S. President George W. Bush and interested in pursuing a largely conservative (if not social conservative) agenda. But whether this has amounted to much of a revolution is another matter.
Consider, for starters, the results of the last federal election. Harper's Conservatives won that day with a little over five million votes, 36.2% of the total ballots cast. Add to that the relatively small totals won by the Christian Heritage, Libertarian and Western Block parties and approximately 5.4 million Canadians expressed predominantly conservative views.
Unfortunately, this leaves the Canadian right about four million votes shy of their counterparts on the left. Combine all the parties that Levery would presumably consider to be even slightly left-of-centre (including the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Greens, the Marxist-Leninists, the Marijuana Party, the Communists, the Canadian Action Party and the Animal Alliance), and you get roughly 9.3 million votes.
Even if we move the Greens to the right side of the ledger, on account of their possible status as social conservatives, this is not a close race.
To put Harper's performance in the 2006 election in further perspective, consider how conservative parties have fared in the six federal elections since Brian Mulroney won an impressive 50% of the vote in 1984. Combining the vote totals for Reform, Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties before the most recent uniting of the right, the results look like this:
1988: 43%
1993: 35%
1997: 38%
2000: 37%
2004: 30%
2006: 36%
By those numbers, and polling numbers virtually unchanged from a year ago, we're no more conservative a country than we were 14 years ago - and actually less conservative than we were in the late-'80s.
Of course, it matters that Harper's share of the national vote was enough to win him power. And it matters what he has done with this power. But even in this regard, he has stopped somewhat short of storming the Bastille.
On Harper's watch, Canadian forces have pursued a more aggressive approach in Afghanistan. But it was the last government's decision to put us there in the first place. And poll after poll (after poll after poll after poll) has shown Canadians to be deeply conflicted about our mission.
Much has been made of Harper's religious beliefs and his corresponding political base, but it's difficult to say what, if anything, this not-very-well-hidden agenda has amounted to. Its most notable moment of 2006 came when Harper, as promised, offered Parliament a chance to re-open the same-sex marriage debate - and MPs promptly opted not to, closing an issue most Canadians seem satisfied with.
If anything, Harper's trademark has been a sort of practical conservatism. While he obviously leans right-of-centre, he is not entirely willing to let stubborn principles jeopardize a party that's still effectively rebuilding itself. Even the PM's use of the phrase "God Bless Canada" to close speeches - cited by Levey as evidence of Canada's turn to the right - was toned down for his New Year's address.
This is the problem with revolution. Though you may have a perfectly reasonable idea, you can't go about revolutionizing even the average high school student council without widespread - or at least pitchfork-wielding - support. And for now, Harper finds himself in charge of population most concerned with trees and polar bears than rewriting abortion laws or bombing various Middle Eastern nations.
None of this is to say Harper isn't capable of great change. He may very well be just getting started. But if Canada is now a "conservative nation" - if, in just a year, Harper has changed everything - it has a funny way of showing it.
Good for a chuckle, if you're familiar Canadian history/politics; probably puzzling if you don't. And BTW, the article sounds a bit like it's making fun of an American who's spouting off nonsense about a country he knows little about, but the laughingstock here is actually a Canadian who's
ETA: BTW, disclaimer here: while I do find the article funny, its contents should be considered the property of the author and Maclean's, and do not necessarily reflect the views of this livejournal ;)
In other news, I'm having great fun with my Aboriginal Law class, despite the crushing reading load. However.
Attn: Society for the Prevention of Educational Weariness (SPEW), Overused Academic Phrases Division
Please for to be removing the following words/phrases from the lexicon of the English language:
alienating
authenticating
critique
culturalism
dynamism
futuricity
Hegelian
historicity
humanization
manifestation
necessitate
nuanced
transformation
colonization of the mind
and, of course, the perpetually recurring and unconsciously ironic "alienating intellectualism."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 07:49 am (UTC)I'm with you on necessitate and futuricity, though. And Hegelian, since I suspect many of them haven't actually read Hegel. (Nor have I, but I don't use the word except to explain his notion of the master-slave dynamic, which I have read.)