Our benign dictatorship

A pretty good read from way back, when Harper was actually an academic and thought about things. Conservative governments have long had far more 'democratic' programs than the liberals, and under the liberals the claim of 'socialism' is quite apt, as long as socialism means 'corporate' socialism. There are some problems though with Harpers assumptions. He makes most of the same assumptions that most commentators make. First, he assumes that people 'vote strategically', this, to my mind has been a propaganda tool used by mainstream media to give the impression that canadian 'democracy' is more complex (and therefore more legitimate?) than it really is. While it is true that Mulroney won the only popular vote given a canadian government since WW2, the idea that Canadians strategically or definitively turfed out the conservatives is another media problem. This shows just how truly politician's 'play their part' in the grand scheme, so you even had the conservative party bemoaning its own demise, when in fact it received far more support than the liberals did under Chretien in the last two elections. It was the vagaries of 'first past the post' which simply made it look like they had no support since they only had two seats. This is also why you often hear that Harper, or even Day, had no support in Ontario. In fact, if you look at many, many ridings in Ontario the vote was incredibly close, particularly the ones which the liberals one. This is why canadian politics is so fickle, simply because politicians know that their power, even in a majority, is so tenuous. I didn't read the whole article, there are better political writers than Harper around, and his arguments are one sided. It doesn't even mention other factors such as money in politics or organizations, or just how many simply don't take part anymore (if ever). Personally, there ARE some policies, in fact lots of policies which conservatives have which I agree with. Quebec wants more powers, and wants them so badly they will separate without them (although again, the FPTP system rewards the PQ and the BQ with power which would be unsupported in a proportional representation style government). This brings up the real problem of canadian federalism-how do you give something to one province without the rest of them crying foul. I found myself in agreement with many of those arguments above, but again, the trouble is that 'politicians' are not the same as academics and it is campaign supporters-namely corporations, that are running the show. So what we get is what we got when Mulroney was elected-good intentions on some things, ignoring policies on others (elected senate), and bad ideas supported by corporations, not canadians (free trade agreement).

It is an interesting article. I have read quite a few articles by Harper and the tone is quite different from all except one. In fact some of the analysis in this and another article published around the same time have proven to be quite accurate. Note that they claim a Reform-PC alliance might get 30 per cent of the vote -- too little to win an election. Polls have indicated that is about the top support the new Conservative Party seems able to get. Harper and Flanagan set out the strategy they seem to be following of creating a coalition of PCs and Reform and then appealing to Quebec separatists by "a strategic alliance of Quebec nationalists with conservatives outside Quebec" by offering them "autonomy and enhanced jurisdiction." Another statement I found particularly interesting is that they would "have to realize that there is something genuinely conservative in the Tory penchant for compromise and incrementalism." It seems that they were admitting that their party was not "genuinely conservative." At the same time, Harper has narrowed the coalition to only two factions of the old parties: economic conservatives and social conservatives. Does this mean that he has misjudged the complexity of both of the old parties? The most significant statement comes about the "throw them out" strategy they have been using to defeat the Liberals. Harper and Flanagan write that such a coalition "can win an election but can't really govern, because its elements have different aspirations, which have been ignored, rather than brokered." Yet Harper never tried to broker the differences assuming that the "throw them out strategy" would work. This is exactly the reason that Harper's leadership following the merger has not worked: he has not even tried to broker the different elements but simply use the "throw them out" strategy. In fact, Harper has been doing just the opposite by actually rejecting large segments of the old parties including the democratic reformers to which this article seems to be directed. Does this mean that their strategy is only to win an election? They do not suggest how they might govern if elected except by a dictatorship which seems to be how they run the party. They even admit that once the system began to work for them they would want to maintain the status quo. I wonder how they would define "democracy"? It would seem that Harper, in the quest for power, has not even taken his own advice.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] A pretty good read from way back, when Harper was actually an academic and thought about things. Conservative governments have long had far more 'democratic' programs than the liberals, and under the liberals the claim of 'socialism' is quite apt, as long as socialism means 'corporate' socialism. There are some problems though with Harpers assumptions. He makes most of the same assumptions that most commentators make. First, he assumes that people 'vote strategically', this, to my mind has been a propaganda tool used by mainstream media to give the impression that canadian 'democracy' is more complex (and therefore more legitimate?) than it really is. While it is true that Mulroney won the only popular vote given a canadian government since WW2, the idea that Canadians strategically or definitively turfed out the conservatives is another media problem. This shows just how truly politician's 'play their part' in the grand scheme, so you even had the conservative party bemoaning its own demise, when in fact it received far more support than the liberals did under Chretien in the last two elections. It was the vagaries of 'first past the post' which simply made it look like they had no support since they only had two seats. This is also why you often hear that Harper, or even Day, had no support in Ontario. In fact, if you look at many, many ridings in Ontario the vote was incredibly close, particularly the ones which the liberals one. This is why canadian politics is so fickle, simply because politicians know that their power, even in a majority, is so tenuous. I didn't read the whole article, there are better political writers than Harper around, and his arguments are one sided. It doesn't even mention other factors such as money in politics or organizations, or just how many simply don't take part anymore (if ever). Personally, there ARE some policies, in fact lots of policies which conservatives have which I agree with. Quebec wants more powers, and wants them so badly they will separate without them (although again, the FPTP system rewards the PQ and the BQ with power which would be unsupported in a proportional representation style government). This brings up the real problem of canadian federalism-how do you give something to one province without the rest of them crying foul. I found myself in agreement with many of those arguments above, but again, the trouble is that 'politicians' are not the same as academics and it is campaign supporters-namely corporations, that are running the show. So what we get is what we got when Mulroney was elected-good intentions on some things, ignoring policies on others (elected senate), and bad ideas supported by corporations, not canadians (free trade agreement).[/QUOTE] I agree with much of what you say Marcarc. I simply have a problem with your comment that "Quebec" wants more power. I would agree that Quebec politicians want more power, but the average citizen there is just as marginalized as the average Ontarian. In practice, Quebec already has so much power that short of separating, which is a cyclical wish, there really is nothing for Quebec to obtain that could not be obtained in the federal system, short of that symbolic gesture some are looking for.

I'm not so sure of that, although I'm assuming that you must be an imposter pretending to be 'perturbed' if you were agreeing with me<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> I think it would be far easier to get democratic initiatives in a new constitution than it would be under one such as Canada, where it's been over a hundred years. The new countries of the eastern bloc are now more democratic than Canada, this happened by putting in a new political system which meant evaluating various systems around the world. In Canada that isn't even on the table. There's a lot of exitement that goes with something like setting up a new country and Quebec has a more pro-active culture in politics. I do agree with you (yes, it's true) that the average Quebecer is as alienated from their system as most canadians, but in Quebec you at least know that if you have a government which depends on you for that close vote in a referendum that gives you significant power. I think direct democracy tools would have far better chance under those conditions than in canada now.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I'm not so sure of that, although I'm assuming that you must be an imposter pretending to be 'perturbed' if you were agreeing with me<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> I think it would be far easier to get democratic initiatives in a new constitution than it would be under one such as Canada, where it's been over a hundred years. The new countries of the eastern bloc are now more democratic than Canada, this happened by putting in a new political system which meant evaluating various systems around the world. In Canada that isn't even on the table. There's a lot of exitement that goes with something like setting up a new country and Quebec has a more pro-active culture in politics. I do agree with you (yes, it's true) that the average Quebecer is as alienated from their system as most canadians, but in Quebec you at least know that if you have a government which depends on you for that close vote in a referendum that gives you significant power. I think direct democracy tools would have far better chance under those conditions than in canada now.[/QUOTE] Eastern Europe sure, but it is also a terrible place to live if you are used to a western lifestyle.

It depends what you mean. Canada has a higher standard of living, but for it's resource base, population and educational level it is a remarkably poor standard of living. For the vast majority of canadians the standard of living is quite low. When factoring in things like hours worked and job satisfaction I don't think things are getting better. The real issue here though is the relation between political systems and living standards. Canada's system of government has proven to be easily commandeered by 'special interests' -left or right. We are swinging back in the 'right' direction now. I was at the OECD website where they have very interesting statistics. A graph showing personal savings had France and Germany's increasing over the last twenty years, as was even the Japanese except for a blip in the late nineties and once again it is increasing. What was most interesting was that Canada and the US both had radically decreasing personal savings. Now, whether its just because we're spending more (relatively few products are made in Canada) or whether we have far less disposable income can be debated, however, neither is good news. Virtually every progressive statistic has Canada going downward,while eastern european countries have seen theirs increasing (albeit slowly). So the point is that Canada is getting worse with no political powers available to change that, while eastern europe has at least nominal improvements which at least make it possible for change to come from the grassroots. I am no expert on eastern europe, while some areas no doubt are in bad shape, others probably aren't. However, when looking at the environmental hazards which are affecting our bodies from pesticide use, biosolids, GM foods and on and on, a society need only provide decent food, clothing and shelter for it to be better off in my books. As long as living standards are only measured by material goods, then I agree our 'western standards' are higher. However, by other standards we are far far lower. Personally, I can do quite well without all the 'stuff' the west considers wonderful and I'd far rather have a better sense of community, something severely lacking and rapidly disappearing in Canada.

Marcarc, I think you have made some really good points. In fact you have brought up so many issues in a short post that it is hard to focus on one. There is a major problem with how we measure standard of living because it is done by per capita GDP. It tells us nothing about the distribution. A country with high inequality can do very well under that measure. Under the right wing movement (which supports and promotes the growth of inequality) inequality is increasing rapidly in Canada but is not even close to the American levels. There have been other attempts to create a different measures that are quite interesting. One of the major impacts of right wing, free market liberalism (neo-conservatism) is that it is wasteful. It is based on growth at all costs and depends on technological change coupled with planned obsolescence to promote that growth. It is wasteful because we are poisoning our land with everything from biowastes, to the overuse of chemical fertilizers, to pesticides (not just here but in Europe as well). I particularly like the concept of "a better sense of community" which is far removed from the right wing promotion of self-interested individualism.

Don't confuse 'neo conservative' with 'free market liberalism'. Clinton was clearly a free market liberal, I don't think many would have labelled him a neo conservative. I think I mentioned before the concept of Gross Domestic Happiness, there's a conference in June in Nova Scotia in Antigonish with Ray Anderson from "The Corporation" fame. I'm trying to start a website so that I can claim to be 'media' because otherwise they simply want far too much money to attend.

The economic beliefs of neo-conservatism are identical to free market liberalism. The neo-cons simply incorporate religious fundamentalism into the ideology. Stephen Harper is an idealist who idealizes free market liberalism to the point that it becomes associated with views of morality and religion. This is why he has concentrated on a coalition between so-called economic and social conservatives. There is no difference between an economic conservative and a free market liberal in economic policy. Paul Martin and Stephen Harper are very close together in that sense. It is only on religious fundamentalism and the role it should play in government policy that the two differ. Do some research. I recommend "Rediscovering The Right Agenda" by Stephen Harper. Of course, if you have the time and inclination to delve deeper into the philosophical depts of neo-conservatism you will find a much more sinister set of beliefs. I have no idea whether Harper belongs in that level or not, but I suspect he could. Do you have any idea of the cost of the conference in Antigonish?

I don't agree with the previous post, in fact I think free market liberalism is the exact opposite of neo conservative economic policy. If you look at the main creators of american economic policy they are the exact same bunch that was around with Reagan and they enacted similar policies. Free market liberalism is fairly straight forward and I don't think we need to get into that. While many subscribe to it, in practise it is far different. Let's look at the states. They certainly espouse the free market ideology in places where their corporations have the economic advantage, but their neo conservative economic policies they use domestically, which are severally protectionist. We can list them: 1. After the Iraq war the US closes all contract to foreign nations except those hand picked. 2. They offer lucrative contracts to Haliburton without going through the typical contract rendering resolutions. 3. They apply duties to canadian lumber and continue stalling even though every NAFTA tribunal agrees that canada is not dumping. 4. They close the border to beef even though the vast majority of the processing industry is owned and incorporated into the american slaughter industry. 5. They ignore virtually every GATT ruling in respect to Europe, so much so that finally the European union and canada slap them with retaliatory tariffs. This are highly protectionist policies, virtually identical to practises which occurred under Reagan. They realize it will take other countries ages to get court rulings, and as they are the most powerful nation they can simply do what they want. While I am no expert on terminology, the 'neo-conservative agenda' seems clearly protectionism at home and free market liberalism in foreign policy. That doesn't make them the same thing though. The conference is like 900 dollars for regular folks, while students its as low as 300. The website is at:http://www.gpiatlantic.org/conference/conference.shtml

You have actually answered your own objections to my post. It is seldom that the ideology corresponds to the practice. Neo-conservatives constantly advocate "free" or what we might better call capitalist markets. What capitalism advocates is the accumulation of wealth by the most deserving. Theoretically the most deserving are determined by the survival of the fittest in the economic jungle. What you have not factored in to the free market is for political influence. That is the market in which influence is bought and sold just as any other commodity. The favoured corporations have bought that influence through various means generally by supporting the governing party both financially and by providing policy advice, workers, etc. Once you factor in the free market in political influence the whole system becomes easier to understand.

Read "wealth of nations" by adam smith to see what capitalism refers to. Capitalism has never been practices, the closest was Great Britain in the eighteen hundreds and it was quickly disbanded as being completely impractical. My point was that free market liberalism and neo conservatives appear to explain far divergent economic systems. Neo conservatives 'utilize' free market liberalism in foreign policy, but protectionism domestically. Capitalism, like communism or any ideal is never practised, only parts of it.

Most ideological systems are totally impractical. That does not mean that ideologues will try to promote them with disastrous results. Each system, as far as I am concerned, has within it the seeds of its own distruction. I have read Adam Smith and Ayn Rand and others. Like all economic theories they are only as good as the assumptions on which they are based. I would argue the protectionism that you are seeing now in the US is a symptom of the collapsing of neo-conservatism. Where the neo-conservatism of the US differs most from traditional capitalism is the concept of spreading capitalist system by military force. This is reflected in the use of terms such as "freedom" and "democracy" in relation to the invasion of Iraq and the promotion of the morality of the invasion. It is interesting just how supportive Stephen Harper has been of this position: "Conservatives must take the moral stand, with our allies, in favour of the fundamental values of our society, including democracy, free enterprise and individual freedom. This moral stand should not just give us the right to stand with our allies, but the duty to do so and the responsibility to put 'hard power' behind our international commitments." This statement came from an article published in 2003. One wonders if he still feels so strongly about the morality of trying to spread capitalism by hard power. The situation in Iraq is certainly not having a postive impact on neo-conservative ideology because of the flawed assumptions underlying the invasion. Britain was fully supportive of free-market liberalism (capitalism) while it was able to maintain its dominance in the world markets. Once it was threatened by the growth in the industrial capacity of the United States and Europe it backed away. The Americans were heavily involved in globalization, a term not as politically laden as capitalism but meaning the same thing, until India and China reached the levels of industrialization that made them serious threats to the US economy. What you have identified is not neo-conservative ideology in operation but the initial symptoms of its collapse.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc]Capitalism, like communism or any ideal is never practised, only parts of it. [/QUOTE] Perhaps in some purest sense; however, I have a hard time believing that our present global market is not capitalism with a Capital C. The semantics don't interest me as much as the result. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/eek.gif' alt='Eek!'>

SU posted: "I have a hard time believing that our present global market is not capitalism with a Capital C." I would not disagree with you. However, capitalism is based on individual self-interest (greed, selfishness, etc.). Once the capitalist finds that a "free market" system is not in his self-interest he seeks protections. This is why you never get absolute capitalism/globalism because it begins to collapse. In other words, most capitalists only believe in the ideology behind the system when it suits them. We are in the early stages of a global correction which will probably take many years and experience major resistence. One of the reasons that Paul Martin sought to create an international economic government (through the G-20) was to protect global capitalism. Increased protectionism, the reaction against European union, the closing of the US borders, increased nationalism are just four examples of threats to global capitalism. Simply to say that what is now ever will be is to miss the signals.