Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Harris lifted the innocuous term (for his “Common Sense” Revolution) and it's now forever destined to remain a pejorative phrase here in Ontario as his policy initiatives and subsequent implantations were anything but.

The problem with Harris and Klein and their neo-conservative ilk is that they are ideologues. Their rigid adherence to their philosophy (which is somewhat cruel and spiteful in its overall outlook) prevents them from altering a course of action even if variables arise that hinder it. Essentially, they’re ideological extremists who could care less about humanitarian efforts (poor, mentally ill, school children)and more about implementing their ideological pigswill (crap that would make Rand jealous). Hell, Flaherty actually proposed sending homeless to camps in Toronto if they didn’t vacate public streets! Neo-conservatives are vile, gutless, ignorant pieces of anti-intellectual trash – I hope Harris’ political misadventures forever destroyed any respect for this garbage in Ontario (hopefully Klein’s brand of politics will soon see the end of days).

Oh well, now the neo-cons have turned their attentions onto the crusade ridding society of the “amoral lifestyle choice” people’s (enlightened people refer to them as homosexuals and lesbians) right to marriage. If they’re not messing up economics, their misinterpreting societal norms…but at least they’re consistently hopeless.

   

Hi Stang,
What is a neocon?

   

Hey Mustang feel free to tell us how you really feel.
Ontario has had all 3 forms of goverments in the last 15 years.
So what would you prefer?
Mean=Harris
Shared poverty=Rae
Liar=McGuinty

   

Ralph is simplistic, I agree. He can be abrasive, no argument. The price of oil has certainly contributed to this provinces financial well-being, but so has fiscal responsibility. It's pretty safe to say that the economy over all is doing quite well here. So it's time to pay the people back. George and Martha (the two average Albertans Ralph refers to)need to see substantial progress in improving their overall quality of life. Tax breaks to big business and building newer arenas don't count. What I would like to see is the people rewarded for their belt tightening and some obvious errors corrected (like power dereg). Things like updating schools (not the universities/colleges but elementary and High school) are a great place to start. I mentioned previously the removal of all user fees for any service. Cancel health care premiums.

Basically bring the PC's toward the centre a bit more. The Libs/NDP/SoCred are a waste of oxygen here, they all run to polar opposites on anything the PCs propose. It's so predictabable. They need to get some thought into a viable workable alternative to the PCs to even hope to have a chance. I don't see that happening anytime soon. I agree with Freds "common sense seems to be gone". The party that can demonstrate simple common sense to the grass roots level will sweep this place. That was, after all, Ralphs cunning plan back in the day. Maybe the next heir apparent will recognize that fact.

Don't even get me started on the whole pork barrel thing! ugh!

   

Hi, Fred. Neo-con is short for neo-conservative. They are aactually not conservative at all, and are actually called neo-liberals on most of the planet. They believe (and their behaviour is very cultish) that everything should be for profit and run by corporations...the larger the corporation the better.

The neo-conservatives in the Bush administration have close ties (often founding memberships) to a group called Project for a New American Century. This group has been been calling for the invasion of Iraq since the Clinton administration. Read their work and don't forget to check out the membership list. It explains a lot. It's also scary as hell.

   

Fred,

Simply put, neo-conservatism is a relatively new philosophical phenomenon that emerged in the early 1980s in the United States, Great Britain and Canada (not Mulroney – he’s a classical conservative) as an ideological outgrowth of classical conservatism.

Ideologically, it stressed the following:

1. Self-interest approach to geopolitics
2. Tax cuts – “people should allowed to spend money as they see fit”
3. Trickle down economic principles
4. Morality – it is the role of the government to set/enforce moral standards (in the United States this component can be seen through significant faith-based initiatives). This is why abortion, same-sex marriages are persistent policy planks in neo-con platforms
5. Religion – see above. This can vary between ideological variants. For instance, Harper is clearly a religious (fundamentalist Christian) neo-con (although some argue that this is an inherent trait anyway) whereas Harris was predominantly an economic neo-con. George W. Bush? That is an easy one.
6. Two-tier social services delivery – a belief that the private sector (motivated by profit) can deliver basic social services (health and education) just as effectively as government agencies and sometimes at a fraction of the cost.
7. Deficit and debt reduction – not the principle, but the process. Often they gut the social welfare system (due to its large expenses) or they download its delivery responsibilities onto municipalities or the public sector. They are less concerned with the consequences to society as they are with practicing good business practices (bottom line)

I hope that helps

   

Dan,

Harris – blatant ideologue. From the 407 debacle to his inability to deliver a promised balanced budget (he borrowed money to pay for tax cuts!), he basically left the province in worse shape than the one inherited from Rae.

Rae – shifted from moderate socialist to Red Tory. Tried to please too many and ended up alienating his core constituency (unions). He’s better suited to intellectual pursuits (he has been a visiting professor at U of T) and besides; he didn’t have a true mandate, as his electoral victory was one that was primarily based on a protest vote.

McGuinty – give him some time. He’s a liar? Well…isn’t that par for the course in matters of politics? He’s inherited a slew of garbage from the previous Harris/Eves conservatives, and has yet to fully address these shortcomings. It may get worse before it’s over.

And that’s how I really feel. Any questions?

   

I'd argue that Mulroney was on the road to being a neo-con, Mustang. He liked trickle-down economics; believed in tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations (these guys never really cut taxes for the working class); fought hard to gut our social safety net in the name of debt reduction; and pushed to privatise whatever he could.

He may not have bought into the religious/morality thing, and he may not have been fully successful in what he wanted to do, but he was certainly headed that way.

   

This neocon thing looks pretty scary to me. Hey sapper I think one of the reasons we have such a bleak poltical landscape in Alberta is the lack of a creditable opposition. It seems the pattern for the Liberals is to take whoever loses the PC party leadership convention and then have Ralph stomp them at the polls in a provincial election. The press here basically seem to have thier heads so far up his alcoholic anus they need a snorkel to breath. Power deregulation definately sucks. I feel you are right about a common sence candidate being able to do well.
Thanks guys for explaining this neocon thing to me. Sort of reminds me of inflicting Victorian english society on the world.
Cheers
Fred

   

Yes I understand lying is a matter of politics.But name a goverment that has not inherited a mess?Provincal or Federal.
McGuinty's biggest problem is his lack of guts.He has spent most of His term so far blaming everybody else.Harris,Eves,Federals,Unions,etc,etc
He is the reason for a minority federal goverment right now.(I am not saying that is good or bad its not the point).His first budget was a mess.I maybe a right winger but to actually charge a higher percentage to the lower income workers for that Health Tax is such bullshit.Everybody knew there was a defiect before He took office yet He still stayed on the "Not gonna raise them either."
Teachers and Nurses are still fighting Him same ole same ole.And these are the very people that got him in.
This may start a shit war but if Eves had not turned the debates into an American style of name calling I think He would have won.And if Harris had ran again He would have whipped McGuinty again.McGuinty is not a strong leader and gets pushed around by those people that are.Hampton can't win but He was by far the best during the debates of the last 2 elections but Harris was able to show that McGuinty was weak.
This time round we are seeing that Harris was indeed right about that

   

Firstly, while all governments do indeed inherit some messes, some are saddled with larger ones than others – example: McGuinty’s inheritance of Harris/Eve’s mismanaged fiscal disaster.

Really? Would an individual with a “lack of guts” promulgate legislation that included a healthcare premium? Besides, isn’t that a direct response to Harris’ idiotic and incompetent attempts at fiscal management?

He’s blaming everyone? That’s hyperbole. What unions has McGuinty directly singled out as a blame for the government’s economic woes?




No he’s not. I am extremely interested in how you arrived at this rather overreaching conclusion – perhaps you have some analysis you’d like to share?



No, they’re not. Teachers deal with school boards and not directly with the provincial government. Teacher/other civil servant negotiations follow basic protocols and conventions that usually contain a fair amount of rhetoric from both sides. Don’t be swayed by it nor assume it’s genuine in its message.



Eves could have won?!? Huh?!? You are kidding, right?!?!? That’s pure, unadulterated wishful thinking that certainly isn’t reflected in legitimate post-election analysis (don’t confuse Harris’ intellectually juvenile hardliner stances with “leadership”). People sent McGuinty a mandate that included removing the Harris/Eves neo-con ideological simpletons from office. It was a clear electoral decision that was over eight years in the making. People correctly concluded that Harris/Eves had NOT improved the province (the made it markedly worse) nor had they pragmatically delivered (often it was rushed and undemocratic –municipal amalgamations?) their policy initiatives that were highlighted in the original “Common Sense Revolution” platform. People didn’t want Eves. The “American” style of campaign tactics is merely a cheap rationalization tactic designed to obfuscate the electorate’s dislike of Eves and his predecessor’s policies – it wasn’t some situational deviation, anyway – that was ALWAYS the neo-con method, but you are compartmentalizing it instead of recognizing its inherent characteristics. Besides, why did more people vote against Harris in the 1999 election? If his message had resonance, why did he lose the popular vote?

   

Rev_Blair and Mustang,

An important criterion you've bother overlooked in your definitions of neocons; they're usually former businessmen/women who have forsaken that life to enter politics. Belinda Stronach is a prime example. Otherwise, you've defined the term better than I could have.

Ernie Eves lost the damn election as people were sick of the Common Sense revolution. Eves was going to continue on in the Harris tradition of short-term gain for long-term pain. He was going to hock the LCBO, a fantastic cash-cow for Ontario, he was going to sell off the road-side gas-bar/rest-stops and who knows what else to be able to 'balance' his budget.

Dalton McGuinty offered Ontario what they wanted to hear: We will govern you from the centre. Ontario dutifully elected him based on that. And so far, he has delivered a centrist government.

It's also simplistic thinking to whomever posted that McGuinty cost Martin the majority government. I didn't see Martin sweeping Quebec, the maritimes or westward. Ontario RESCUED the Liberals. Why? Because Stephen Harper believes too much in Jesus and regulating uteruses. Martin threw out the attack ads labelling Harper as a scary Christer AND IT WORKED. And guess what? Stephen Harper IS a scary Christer! He's a lot like Patrick Swayze's character in Donnie Darko.

Vive le liberals!

   

Hey Rev,
Neither Mulroney’s ideological predilections nor his overall policy initiatives/actions suggest that he represents a true philosophical neo-con. His ideology more closely resembles a milder (or moderate, depending upon the viewer) Burkian classical conservative (with a cultural Canadian flavour) nature rather than the more rigid, doctrinaire brand of far-right politics.
You are correct that he did possess elements of the paticular ideology in his brand of conservatism – especially, the corporatist approach. He lacked, however – during his Prime Ministerial tenure – the major defining characteristics of neo-conservatism like religious/moral or entirely faith-based worldview that is often manifested through related legislation, the total gutting of a social safety net, and there is little historical evidence that suggests that he saw Canadian geopolitics through a decidedly self-interest lens.
Was he a conservative? Absolutely. Was he a neo-con? No, but he did share ideological component with its philosophical relative, but Reagan and Thatcher would be better contemporary examples of textbook neo-cons.

   

Fred,

We do need a viable opposition here in AB. There are no solutions with them, just yelling that the PCs are wrong. They fail miserably when it comes to determining what Albertans want and need. These groups are too wrapped up in themselves to really know, so election after election they continue to fail. When groups like Canadian Taxpayers Federation are the only ones providing a critical analysis of government policy that is not completely self serving you know you're hurting. However, there does seem to be a shift in the view of some of the younger MLAs within the PC. Ours is one of them. He is frequently at odds with the party line and with Ralph seen more and more as a lame duck, I think you'll now start to see some fighting for control within the Alberta PC party.

Will the MacKay/Stronach love fest develop into an attempt to marginalize Harper? This has too much potential to turn into a cheesy soap opera. Maybe we can get Dayseed or Mustang to conjure up a hilarious parody. Maybe if I ask nice. Please? with sprinkles? lol

Mustang: Good summing up of Mulroney.

   

Mustang:

I think Mulroney would have headed straight for the faith-based initiatives if he would have thought that it could have helped instead of hurting. That wasn't going to sell in Canada, especially back then. There seem to be a lot of neo-cons who seem to be religious zealots more out of convenience and political expediency than any true faith.

Mulroney's willing to embrace free trade, which is really the thing that defines him most, goes against what classic conservatism has always stood for in Canada.

You are right, he's not a full-blown neo-con. He was getting close though, and I think he has moved more that way since he was chased out of office.

That sounds like a dandy thing.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next