Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Ideological neo-conservative does indeed include a strong desire to see capitalism (Randroid?) exist with little or no governmental restrictions (see Ryn). Its non-interventionalist tenets would surely suggest a philosophical outlook that runs ideologically counter to classical socialism.

It should also be noted that American neo-conservatism (and paleo-conservatism) is somewhat philosophically divergent in some key areas when compared to their Canadian counterparts. American neo-conservatism’s doctrinal origins are clearly grounded in its unique historical context. While historians and political scientists are unclear on its specific origins (Cold War, New Left, Vietnam, counter-culture, Great Society) it does vary in its outlook when compared to Canadian neo-cons (who vary in moral issues and do see two-tier social system delivery as a viable option). It is evident that the unique historical developmental conditions (especially during the Regan era) produced a different ideological variant of conservatism in the United States than in Canada.

   

Be careful. You made an erroneous supposition based on reading entirely too much into a small irreverent passage. Put it into the sentence’s context and you’ll likely discover it was a backhanded reference to ONE of the philosophical (objectivism and capitalism) similarities between the two ideologies.

   

I think your crossing some lines you shouldn't Goofz, seems you'll say anything to show your hatred.

   

You'll get used to Godz after a bit, Mustang. He has an untreated personality disorder.

How long do you think it will be until they realise that neo-conservative tenets are largely unworkable, Mustang?

   

Rev,

Arguably, most Canadians DO, in fact, recognize the implausibility, oversimplification and intolerance of most neo-con rhetoric – especially the inflammatory moral garbage. If anything Stephen Harper has been a blessing (pardon the pun) in disguise as his true motives (fundamentalist Christianity) have become increasingly clearer as the same-sex marriage debate moves closer to a resolution. He’s almost single-handily polarized the debate and illustrated the intolerance and bigotry that lies behind a great deal of Canadian neo-con moral initiatives. I think most Canadians do see these ideas as philosophical wishes and largely unworkable in Canada’s society as a whole.

His core constituents will always support it (red-neck, Bible-thumping, ignoramuses), but the silent majority seems to be moving away from the ideological extremes. Want proof? Look at Ontario where John Tory seems more like Bill Davis and less like Mike Harris and this return to Red Toryism could be politically problematic for McGuinty. Moreover, the Globe & Mail recently suggested that many non-Christian religious fundamentalists seem to be losing faith (again, pardon the pun) with Harper’s dogmatic approach to the same-sex marriage debate. Where they originally shared a common theological ground (opposition to a redefinition of traditional marriage) they now recognize that his zealous intolerance may one day be directed at their religious differences. In essence, support his intolerance now and it will be your fight later.

Americans? That’s a different story altogether.

   

I agree with the religious aspects of neo-conservatism chasing a lot of Canadians away. I was thinking more along the lines of their failed economic plans. When neo-conservative governments, or governments with neo conservative leanings, come into power the debt rises and the services shrink.

That happened here in Canada and it happened in the US under Reagan, then again under Bush. It also happens in countries in the developing world that are forced to adopt neo-conservative economic plans through the IMF and World Bank. In the developing world it kills people in a very real way.

So we've been watching this happen for about a quarter of a century now. It's pretty clear that it hasn;t worked yet. We still have think-tanks like the Fraser Institute pushing what are really neo-con ideas though. Groups like that are far more likely to be quoted in the press etc. (usually without mention of their political leanings). We still allow the IMF and World Bank to be used to impose neo-con economic plans on the countries that can afford them least. We still have a strong neo-con component in the political arena.

So how much will it take before we see recognition that these ideas simply do not work and, in fact, cause great harm?

You see a shift in Ontario, but I don't see that shift here or in points west. Instead I see a considerable polarization. What will it take for people to understand?

   

So if Ralph is a neo-con, how do you explain the removal of the debt ahead of schedule? Or the passing of the balanced budget legislation? Petro-dollars, yes, but that was solely due to the unpredicted high world prices. This move was going on for years previously. Money did come from the Heritage Fund, but that was what it was intended for. It is now being topped up with the surpluses. Seems responsible to me. Services shrank in the tight years but some trimming was needed. Not to the extent they did, but it is a fact that the government at any level in this country is not as efficient as it could be. I'm not sure which services you are refering to. Everything I need the govt to do gets done in a timely fashion. I do not use any govt programs, so I can offer no comment on the running of them.

   

Oil. It cannot be denied that Alberta won the lottery. That Alberta gets money from that resource, maintains control over it, also removes that resource from the rest of the neo-con strategies. You can try to spin that anyway you want, but the fact is that they have oil money. The debt was retired in an atmosphere where education funding was cut, social programs were cut, health care spending was cut. I don't know if any any of those programs affect you, SprCForr, but cutting programs like that in a province where there is money is really preying on the weakest in society in order to fund the wealthiest.

And there could have been more money. Alberta's present deal on oil pays them less than you were getting under Lougheed and less than any but the worst deals offered in the developing world. If Ralph would have gotten a better deal, he wouldn't have had to cut all those programs.

Take away that oil wealth though, even at it's reduced levels, and Alberta would have been diving into debt even as they cut much needed programs. Just as we saw under Reagan and are now seeing under Bush. Just as we see in countries that are forced to adopt neo-con strategies and give up control of their natural resources.

   

I actually said it was oil. But where did all the extra money go? Into whose pockets? The governments. It went back into the Heritage fund and reducing the debt. Again, it seems like a responsible thing to me. With respect to Health, Education and Social Services, if Alberta with its access to a pot full of money couldn't maintain those programs, as they were, then who could? The fact that every province had to cut into them to get their spending under control indicates that they were unsustainable. A critical eye at funding those behemoths was needed. For example lets look at the reality of Education in Alberta. Not university and not college. Where it all starts, elementary and high school. In this areas division, small schools and transportation drive the budget. Alberta Learning has made a commitment to keeping small schools open. But there is only limited dollars available. So the price is paid by the larger schools. Bruderheim school is facing closure. Parents and town are up in arms! They must keep it open! A building built for 400 services 137. Space issue aside, do think the students there are getting access to all the programs and learning aid things that are available to students in a larger school 25 minutes away? How economical is that? You can't run, say, Chem 30 with 2 people in a class. You could add them to the big school with a class of 15, and use the money from the extra 2 coming in to benefit all. So that school division takes funds that could be better used else where to keep a school open even though it severly limits a childs options. For the wealthiest, they send their kids to the big school, bus or not. Closing the school and bussing all of them to the large school makes sense. But parents are demanding that the school stay open and the pols are afraid to be seen doing something unpopular. They have left it to the school division. So there is waste. This is one small example in just one area where the govt could better spend its limited dollars in a more efficient manner. Emotions are ruling here. Not common sense.

Alberta without oil is like BC. There is just more valley floor. They were economically sound for years and are returning there once again.

   

So you think that starving yourself to pay the mortgage off a little early is a good idea. There were, and still are, old people literally going hungry in Alberta. There are working people living in homeless shelters. There are disabled people trying to survive on next to nothing.

I don't think that's acceptable anywhere, but Alberta is the single province with the cash to actually fix things. That Ralph refuses to to do anything about them has to do with him dogmatically clinging to a set of failed policies because he considers corporate wealth more important than people. He won't even take steps that won't cost the government money, like raising the minimum wage to reflect the true cost of living.

   

Wait a second – Stephen Harper is NOT a fundamentalist Christian?!?? Say what? You are kidding right? If you are that politically unaware than you are beyond my help – it’s not my role to educate the chronically uninformed.

Harper is an evangelical Christian – his recent comments on the same-sex marriage issue suggest that his leanings are more theological rather than constitutional. His constant reaffirming of “traditional marriage”, anti-abortion stance, anti-homosexual innuendos and his idiotic scare tactics that erroneously suggest that once marriage is federally redefined to include same-sex couples that Canada will become a new Sodom and Gomorrah with polygamous unions and other deviant behaviour reigning supreme is pure bunk and it reeks of religious undertones. This is NOT part of religious agenda? Please.

Moving on,

Harper wants to LIMIT homosexual rights by prohibiting them the right to label themselves “married.” It’s akin to “separate but equal” and that’s inherently legally and morally wrong. Marriage is a contemporary secular act – the state marries people. It ultimately issues the licence that recognizes the union. The church? It only presides over the ceremony - in fact, one currently doesn’t need the church’s approval or its endorsement to become legally married - they can visit a judge as an alternative. So is marriage an act of state or religion - state. Besides, marriage is an ever-evolving concept and now you are seeing Canadian society pushing for yet another incarnation. Deal with it.





What?!? The Soviet Union collapsed due to neo-conservatism? That’s it? Really? Why not provide the tangible, irrefutable, academically verifiable historical information that illustrates this assertion. Secondly, Poland became free as result of ideological neo-conservatism? Again, where’s the evidence? Where indeed is the historical analysis that supports this notion as the primary contributor and not to other historical factors as well?

   

I’ll repost this earlier tract for clarification purposes:

Simply put, neo-conservatism is a relatively new (although some have argued it is merely a periodic blip on the ideological radar) philosophical phenomenon that emerged in the early 1980s in the United States, Great Britain and Canada as an ideological outgrowth of classical conservatism. Some political scientists see strong Straussianism influences whereas others put Kristol’s work as a major contributor – many have also noted strong cultural differences among Canadian and American philosophical brands.


Ideologically, it stresses 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 (bottom line)

M1.

   

Knock Alberta all you want.
Knock Ralph all you want.
Someone from the province of Manitoba giving Albertans advice on economics is very ironic.

If we marketed our oil the same way they do their power we would be getting $8.00/barrell after we gave all the big corporations their subsidies.They sell their power at cost and make up the shortfall through equalization payments from the "have" provinces and because of this gravy train there is no incentive for Manitoban's to conserve and they should learn soon,their the worst polluters in Canada per capita. The one tonne challenge will have to be doubled for anyone in Manitoba.

Here's a link that shows how Manitoba could become debt free and a "have" province if they so chose to do so.

Debt free Manitoba

Or they could continue to expect the prosperity of the "have" provinces to keep paying for their wastefull lifestyle. With kyoto coming onstream people are going to be wondering where all the dollars are going now.

The gravy train is over,time to be accountable and responsible.
Once Manitoba cleans up its act Alberta can take the difference in equalization payments made to Manitoba and start useing them to fix the problems that the good rev says we have because of our economic policies.
Or maybe invest in some carbon credits.

The future looks good,no debt hanging over our heads.
We made mistakes,we learned.
Education for everyone coming soon,yet "jelousy" still rears it's ugly head.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next