I was struck by something reading this column by Lawrence Martin this morning.
...If there is solace for Mr. Martin and his party, it is in the knowledge that the country did not abandon them philosophically. The election was again a triumph of the centre in Canadian politics, this time the conservative centre. Mr. Harper has moved there. What we may well see is his pan-Canadianism supplanting the continentalism of Brian Mulroney.
"the conservative centre" - is this new or has it always been this way? It seems to me that the Trudeau government did not occupy the conservative centre. It can be agrued that they did take a right-ward turn after the majority win in 1974 but any government that saddles the country with that level of debt cannot be considered conservative (before you go there, on this account George W Bush is lightyears from conservative). Although government deficits barely grew under Mulroney he didn't curb the growth of the government either.
But now you have the only Liberal leadership candidate (so far) in Martha Hall Findlay espousing the virtues of fiscal conservatism - as does Belinda Stronach and Scott Brison. I assume Ignatieff would take a similar position. Even the NDP talks about "better balanced budgets".
It seems to me that the Reform Party, although never reaching the zenith politically, managed to do quite a bit to shift the political ground in Canada. But there is more than that. Bill Clinton announced that the era of big government was over (if only), Tony Blair's third-way moved to the squishy middle, John Howard reversed politics in Australia where instead of the Liberals eating their leaders it is Labour in disarray.
How did we get here?
Comments (9)
Where exactly do you think we are? Welfare state intact. Nanny state intact. High taxes. Hyperregulation. “Tolerance” and “diversity” all we can muster for “values”. If this is the centre, I’d hate to see socialism. Harper has a ton of work to do.
Posted by Occam's Carbuncle | March 16, 2006 9:23 AM
Posted on March 16, 2006 09:23
Fair enough. Maybe it is an attempt to redefine “conservative”.
Posted by Greg Staples | March 16, 2006 9:37 AM
Posted on March 16, 2006 09:37
How did we get here? Easy — we had a government that was open about public finances.
And left-leaning political parties finally found out how much government was paying on debt and interest, which was a LOT higher than they had expected. And they realized that if they wanted the programs they planned to introduce, they would need fiscal room to pay for them.
Posted by PhantomObserver | March 16, 2006 9:41 AM
Posted on March 16, 2006 09:41
Lawrence Martin should remember that it was Chretien and Martin who dined, indeed feasted, on the free trade fortune handed down to them from Mulroney. Harper is as much feasting on Mulroney’s success as he is Chretine’s and Martin’s.
Posted by The Monarchist | March 16, 2006 11:05 AM
Posted on March 16, 2006 11:05
I don’t think it’s practical to put so much weight on conservatism as being about “balanced budgets”. Liberals balanced the budget by overtaxing and disinvesting in the military and downloading on the Provinces… that is not conservatism.
On the other hand Bush cut taxes in a 2001 moribund economy. By leaving more money in the hands of consumers that revived the economy and stock markets. He had to spend on terrorism just like Reagan did on the Cold War with the USSR. Reagan also cut taxes, spent on the military and ran up the deficit. The Dow Jones was 1000 in 1980, today it’s 12,000. It’s not just deficits and debt, what about assets? What about the total balance sheet?
Agree, we need to rethink conservatism, with the reality of the cost of terrorism and our demographics in mind. Canadians are dreaming if they think they are going to get smaller government. How can this happen with baby boomers retiring and at the same time their heath costs going through the roof? Also, it will be expensive for Canada to have a meaningful Foreign Policy backed up with some military capability.
Sometimes I think conservatives are as unrealistic as the socialists.
Posted by nomdenet | March 16, 2006 11:53 AM
Posted on March 16, 2006 11:53
Whatever helps the left justify their loss - seems like they are pulling at every straw in order to make sense of it!
Posted by Alberta Girl | March 16, 2006 11:54 AM
Posted on March 16, 2006 11:54
“Canadians are dreaming if they think they are going to get smaller government. How can this happen with baby boomers retiring and at the same time their heath costs going through the roof?”
Perhaps those of this rather prosperous generation who are able should pay for their own health care insurance. Just a crazy notion. And health care isn’t the only place where the government could do with a little shrinkage. We could start with the gun registry.
Posted by Occam's Carbuncle | March 16, 2006 12:50 PM
Posted on March 16, 2006 12:50
“Perhaps those of this rather prosperous generation who are able should pay for their own health care insurance. Just a crazy notion. And health care isn’t the only place where the government could do with a little shrinkage. We could start with the gun registry.”
I agree with OC. This way, when the medical bills come due, the sick will have ready access to firearms. ;)
Posted by Greg | March 16, 2006 2:17 PM
Posted on March 16, 2006 14:17
En fuego…you’re en fuego. You better bring it on the Hotstove. I picked up another knuckle-dragger to fill in for James Bow. ;)
Posted by Greg Staples | March 16, 2006 2:20 PM
Posted on March 16, 2006 14:20