I had some much linking ideas from multiple columns this week I thought I would do it again. First comes a report that Lloyd Axworthy wants anybody-but-Iggy.
...Axworthy says Ignatieff is a creation of "downtown Toronto powerbrokers" who does not understand liberalism, has no common touch and will lead the Liberals to another defeat by robbing them of a policy on Afghanistan that is distinct from the government. Axworthy and Rae say the military mission has tilted too far away from peacekeeping and reconstruction.
And I will link this to an opinion piece in the National Post by George Jonas.
...one could say that Canada's Liberals are merely socialists in slow motion -- and in the last 35 years their motion hasn't even been particularly slow. In fairness, during the same period, socialism-in-slow-motion was also the story of Canada's Progressive ("me-too") Conservatives
...Here's the point. The Liberals have been in power for 44 of the 61 post-war years for a reason. Canada is a liberal country. Not statist, liberal. Unless this generation of Liberal leaders re-discover liberalism, as the Conservatives have, Canada's "natural" governing party may be setting out on a long voyage across the political wilderness.
So the question becomes what is a liberal anyway? Who is closer the correct definition Lloyd Axworthy or George Jonas?
Comments (21)
I think Goerge Jonas is closer to the correct definition and if the Liberals do not rediscover liberalism they will, as he said, enter a long period in the wilderness.
Given their hunger for power will they rediscover this ?
Posted by The Fog is Clearing | October 7, 2006 1:13 PM
Posted on October 7, 2006 13:13
I think that George Jonas has properly defined classical liberalism, and that Axeworthy has properly defined classical Liberalism.
Posted by Olaf | October 7, 2006 1:57 PM
Posted on October 7, 2006 13:57
I believe the one thing that can stop Iggy more than anything else, including his complete lack of experience, is the extent to which Liberalism has taken over the party.
The Liberal party that I know can’t stand the idea of anybody resembling Bush being their leader.
It’s just one of the reasons I can’t understand why the party brass has endorsed him like they have. They must think a new face is what the party needs. We’ll see what the Liberal membership has to say about that face.
Posted by The Cyber Menace | October 7, 2006 3:33 PM
Posted on October 7, 2006 15:33
I don’t know how liberal the Liberals are, but I do believe that the Liberals held power in this country by straddling the centre as much as possible, grabbing ideas from the left and the right as they became popular.
As a centrist who is not a Liberal, I would have rather that the Liberals had grabbed the best policies of the left and the right because they were the best ideas at the time, and not because these ideas were the most popular, but you can’t always get whatcha want.
Posted by James Bow | October 7, 2006 5:02 PM
Posted on October 7, 2006 17:02
Jonas is closer to liberalism as it was, Axworthy is speaking for North American “liberalism” as it is.
This is why we now sometimes use the word libertarian for classical liberal.
Posted by Ben (The Tiger in Exile) | October 7, 2006 5:41 PM
Posted on October 7, 2006 17:41
A liberal is a carnivorous, conscienceless, rodent with a big appetite.
Rattus Liberalis, like its better known and liked cousin Rattus Rattus, is a nonemetic species. One of the particular talents of Genus Rattus is its ability to not vomit, which conveniently allows it to feast on its own young.
Posted by neo | October 7, 2006 8:30 PM
Posted on October 7, 2006 20:30
Let’s not insult decent people. We have conservative and liberal commentators on this blog, and they’re able to disagree with each other while still treating each other with respect.
And, yeah, I’ve seen far too many insults going the other way as well.
Posted by James Bow | October 7, 2006 10:40 PM
Posted on October 7, 2006 22:40
James,
way to rise above the fray.
The ever trustworthy (and occaisionally balanced),
Chester
Posted by Chester | October 8, 2006 12:03 AM
Posted on October 8, 2006 00:03
I agree Jonas has classical liberalism nailed. His thought that the Conservatives have “rediscovered” it is nonsense though. The CPC is dominated by social conservativism and they are every bit as statist as the Liberals. The ends may be different, but state power is still the means.
Posted by Greg | October 8, 2006 7:10 AM
Posted on October 8, 2006 07:10
” The CPC is dominated by social conservativism” I think you’re reading too much Walrus Magazine. That is still on open question though I doubt the CPC is (will be) dominated. But I agree that Jonas’ conclusion is over sold.
Posted by Greg Staples | October 8, 2006 9:09 AM
Posted on October 8, 2006 09:09
The CPC is as classically liberal as a party gets. They just realize — or rather, the PM has realized — that you have to move incrementally. Cut a program here and there, cut a tax here and there, get the population comfortable with the idea of it, and re-cast discourse in the country.
One has to work with public opinion. People were not, are not ready for 2004 platform-style cuts like the proposed abolition of ACOA, for instance. The ground has to be prepared.
Posted by Ben (The Tiger in Exile) | October 8, 2006 9:46 AM
Posted on October 8, 2006 09:46
Sadly, I don’t read Walrus. I am too cheap to go out an buy a copy.
Posted by Greg | October 8, 2006 12:41 PM
Posted on October 8, 2006 12:41
I don’t think Liberals have straddled the centre as much as is commonly assumed. Sure, they love to create that impression, but I believe the country has gone left, certainly since Trudeau. Have Liberals been bound by ideology? No. Does that mean they don’t adhere to one? No.
Posted by The Cyber Menace | October 8, 2006 1:55 PM
Posted on October 8, 2006 13:55
N. Korea detonates a nuke.
Continues work on long range (type II and III) missles, which following the great circle route would go…….that’s right kids, right at us.
Raise your hands if you’re happy the Libs kept us out of the missle defence sheild program. Tied Harper’s hands immeasurably.
Anti-American stupidity of the highest form.
Posted by Chester | October 9, 2006 7:50 AM
Posted on October 9, 2006 07:50
I have my hand raised, Chester. I am glad we stayed away from that money pit. Ya, Ya, I know the Americans didn’t want to charge us any money to join. I have some swamp land for sale you might be interested in, too.
Posted by Greg | October 9, 2006 9:58 AM
Posted on October 9, 2006 09:58
The missile defense shield is, in my view, unlikely to provide us with the necessary security. Certainly it’s clear now that it was never going to be able to overtake North Korea’s ability to build nukes. There are better ways to spend the money, militarily. In the end, we may have to resign ourselves to participating in another war on the Korean peninsula.
Better to spend money on personnel and combat hardware that we know works rather than the missile defense boondoogle.
Posted by James Bow | October 9, 2006 12:27 PM
Posted on October 9, 2006 12:27
James,
are you aware that it was successfully tested over the sea of Japan? A test missle (meant to simulate the kind N.Korea was test firing) was shot down.
In fact the program is by all accounts quite successful.
BTW, its not an either/or proposition in terms of preparing ground troops.
Even if it’s only 50% successful (and all indications are it is much, much higher than that) are you saying that you wouldn’t want the shield if the missles started flying.
As for Socialist Greg - suddenly the left is into reducing government spending, when stopping just one missle from coming in, could save millions of lives.
Posted by Chester | October 9, 2006 1:42 PM
Posted on October 9, 2006 13:42
Is this same Axworthy who wrote the petulant, juvenile “Dear Condi” letter last year? You know, the letter which made his former boss look like an idiot for having elevated such an immature buffoon to cabinet?
Someone boasting the honors of PC, OC, OM, Ph.D, and MA should carry himself with a little more dignity, methinks. Assuming he actually has anything intelligent to say about public affairs.
When I was looking for the letter just now, I found it described as a “bitch slap” delivered to Condi Rice. Indeed.
Posted by Anonymous | October 9, 2006 7:00 PM
Posted on October 9, 2006 19:00
Chester, there are many other things the money could be better spent on that would save even more lives. Aids research and prevention in sub-Sahara Africa, anti-malaria programs, etc. The shield technology is a huge boondoggle and a pipe dream.
Posted by Greg | October 10, 2006 5:49 AM
Posted on October 10, 2006 05:49
centrist n. - a person of disciplined intellect, to whom set notions are anathema, and compromise is the highest good, provided it does not result in any commonly accepted principle not subject to compromise. In making a decision, the centrist is typically not swayed by extraneous considerations such as logic or morality.
The view is delightful up here, above the fray.
I can see my navel on a sunny day.
Posted by Occam's Carbuncle | October 10, 2006 7:57 AM
Posted on October 10, 2006 07:57
centrist n. - a person who is humble enough to realize that nobody holds a monopoly on truth.
Posted by James Bow | October 10, 2006 3:59 PM
Posted on October 10, 2006 15:59