Check out this letter to the editor in the National Post by former Liberal (but still liberal) Beryl Wajsman.
...Over the past 13 years Canada's Liberals -- instead of remaining loyal to the principles of political inclusion and the expansion of economic opportunity --chose the politics of division and exclusion. They got caught up with power for power's sake, and to balance off the money they were spending to get corporate financial support and the votes of special interest groups, they tried to bamboozle Canadians by implementing nanny-state programs that intruded into every aspect of our lives. They kept saying it was for our own good. In truth, it was nothing more than fodder for flyers for the next election.
Indeed.
Comments (14)
Yes, indeed. Now exactly why are the Conservatives doing the same thing?
The only difference I see right now between the Libs and the Cons is the names of the special interest groups…
Posted by Mike | October 10, 2006 7:54 AM
Posted on October 10, 2006 07:54
Yes, now the government is at the bidding of Real Women and Defend Marriage Canada, rather than the NACSW and Egale. Same statist agenda, just new masters.
Posted by Greg | October 10, 2006 8:20 AM
Posted on October 10, 2006 08:20
Bcause funding special interest groups and defunding special interest groups are the same thing?
Posted by Greg Staples | October 10, 2006 8:24 AM
Posted on October 10, 2006 08:24
Gregs, Did I miss a funding announcement?
Are Real Women and Defend Marriage Canada now getting federal funds?
John
Posted by John | October 10, 2006 8:55 AM
Posted on October 10, 2006 08:55
Do not mistake funding and influence guys. All of the groups mentioned want to use state power to meet policy objectives. You say social engineering, I say tomato.
Posted by Greg | October 10, 2006 11:06 AM
Posted on October 10, 2006 11:06
Greg,
I don’t understand this argument.
When Liberals fund their friends to lobby the pubic and themselves its okay.
When Conservatives are lobbied by groups that dont take government money that is still not okay?
This just sounds like more bs fearmongering.
John
Posted by John | October 10, 2006 12:16 PM
Posted on October 10, 2006 12:16
“All of the groups mentioned want to use state power to meet policy objectives.”
Doesn’t everybody.
That’s why small state classical liberalism way is the only way.
Posted by Occam's Carbuncle | October 10, 2006 12:21 PM
Posted on October 10, 2006 12:21
That is debatable OC, but at least it is consistent. I don’t see the CPC as an agent of classical liberalism, but rather of big state social conservativism.
Posted by Greg | October 10, 2006 12:26 PM
Posted on October 10, 2006 12:26
” big state social conservativism”
on what grounds?
Posted by John | October 10, 2006 12:34 PM
Posted on October 10, 2006 12:34
“I don’t see the CPC as an agent of classical liberalism”
Me neither. Not if they want to keep getting elected in this joint.
Baby steps.
Posted by Occam's Carbuncle | October 10, 2006 2:43 PM
Posted on October 10, 2006 14:43
Shhhhhhhhh!, Occam’s Carbuncle. Don’t give up the VRWC secret just yet!
Posted by qwerty | October 10, 2006 7:19 PM
Posted on October 10, 2006 19:19
Hmm, Big state Social Conservatism?
How can anyone reconcile this obvious oxymoron?
Outside of returning Canada’s marriage laws back to common sense, I dont see any “social” conservatism. The big A isnt on the table and wont ever be, and defunding left wing socialist lobby groups and useless programs actually shrinks the states involvement in our lives.
So unless lefty Greg can flesh out an argument instead of making specious claims im gonna call that one a Canard.
Posted by colin | October 10, 2006 7:50 PM
Posted on October 10, 2006 19:50
Sinister Greg is speaking of a different form of statism. We are talking about state intervention on economic policy (well, with a little social thrown in) and he is talking about state intervention on social policy. Both are accepted interpretations of statism so even though we are talking about different things we are all technically correct. My take is that Big Government is a bigger issue than the socons failing to implement their agenda.
Posted by Greg Staples | October 11, 2006 7:45 AM
Posted on October 11, 2006 07:45
State intervention and state involvement are in fact two different things. If you reduce a tax that can be said to be intervention, but it reduces state involvement in the economy.
If the lefties legislate SSM that is State intervention as well as involvement. But by returning to the old definition you are merely “flipping” the same coin.
If you define statism as state intervention then it is impossible for any federal govt to do anything lest it be described as statism.
This is a typical lefty strategy of changing definitions so they dont lose an arguement.
Posted by colin | October 11, 2006 10:16 AM
Posted on October 11, 2006 10:16