Odd, isn't it?
When Canada's conservative political party apparatus was overtaken by... actual conservatives via the Reform movement and then once again through the successful merger with the PC party in 2003, it seemed as if finally, Canada was capable of having an ideological debate between two parties that shared noticeably different ideas on how to run the country.
And of course, that never came to pass for a variety of reasons... due to the left-leaning and statist political landscape of Canada which causes the Conservatives to take a cautious approach to change, but also due to the reality that the NDP is even more far-left than the ruling Liberals, and of course because the Liberals can create the mirage of pragmatism or centrism at any moment.
During the 1980s, and this might not have been true in the 1984 election itself when Mulroney unseated Turner, Conservatives seemed to have vastly different ideas than the Liberals. There seemed to be a national debate on a host of issues. A lot of these differences over issues weren't even ideological, since certain Red Tories such as Flora McDonald, Joe Clark, Sinclair Stevens, Ray Hnatyshyn and others were far more left-wing than a number of Liberals, particularly on social issues. The differences included the will to campaign on something as radical as Free Trade, the introduction of the GST, (and the will to campaign on it, since I don't believe that the PC Party intended to lose the next election), and of course the will to have a dialogue concerning the constitution. Mulroney did a helluva lot as Prime Minister, even if a lot of what he did was misguided or boneheaded. On the whole though, his policies eventually paved the way for a balanced budget (GST) and a growing economy (Free Trade). The failure of his constitutional efforts (well maybe the failure, rightly or wrongly of the public to accept his endorsement of those efforts) resulted in the 1995 referendum.
If Stephen Harper becomes Prime Minister, why do I have no confidence that he will actually do significant and important stuff? Sure, it's largely because he's only mathematically capable of running a minority government surrounded by a bunch of raving socialists, but even if he did have a majority, I still think he'd take a cautious approach. Odd that Stephen Harper, the very definition of a small-c, movement conservative, is almost destined to achieve less in office than the Red Tories of the 1980s and early 90s.
The ideological makeup of both the parties has re-aligned to some degree, but the debate and therefore the level of progress has lessened.
Of course, I'd be so happy to be proven wrong once Harper gets elected. It's one thing to have a conservative/Conservative government in power, but what's the point if they don't actually DO conservative or productive things?
Power for the sake of power will result in the just (and rightful) demise of the governing Liberals, but that'd be a pretty petty sense of satisfaction if the Government of Canada is not reformed, radically.
And of course, that never came to pass for a variety of reasons... due to the left-leaning and statist political landscape of Canada which causes the Conservatives to take a cautious approach to change, but also due to the reality that the NDP is even more far-left than the ruling Liberals, and of course because the Liberals can create the mirage of pragmatism or centrism at any moment.
During the 1980s, and this might not have been true in the 1984 election itself when Mulroney unseated Turner, Conservatives seemed to have vastly different ideas than the Liberals. There seemed to be a national debate on a host of issues. A lot of these differences over issues weren't even ideological, since certain Red Tories such as Flora McDonald, Joe Clark, Sinclair Stevens, Ray Hnatyshyn and others were far more left-wing than a number of Liberals, particularly on social issues. The differences included the will to campaign on something as radical as Free Trade, the introduction of the GST, (and the will to campaign on it, since I don't believe that the PC Party intended to lose the next election), and of course the will to have a dialogue concerning the constitution. Mulroney did a helluva lot as Prime Minister, even if a lot of what he did was misguided or boneheaded. On the whole though, his policies eventually paved the way for a balanced budget (GST) and a growing economy (Free Trade). The failure of his constitutional efforts (well maybe the failure, rightly or wrongly of the public to accept his endorsement of those efforts) resulted in the 1995 referendum.
If Stephen Harper becomes Prime Minister, why do I have no confidence that he will actually do significant and important stuff? Sure, it's largely because he's only mathematically capable of running a minority government surrounded by a bunch of raving socialists, but even if he did have a majority, I still think he'd take a cautious approach. Odd that Stephen Harper, the very definition of a small-c, movement conservative, is almost destined to achieve less in office than the Red Tories of the 1980s and early 90s.
The ideological makeup of both the parties has re-aligned to some degree, but the debate and therefore the level of progress has lessened.
Of course, I'd be so happy to be proven wrong once Harper gets elected. It's one thing to have a conservative/Conservative government in power, but what's the point if they don't actually DO conservative or productive things?
Power for the sake of power will result in the just (and rightful) demise of the governing Liberals, but that'd be a pretty petty sense of satisfaction if the Government of Canada is not reformed, radically.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
7:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home