The Long Slow Betrayal

Here it is. Documented in excruciating detail. The Harper Tories' betrayal of conservative principles. I can add nothing. Please go and read the whole thing over at HuffPost:

The Senate expense scandal is just the latest grievance held by many on the Reform-side of the party, including Rathgeber, who believe the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper sacrificed their core values to become more electable and turn two minority governments into a majority.

Among a litany of complaints and concerns about the Harper government expressed by some members of his base:

Comments

[Cytotoxic]

Why are we afraid of Trudeau again?

[Dwayne]

And the reason the HufPo writes this is to undermine the CPC and its base. Playing into the hands of the opposition isn't the way to fix a problem in a party. That is the way to lose the next election.

I have said it before, we have a mushy central party in the CPC and then we have left (Libs), lefter (NDP), loony left (Green) and traitors (Blocheads for those in Quebec) to vote for. What is a conservative to do? I could complain about how the CPC isn't very conservative, but then again, who is? Who would I vote for?

So, the focus on these stories is to drive a wedge into the right, again. Maybe there will be another Reform movement, and then the Liberals will win majority after majority again! Wow, that would really help, wouldn't it.

[Mikeg81]

I like your blog, but I'm NOT giving traffic to the HuffPo, no matter how many times you ask nicely.

[John Chittick]

The only relevant question is: does Harper make a better centre-left PM than the Spawn of Satan. Growing leviathan at a slightly more restrained rate than perhaps Trudeau might otherwise do, along with a more adult or realistic notion of Quebec's place in confederation, foreign policy, the UN, pseudo-environmental action and willing to throw a few bones at conservatives likely makes Harper the better choice.

Expecting a seasoned politician to actually go against the national majority, and rule as a conservative in the deranged Dominion is expecting too much. Restraining the conservative wannabes in caucus is hard on Party moral but Harper likes his power. Manning may have kept the corruption to a minimum and had more fealty to principles but he never held nor would have held power.

Harper must want to beat the Spawn in the next election and maintain his position as a conservative progressive PM otherwise he might have chosen to use his majority in a more positive way before handing power back to the overt progressives.

[Cytotoxic]

Dwayne: your entire post is an exercise in missing the point. As long as you can't see past your partisan blinders, you ARE the problem. You are the disease of our body politic. People like you are why the US conservative movement went insane and got Obama into power. With that in mind, we will be lucky if Harper is succeeded by someone as benign as Trudeau.

Chittick: you're so close, but you still miss. There is no reason to believe Trudeau would be worse than Harper. The two only differ on Enbridge and drug policy. The former isn't happening anyway and Trudeau is the clear winner on the latter.

Conservatives are truly pathetic losers. The continued 'Harper only hits us because he loves us' sad-sackery is the perfect working symbol of why conservatism has failed for 50 years and always will.

[Dwayne]

Cyto,

I can read a poll, and I can see real numbers from real elections. This isn't a fantasy world were people can actually make a principled stand because they would LOSE! If you think that taking a stand and actually acting conservative would gain re-election think again. The first thing that would happen is the MSM would point and claim that the CPC is acting out its hidden agenda, finally, acting like Republicans. We all know how that rallying cry works on the masses, we don't want to be Americans, do we?

Also, we are not the USA, the CPC does not have a base of nearly 50%, they have a base of nearly 40%. If the looney left every amalgamated into a single party the "right" in Canada would never form a government ever again. EVER. This is the reality of the right in Canada. So providing the Liberal Party with more ammo to woo Green and NDP voters isn't the most brilliant way to get re-elected, is it?

Look at the polls, the Liberal Party with Justin Trudeau would win a majority tomorrow based on nothing more than a good head of hair. Canadian's don't want sound policy or principled stands. They don't want fiscal responsiblity, they want hand outs, and they want their government to "do something" even if that is taking away their individual rights and taxing them to poverty.

It is going to take a long, slow, push to the right. Gentle nudges and a long range policy change to get Canada from "progressive" to actually making progress. You don't get to make that push while you are sitting in the opposition benchs in the HOC. I see a pragmatic approach makes the most sense, from a not losing perspective.

So, if you want to rule, you must compromise. Yup, it is politics. You can take a stand, like Kim Campbell - tell the truth and try and discuss policies - or you can just be Chretien and lie - Axe the Tax and Zero Helecopters (well that wasn't a lie, but it did pander to the base) - and we all know how that turned out.

[John Chittick]

Cyto

I suspect that your dislike of Harper stems from a previously over-invested position in his once vocal, libertarian bona-fides. Canadian political culture along with most Western nations trends centre-left (an idiotic position and one best described as the politics of human ballast). Whomever caters to that demographic while maintaining a base can stay in power.

If the Spawn were PM, stronger caucus members like Joyce Murray would push policies unconstrained such as the slow green suicide of cap and trade.

I wouldn't call conservatives "pathetic losers" but conservatism per se is nothing more than a rear guard losing proposition. Libertarianism is the only new political philosophy to come about in the last three Centuries. That revolution is now in retreat back into the abyss of statism (the work of progressives). Conservatives have positioned themselves as progressives arguably well along the continuum back into the feudal state. Conservatives arguing against more activist progressives (Liberals, NDP) while supporting most of their sacrosanct institutions (public education, transportation, health care, and land and resource ownership) tends to portray hypocrisy if not an optic of surrender monkeys. IOW, conservatives try to defend liberty from an over-compromised position and wonder why they just can't seem to win. This situation is so well etched into the culture that I can't see any democratic means of correction. Nothing short of a new revolution will likely change the situation.

[Cytotoxic]

"It is going to take a long, slow, push to the right. Gentle nudges and a long range policy change to get Canada from "progressive" to actually making progress." *This has never happened. Rightist reform is done quickly or not at all.*

That push is never going to come from Harper anyway because he loves big government, hence the need to get rid of Harper. That means PM Trudeau for a while. Get used to it the Cons are probably going to lose anyway. Again, you miss the point and demonstrate you don't understand politics. C'mon, Dwayne tell us what losers Harris and Klein were and what big winners Hudak and Tory were. You know you wan to. You might fully convince yourself and justify your personality worship. Harper is truly Obama for Canada's Right.

"If the Spawn were PM, stronger caucus members like Joyce Murray would push policies unconstrained such as the slow green suicide of cap and trade."

1) With Harper in charge, stronger (relatively) caucus members like Toews push for warrantless internet tapping and other atrocious policies. For every one from the Liberals at least one from the Cons.

2) I highly doubt the Liberals are going to do that. They had the whole '90s. Trudeau actually wants to win and not have the country blow up on him.

[Cytotoxic]

On second thought, I am really being far too kind to Dwayne here. I should be more of a jerk. Dwayne is a demonstration that partisanship is a mental illness. Arguing with him and his ilk is like arguing with the Keynesians: they are experts in facts of an alternate universe and so immune to the facts of ours.

"So, if you want to rule, you must compromise."

Little news flash there oh Wise-One: we've been doing that for decades now and it has brought nothing but FAILURE. You only bring failure failure failure. One of the few bright spots in N America over the last few decades has been gun rights and progress has been made there because activists did the opposite of what you would have them do. They did not put faith in politics but forced the politicians to come to them. They were uninterested in the 'electability' of candidates they backed. They did not compromise.

[Dwayne]

Ya ya, sticks and stones. I agree with John, you seem to be a bitter Libertarian who feels betrayed by the CPC and PM Harper.

Newsflash Cyto, the CPC are in power and able to do something. Which is more than the Reform Party ever got done. More than any Libertarian Party will ever get done.

Would the gun registry be gone if the CPC were not in power? Would farmers in the praries have the choice of where to sell their wheat if not for the CPC? I don't see failure in those actions, I see success.

Last, an activist has only a single agenda item in mind and does not have to pander to anyone to get elected. Easy job I imagine. Single minded, no compromise. But can they change anything themselves? Not at all. They rely on politicians to make those changes, the same politicians who will see which way the wind is blowing and support, or deny, the activists single goal.