Recently someone quizzed me on how a government that engages in radical change and attacks on Nature like Kenny's government can be called Conservative.
I had to tell her that it was not that kind of conservation.
Conservative is more about conserving wealth, power and privilege in the hands of whom has it - or had it recently and still feels that they deserve it.
These would be, as you might imagine, large authoritarian entities such as law-and-order governments, corporations, religious bodies, armies, professionals, even powerful countries.
Conservatives in 1911 fought hard against proposed free trade with the U.S. saying it would tear Canada away from the Motherland, Great Britain. Ties with Imperial GB and her king or queen were where power lay at that time. (As well, of course it wold have opened Canada to cheaper imports from the U.S.. and undermined the profitability of large Ontario manufacturers, the backbone of the Conservative party's financial well-being.)
Seventy years later, the Conservative party pushed through free trade with the U.S. because that was where power now lay. By that time, power lay with the U.S., one of the world's superpowers and soon to be the only one. (It also was a "Trojan Horse" to impose corporate control on Canada, limiting the power of its governments to pursue social agenda.)
While a socialist party ascribes to humanitarian goals (the perceived needs of those living and future generations), a Conservative party sees the need to placate power, to order society based on the dictates of the Bible* the economy (as if it is some kind of god to whom human sacrifice must be offered) and national security. to a large part, these are based on greed and insecurity, which in turn are fired up by the private media.
The fear of the other is strong among Conservatives. A system based on reltention of power is naturally suspicious of anything that threatens that fragile grip. Immigrants from exotic lands, people of colour, Native rights are seen as threats to the needs of corporations and the economy.
In short, every generation re-enacts the struggle of the dis-empowered for human dignity and respect against the rule of the few and powerful. Conservatives are quick to see and fight any appearance of this perennial, sometimes with success much bandied about in the press, sometimes to be forced to yield, always grudgingly and with desire for revenge resting in the Conservative soul. These setbacks experienced by Conservatives, when they happen, are hidden in the records and covered over, replaced in the news by latest sports results, royalty weddings or births, or celebrity gossip.
* Of course, the Conservative movement is as prone to hypocrites as anything else - which means it is prone to a lot. Ralph Klein was never known to go to church, but his Conservative party received many, many votes among church-going Protestants. Reagan was a divorcee married to a divorcee but the sanctity of marriage was one of his touchstones.
We compare this analysis and the historical examples against the following definition of Conservative from the U.S. Conservapedia:
"A conservative is someone who promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all. A conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the logic of the Bible for the benefit of everyone else. A conservative favors conserving value by not giving handouts to anyone who does not really need them.
A conservative typically adheres to principles of personal responsibility, moral values, and limited government, agreeing with George Washington's Farewell Address that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.
Religious conservatism is a big driver of social conservatism. Religious conservatism is growing in the world and it is affecting politics.
A leading conservative U.S. Congressman from 1969 to 2005 urged people to make the world a better place than where they found it, and quoted frequently from the Bible in pursuit of that goal.
Ronald Reagan said, "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom."...
To parse this down we have
A conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the logic of the Bible for the benefit of everyone else...
That is similar to the First past the post system of voting. The largest single voting block is seen as able to represent the interest of all. In Conservatism, the few, the rich and powerful and the interest of the economy are seen as representing the interests of everyone. To put this on the other foot, another might say as we depend on Nature for our lives, a representative that works to protect Nature and the environment serves everyone. or that because the work of our society is done by workers, a politician that serves the workers serves everyone. But some Conservative see these causes as "special -interests" while the needs of the rich and wealthy are considered the needs of all. in fact of course there are more workers than rich and powerful, so that cause is more worthy to be named the general public.
On the other hand a pro-rep advocate believes that all should be represented in due proportion to their voting numbers, not just one single group taking all the representation.
A conservative favors conserving value by not giving handouts to anyone who does not really need them.
Apparently judging by past examples the Conservative perception of whom "really needs money " is different from most people's. When Klein gave $140M to Al-Pac because pulp prices were down (as described in the Wikipedia page "Ralph Klein"), or the U.S. government giving multi-Billion-dollar bail-outs to fat-cats in the banks, they obviously saw need where most struggling families would have seen great wealth.
A conservative typically adheres to principles of personal responsibility, moral values, and limited government, agreeing with George Washington's Farewell Address that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.
Corporations constantly receive subsidies through lower taxes per square footage than small businesses and low wage costs on an on-going basis and to ask for major bail-outs when they find themselves over-stretched in part due to massive salary packages for their top executives. In those times, they are not in favour of limited government. Sarah Hoffman made that point well in the Alberta Legislature one day during the NDP period. When a Conservative MLA asked for more money to be spent on something, she asked if this was one of the days when the Conservatives were asking for the spending of money or one when they were demanding small government and tax cuts.
Of course morality is the base of any good government. Is it moral to shovel government money in the direction of corporations, when homelessness and child poverty is a problem? Is it moral to enlarge our tar sand industry when the ecological danger is becoming increasingly clearer? Is it moral to care for our young and old, our sick and lame? Of course it is, but that is not what Conservative governments do.
Ronald Reagan said, "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom."...
Conservatives with their belief in the Bible (those who do anyway) are actually big on authority, restricting people's rights of same-sex marriages.
They are against looser laws governing marijuana, (Meanwhile, consumption of alcohol, being now a commonly accepted legal drug, is even encouraged by Conservatives, being allowed to be advertized by profit-driven corporations through the mass media and at large publicly-sponsored festivals. if nothing else a alcohol-deadened electorate is more willing to accept the status quo. It may not have been coincidence that the United Farmers were elected first at a time when Prohibition was in effect in Alberta.)
Conservative oppose rights of free assembly and free speech. They are opposed to workers' right to organize while corporations are free to form Chambers of Commerce and industrial councils. They hamper reform parties getting their word out as much as they can by for example banning them from leaders' debates.
Authoritarian government even impose dress codes. Topless women are (mostly) illegal in Canada, wearing too many clothes on French beaches is illegal.
When Abby Hoffman went on TV show he wore a shirt with the U.S. flag printed on it, the TV network scratched out the shirt during his broadcast (One lesson being that symbols are important.)
When a high-ranking Soviet official was in Edmonton, he and his Canadian counterpart each gave a message over the radio. The Soviet's talk was obliterated by the translator speaking at the same time. That is a kind of censorship and that is what Conservatives and the private media do.
A Conservative's approach to power can be seen in this exchange. On U.S.-Canada free trade a Canadian socialist said that that would give the U.S .access to our natural resources instead of them being used in Canada, employing Canadians and Canadians getting return of higher-priced product. A Conservative said but why not help U.S. if they need the resources.
The Socialist rejoined "why help the most powerful country in the world?".
A Conservative says "yield to power" (joined with power, we can lord it over the rest).
A socialist says "take back the power" (to share it among the greater number).
Thanks for reading.
========================================
Comments