Liberal or Conservative... Whatès the differnece.

[KAI]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

A small tip from the annals of winning friends and influencing people: this was a friendly discussion before you came along. Frankly, the whole "all politicians are sleazebags" thing I hear from twentysomething political know-it-alls all the time is just a cliche--a nice-sounding justification for not participating in a political process that needs your participation in order to work. But never mind--go back to your cynicism--I'm sure it's needed somewhere.

As for outcomes--I don't think anyone here has claimed that either party or either political system is perfect. There are sleazeballs everywhere, which is why a system that lends itself to pragmatic government, where government is drawn to the center and feels the need to respond to the will of the people is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.


It sounds like what you crave is a true ideologue--and to some extent I agree. Ideologues are necessary for advancing the political culture, for creating paradigm shifts and changing the conversation, and so forth. The last great ideologue in Canadian politics was probably Preston Manning, and one way or another he has had a deep impact on the political landscape. (can't stand the guy, but you have to give him props for that) Before that, Trudeau was an ideologue, and so was Tommy Douglas. Harper is a pragmatist, and so were Martin, Chretien (also a sleazebag), Campbell, Mulroney (also a sleazebag) and any number of Canadian PMs since confederation. That's why I commented that by and large the Canadian polity is pragmatic--and that living in the U.S. has taught me the value of practicality over ideology.

Glad you found it to be a "gem."

You have to be kidding. Iknow this is Alberta and we love our hard core conservatives. But Presten Manning and the reform push didn't have much of an impact at all outside of Alberta.

[KAI]

Originally Posted by jonesy

One party is enlightened, wise, benevolant and forward thinking.
The other party is backwards, dimwitted, greedy and inward looking.

The trick is deciding which one is which......

It all depends on what mode the public is in.

[Slava]

OK, I tried to stay away from this one, but couldn't help myself. It got to the second page though!

Preston Manning brought no new ideas to the table. I know that I'm going to get hammered for this, but that is the reality. The Triple E Senate (agree or disagree) was not his idea. Most of the policies were not anything new...many were old social credit policies, or PC policies. Some ideas were things that came from the US, or other populist movements abroad. Fact is though not much was new here...it was a protest movement. As soon as the "protest" was over they had to join with an established party to make headway.

The Liberals and Conservatives have a lot of difference between the two. The Liberals are the party that governs Canada. They are recognizable by their long terms in office and shaping our nation (if you still liked me after the Preston Manning comments, than the love is probably lost now!)Sometimes they need to be kept in line and thrown out for a term or two, and that is when the Conservatives get a term.

In all honesty though, the conservatives are generally more socially conservative...fiscally there are a few differences as well in terms of the priorities of their spending.

[KAI]

Originally Posted by Slava

OK, I tried to stay away from this one, but couldn't help myself. It got to the second page though!

Preston Manning brought no new ideas to the table. I know that I'm going to get hammered for this, but that is the reality. The Triple E Senate (agree or disagree) was not his idea. Most of the policies were not anything new...many were old social credit policies, or PC policies. Some ideas were things that came from the US, or other populist movements abroad. Fact is though not much was new here...it was a protest movement. As soon as the "protest" was over they had to join with an established party to make headway.

The Liberals and Conservatives have a lot of difference between the two. The Liberals are the party that governs Canada. They are recognizable by their long terms in office and shaping our nation (if you still liked me after the Preston Manning comments, than the love is probably lost now!)Sometimes they need to be kept in line and thrown out for a term or two, and that is when the Conservatives get a term.

In all honesty though, the conservatives are generally more socially conservative...fiscally there are a few differences as well in terms of the priorities of their spending.

The fact of the matter is that no matter which party is in power, liberal or conservative, at any given time both parties would do the same thing. As the oppositon they complain that they would be doing a better job and they would do this and that. But when it comes down to it we have two parties converging in the middle, leaving Canada with no new ideas or initiatives. The liberals may have "shaped the country" but in retrospect we would probably be in the same place if the conservatives would have enjoyed the same longgevity.

[Slava]

Kai, I disagree with this, and the recent past provides us with a few examples...right now we would have troops in Iraq if the Conservatives were in power. I think that is a rather major difference right there!

[KAI]

the conservatives are in power and there are no troops in Iraq...I guess then you might say that it is because of the minority government. The reason the old PC and Alliance merged was so they could ofer a viable opponent to the Liberals, and they know very well that the only viable opponent is one that is not that different. And that is way Harper would never go into Iraq, minority or Majority government.

[Slava]

Well when the debate was on about Iraq I believe the conservatives were wanting to send in troops...so that is where I base that comment.

[llama64]

I laugh my ass off whenever people start talking about the "lefties" in the Liberal party. Soon as the Liberals get categorized as a "leftist" leaning party, I know the person speaking has little to no grasp of Canadian politics. The Liberals (note the capitalization) are a party built to govern. Their platform is whatever garners them the most votes come election time. Social programs are ripped from the pages of the NDP while fiscal policy are adapted from the Conservatives (PC, Reform). In the end, a Liberal majority government constitutes the amalgamation of all the political parties ideas into one framework. This is why Canada keeps voting for them.

However, they need to be booted from office every now and then to clean out the upper levels and refresh their membership. We are in that cycle now. Once the Liberals gain a competent leader who knows more words then just "green" and "kyoto", they will retake a majority.

This is just how Canada works and I don't think there are any signs that it's changing anytime soon. I'm just hoping Harper can carry through on his promises to solidify an election time frame and reform the senate before the window passes.

This all said, the somewhat stable minority government we have going right now seems pretty effective to me. I kinda like it.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well when the debate was on about Iraq I believe the conservatives were wanting to send in troops...so that is where I base that comment.

Yes, this is correct. If Harper was PM in 2003, Canadian soldiers would have participated in the Iraq war. Harper, then serving as Leader of the Opposition, even went so far as to write a letter published in the Wall Street Journal apologizing on behalf of Canadians for not participating in the war and calling Chretien's decision not to involve our troops a "serious mistake". (Hindsight, of course, proves the Liberals right and that this was anything but a serious mistake but instead a very wise decision).

Harper has also said, with respect to the Iraq invasion, "We should have been there, shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies."

It's easy to look at the debacle that the Iraq war has become as the reason Harper didn't send troops after taking power in 2006, but had he been PM in 2003 instead of Chretien, our military would have been involved in that mess.

[edit]
Here's the text of the letter written to the WSJ:

Canadians Stand With You

By STEPHEN HARPER and STOCKWELL DAY

Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations.

This is a serious mistake. For the first time in history, the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need. The Canadian Alliance -- the official opposition in parliament -- supports the American and British position because we share their concerns, their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to, and their fundamental vision of civilization and human values. Disarming Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of the world, and for the collective interests of our key historic allies and therefore manifestly in the national interest of Canada. Make no mistake, as our allies work to end the reign of Saddam and the brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his regime, Canada's largest opposition party, the Canadian Alliance will not be neutral. In our hearts and minds, we will be with our allies and friends. And Canadians will be overwhelmingly with us.

But we will not be with the Canadian government.

Modern Canada was forged in large part by war -- not because it was easy but because it was right. In the great wars of the last century -- against authoritarianism, fascism, and communism -- Canada did not merely stand with the Americans, more often than not we led the way. We did so for freedom, for democracy, for civilization itself. These values continue to be embodied in our allies and their leaders, and scorned by the forces of evil, including Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That is why we will stand -- and I believe most Canadians will stand with us -- for these higher values which shaped our past, and which we will need in an uncertain future.

Messrs. Harper and Day are the leader and shadow foreign minister, respectively, of the Canadian Alliance.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by llama64

I laugh my ass off whenever people start talking about the "lefties" in the Liberal party. Soon as the Liberals get categorized as a "leftist" leaning party, I know the person speaking has little to no grasp of Canadian politics. The Liberals (note the capitalization) are a party built to govern. Their platform is whatever garners them the most votes come election time. Social programs are ripped from the pages of the NDP while fiscal policy are adapted from the Conservatives (PC, Reform). In the end, a Liberal majority government constitutes the amalgamation of all the political parties ideas into one framework. This is why Canada keeps voting for them.

However, they need to be booted from office every now and then to clean out the upper levels and refresh their membership. We are in that cycle now. Once the Liberals gain a competent leader who knows more words then just "green" and "kyoto", they will retake a majority.

This is just how Canada works and I don't think there are any signs that it's changing anytime soon. I'm just hoping Harper can carry through on his promises to solidify an election time frame and reform the senate before the window passes.

This all said, the somewhat stable minority government we have going right now seems pretty effective to me. I kinda like it.

You are right and wrong at the same time. The Liberals are the epitomy of the "median vote" grabber. They tend to stalk out that "person" and cater to them. However, the Liberal party itself runs the gamut in ideology, and the leadership convention really hit that home.

There are essentially five families of Liberals in Canada:

-Nationalist Liberals: These are the flagwavers whose social and economic platform really have no discernable point on the spectrum... its simply whatever is "in the best interest" of national pride, even if its at the expense of economics or international relations. These people are often considered the Left leaners since many nationalistic policies tend to be leftist in nature.

-Catholic Liberals: These are the descendants of the old style political traditions, mostly centered in Ontario and Quebec. They are socially right of centre, but economically moderate, and were the Liberals who voted with the Conservatives during the SSM saga. These people are Liberals and not Conservative primarily due to the old school mentality (Conservative = English = Protestant v. Liberal = French = Catholic) which is increasingly irrelevant.

-Socialist Liberals: Similar to the Nationalist Liberals, these are ones that people mainly refer to when they talk about left-leaning Liberals. These are the ones who are both leftist in economic and social values. For whatever reason, be it a question of relevance, strategic voting or disdain for Jack Layton, they do not support the NDP.

-Moderate Liberals: This is the biggest group, obviously. Made up of Blue Liberals and Moderates... they tend to be centrist in everything, with a slight tinge to the right economically and left socially.

-Power Liberals: These are the people who are Liberals cause they are the "Governing party", and tend to have no discernable position on the political spectrum. These are the ring leaders and the ones who hold the party together, since they have to appeal to everyone, since the median voter is not always dead centre... depending on the prevailing opinion or prevalent issue, the median voter could be several steps left or right of centre.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

-Moderate Liberals: This is the biggest group, obviously. Made up of Blue Liberals and Moderates... they tend to be centrist in everything, with a slight tinge to the right economically and left socially.

I miss the old Tories!

[Cal-Gal]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

You are right and wrong at the same time. The Liberals are the epitomy of the "median vote" grabber. They tend to stalk out that "person" and cater to them. However, the Liberal party itself runs the gamut in ideology, and the leadership convention really hit that home.

There are essentially five families of Liberals in Canada:

-Nationalist Liberals: These are the flagwavers whose social and economic platform really have no discernable point on the spectrum... its simply whatever is "in the best interest" of national pride, even if its at the expense of economics or international relations. These people are often considered the Left leaners since many nationalistic policies tend to be leftist in nature.

-Catholic Liberals: These are the descendants of the old style political traditions, mostly centered in Ontario and Quebec. They are socially right of centre, but economically moderate, and were the Liberals who voted with the Conservatives during the SSM saga. These people are Liberals and not Conservative primarily due to the old school mentality (Conservative = English = Protestant v. Liberal = French = Catholic) which is increasingly irrelevant.

-Socialist Liberals: Similar to the Nationalist Liberals, these are ones that people mainly refer to when they talk about left-leaning Liberals. These are the ones who are both leftist in economic and social values. For whatever reason, be it a question of relevance, strategic voting or disdain for Jack Layton, they do not support the NDP.

-Moderate Liberals: This is the biggest group, obviously. Made up of Blue Liberals and Moderates... they tend to be centrist in everything, with a slight tinge to the right economically and left socially.

-Power Liberals: These are the people who are Liberals cause they are the "Governing party", and tend to have no discernable position on the political spectrum. These are the ring leaders and the ones who hold the party together, since they have to appeal to everyone, since the median voter is not always dead centre... depending on the prevailing opinion or prevalent issue, the median voter could be several steps left or right of centre.

This is a very good characterization....and if I may take your lead... I'd submit there are about 5 kinds of Conservatives in Canada as well - also covering the spread on ideology. The list is simplified, but from my vantage point, you have:

So-Cons: The Social Conservatives - also categorized as the hard-core Right-Wingers. The "church-basement" members of the party, who are anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage....the equivalent of the "value voters" of the US.

Libertarians: Who are not really Conservatives at all, but they find a home with the Conservative party. They believe in low taxes (or no taxes), and less government (or minimal government). They believe in Free Enterprise, and privitization - they generally don't care about social issues - for example - they neither support nor oppose gay marriage because they generally believe that governments should be out of the business of marriage all together.

Blue Tories: I would suggest that this is the largest faction of Conservatives. They are somewhat socially conservative, but are much more focussed on fiscal issues. And in places like Alberta and Ontario they believe in provincial autonomy - they want lower taxes and less government like the Libertarians...but they see the need for governments in terms of a strong National Defence, and stronger criminal justice.

Red Tories: is a bit of a misnomer, because its often seen as a derogatory term amongst Conservatives...but these would be the equivalent of Thunderball's 'Moderate Liberals'. They are socially quite progressive, but still have a slight right-slant on economic policies.

Old-Boy's Club Tories: I would count people like Mulroney in this club, and like the "Power Liberals" they really are a formidable machine. They wield enormous influence in this country - in terms of both business and political spheres. There is alot of cake in Conservative coffers that has come from these boys. Its this group that so frustrated some Western conservatives that led to the formation of the Reform party in the 80s.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by llama64

I miss the old Tories!

Indeed.

As one of right economic/left social "moderate liberals" labeled by Thunderball, at least I had a party I could stomach voting for when the Liberals screwed up (like they did recently) and deserved some time in opposition to regroup. The NDP are too far to the left for my liking, the Conservatives are too far to the right*, and the Green Party is irrelevant, so my only palatable choice is to either hold my nose and vote Liberal anyway (as I did in the last federal election) or abstain. I would have gladly voted for the PC Party of old if they had existed in 2004 and 2006.

*They've been moving more and more to the centre, but I think I think Harper abandoning his conservative base is only the result of his minority government and his desire to gain a majority next election.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Cal-Gal

Libertarians: Who are not really Conservatives at all, but they find a home with the Conservative party. They believe in low taxes (or no taxes), and less government (or minimal government). They believe in Free Enterprise, and privitization - they generally don't care about social issues - for example - they neither support nor oppose gay marriage because they generally believe that governments should be out of the business of marriage all together.

My cousin, a McGill poli-sci grad and self-professed libertarian, characterised it for me a little differently. He claims that on social issues libertarians aren't really apathetic or quasi-agnostic, but rather they are liberal in the sense that they feel individuals should live however they want in their private lives. They support same-sex marriage, the right to choose, stem-cell research, and most other things social conservatives and religious fundamentalists oppose.

I really don't know whether your description or his is more accurate.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cal-Gal

This is a very good characterization....and if I may take your lead... I'd submit there are about 5 kinds of Conservatives in Canada as well - also covering the spread on ideology. The list is simplified, but from my vantage point, you have:

So-Cons: The Social Conservatives - also categorized as the hard-core Right-Wingers. The "church-basement" members of the party, who are anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage....the equivalent of the "value voters" of the US.

Libertarians: Who are not really Conservatives at all, but they find a home with the Conservative party. They believe in low taxes (or no taxes), and less government (or minimal government). They believe in Free Enterprise, and privitization - they generally don't care about social issues - for example - they neither support nor oppose gay marriage because they generally believe that governments should be out of the business of marriage all together.

Blue Tories: I would suggest that this is the largest faction of Conservatives. They are somewhat socially conservative, but are much more focussed on fiscal issues. And in places like Alberta and Ontario they believe in provincial autonomy - they want lower taxes and less government like the Libertarians...but they see the need for governments in terms of a strong National Defence, and stronger criminal justice.

Red Tories: is a bit of a misnomer, because its often seen as a derogatory term amongst Conservatives...but these would be the equivalent of Thunderball's 'Moderate Liberals'. They are socially quite progressive, but still have a slight right-slant on economic policies.

Old-Boy's Club Tories: I would count people like Mulroney in this club, and like the "Power Liberals" they really are a formidable machine. They wield enormous influence in this country - in terms of both business and political spheres. There is alot of cake in Conservative coffers that has come from these boys. Its this group that so frustrated some Western conservatives that led to the formation of the Reform party in the 80s.

That looks about right, nicely done.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by icarus

My cousin, a McGill poli-sci grad and self-professed libertarian, characterised it for me a little differently. He claims that on social issues libertarians aren't really apathetic or quasi-agnostic, but rather they are liberal in the sense that they feel individuals should live however they want in their private lives. They support same-sex marriage, the right to choose, stem-cell research, and most other things social conservatives and religious fundamentalists oppose.

I really don't know whether your description or his is more accurate.

I think it depends on your ideas on liberty. I'm right on the edge of being a libertarian and a conservative, for example... so my views on libertarianism would differ from my opposite number on the left.

From what I studied, a pure libertarian is totally apathetic. Why would they take a stance in an issue at all, since their stance would in essence, be limiting someone's freedom. (example: if I'm a pure libertarian and I personally don't believe in Jesus, it would be detrimental to someone else's freedom of thought to say so, they are free to believe and embrace whatever they want).

A right-leaning libertarian believes that people should be free to do what they want and that the government should not be enforcing social values on people. The belief with them is that social change comes naturally from within society, and people must be free to allow that natural progression. With that, however, there must be a strong penalty for those who abuse their freedoms and commit heinous offenses, and that is what the governments should be focusing on.

A left-leaning libertarian believes much like your cousin. Its almost a hedonistic viewpoint. Everyone is free to think and act how they wish, and they are actively in favor of anything that grants one more freedom, but tend to believe that governments can facilitate freedom best.

If that makes sense.

[Cal-Gal]

Originally Posted by icarus

My cousin, a McGill poli-sci grad and self-professed libertarian, characterised it for me a little differently. He claims that on social issues libertarians aren't really apathetic or quasi-agnostic, but rather they are liberal in the sense that they feel individuals should live however they want in their private lives. They support same-sex marriage, the right to choose, stem-cell research, and most other things social conservatives and religious fundamentalists oppose.

I really don't know whether your description or his is more accurate.

I don't disagree with what your cousin said, but in my experience, Libertarians are a unique political animal: they completely separate the 'personal' from the 'political'. As a Libertarian, one may be personally opposed to an issue (abortion for example)- but politically he or she feels that the state has no business legislating against it.

In this sense I have a hard time categorizing Libertarians as 'liberal on social issues'. Stem-cell research is a great example. A Libertarian may very well have a moral objection to stem-cell research, but they would not crusade or lobby against such research. They WOULD likely oppose the government funding stem-call research, not for moral reasons, but because they believe private interests, and not taxpayers, should foot the bill.

[Hakan]

Median voter theorem pretty much proves that in a single member plurality system two parties will emerge and compete for the centre voter.

The theory has been well tested and seems to be pretty spot on.

The result? Well two parties basically adjust their platforms to be as accessible as possible.

Wasn`t always like that though. Any skim over George Grant`s seminal `Lament for a Nation`details distinct differences between the Conservatives and Liberals. Those differences have all but evaporated.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by KAI

You have to be kidding. Iknow this is Alberta and we love our hard core conservatives. But Presten Manning and the reform push didn't have much of an impact at all outside of Alberta.

I think you misunderstand me--I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal--I own a copy of the MacLean's tribute to Trudeau AND a copy of the "Red Book." I'm not trumpeting Preston Manning's name from the rooftops as a visionary, I'm reluctantly giving him props for how he managed to change the political conversation in Canada.

Put it this way: offer me three choices for PM--Stephen Harper, Paul Martin and Preston Manning--and I'll tell you which of these things is not like the others. Manning was an ideologue, and a good rhetorician--it just so happens that I think he was wrong about almost everything, and didn't like his tendency to fall back on meaningless bread-and-butter-rhetoric like painting Reform as a "grassroots" movement, and pretending he wasn't a career politician. But you can't say that he didn't believe in something.

By the way--do you consider the death of the Progressive Conservative party to be "not much of an impact" outside Alberta? I think a few people in the maritimes would disagree.