It’s all in the balance. Libertarians are extreme, who dont want government doing what govt is supposed to do. Socons are extreme too because they think religion justifies their politics. A reasonable conservative or liberal should both know that the middle is closer to where politics should be, and that the real discussion is only where the line is drawn on govt doing stuff.
Ubi is a good example. Ubi is a good thing for society imo, but it seems to be too expensive to get off the ground. Too far right and people deny the benefits to everyone of ubi. Too far left and people want to implement it regardless of the cost.
I approach government from the perspective of the balance of power. The goal of the government should be to balance power, to protect the individual from the group and the group from the individual. The government by definition holds a legal monopoly on the power of violence to enforce the rules so we should give power to the government sparingly with clear limits to maintain a balance. The balance against that monopoly on violence is economic power, intellectual power, social power, and cultural power.
American conservatives (elected ones) attack government regulation, which is a duty of the government, in the name of being pro-business while crafting laws and give aways to select businesses and business sectors. This behavior isn’t fiscally conservative it is pro-established-business. They shift the economic power to the few of their choosing by how they wield the power of the government, behavior which has led to a corporatocracy. Note, all American politicians fall into this form of “conservatism,” the Republicans as well as the Democrats. The D’s may seek a few more regs for the environment or a kinder/gentler world for the people but it is still fully under the umbrella of the corporatocracy.
Socially the D’s see the historical imbalance within society and try to correct it whereas the R’s claim there is no imbalance in power. Ideally this is a good balance for the government, one group pushing for change one group demanding proof for the need. The problem is the R’s went on the offensive. They are actively trying to entrench known imbalances and suppress the means to challenge their position while crushing any intellectual balance with a strict narrow set of beliefs.
I believe one of the differences between the us and Canada is that Canadians are overall more centered, whereas the us is farther apart. There’s not a huge difference between libs and cons in Canada. So if we get one party elected, eh, it’s not a deal breaker. Just wait four years.
I suspect we also have more swing voters. I often vote conservative, but won’t when they swing into socon territory, as do a lot of CDN conservatives. We just strongly voted in a fairly populist leader in ontario. Then he immediately gave his son a cushy cabinet job. If he’s still leader next time, I suspect that alone will get the party voted out. Contrast that to trump’s nepotism.
Locally we had a conservative politician who was pretty much elected for life. Local pastor/dentist in a rural farming area. Then he pulled some crap with LGBTQ and next election, gone. There’s enough conservatives here who won’t put up with socon crap to actually make a difference.
I just want representatives who are good with a balance of power and who are not idiots. Unfortunately those are not the kind of people I have on my ballot today.
That’s actually not universally true, largely because there are different degrees/flavors of libertarianism.
I consider myself a “watered-down, socially liberal libertarian”, who accepts that government has a role in maintaining the sandbox we play in and bridging the gap between reality and theory that makes real libertarianism impossible to achieve.
But there are also anarcho-libertarians, many of whom I consider to be just plain nuts.
I’ve heard it said that ''peace, order, and good government" are the foundational principles on Canadian government theory, in sorta the same way that “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” are for the US. That “good government” bit is probably why libertarianism doesn’t really play well in Canada.
So tomorrow is Canada Day. In recent years the celebrations have become more thoughtful as Canadians grapple with our history. The fireworks displays have been supplemented by ceremonies recognizing Indigenous injustices. Have July 4 celebrations changed their focus?
I’m fine with that, we should do some recognition. But I’d sure prefer something that’s still a celebration rather than penance. I guess we will see what they do here tomorrow. It’s been a crazy few years locally as we had a sir John a statue locally and just about had war. So everyone is upset.
I tried to organize an educational/sharing of cultures here to try and bring some togetherness, but it didn’t take off because of the anger.
mostly this. with patriotism manifesting itself largely in public intoxication and an affinity for sleeveless shirts that have flags on them. (I’m describing myself mostly)
Displaying the flag has been spoiled for many Canadians as it was politicized by the Freedom Convoy that occupied Ottawa this winter. Flag waving was never a political thing before then.
Yeah my spouse just put some flags out front and I as like what? But others in the 'hood are as well so we shouldn’t get branded as nutjobs.
I just looked at our local Canada Day celebrations. The website talks about a bunch of indigenous stuff but the only event they have is a 6am sunrise ceremony tomorrow. Might go check it out.
Wednesday, I drove from Sarnia to Ottawa, in my first trip to Ontario other than the obligatory visit to Niagara Falls.
Someplace between Toronto and Ottawa, I was bemused to see a few instances of pickups or semis bedecked with multiple Canadian federal flags, reminiscent of some of the excessive American flag-flying vehicles we saw in various MAGA displays over the past few years south of the border.
These vehicles were, of course, interspersed with a few “F— Trudeau” signs, and displays in opposition to the concept of lockdowns.
I’m not as familiar with the distribution of political views in Canada below the provincial level, but I’m going to guess that this was a very blue (or red, in America’s backwards color scheme) bit of Ontario.
Funny you say that. Australia has the same colo(u)r scheme. Red is the left (socialist/communist) and blue is the right (blue bloods?). I believe the color scheme in US is relatively recent (since the contested 2000 election).
Wikipedia mentions that red associated with the left goes back to the French revolution to represent the blood of workers. However, prior to that, red was associated with the church (blood of christ) and monarchs. So, colors associated with ideologies are open to change.
Correct. Up to the 2000 election, the US ignored the international standard of red=left, blue=right and the major TV news outlets had their own color schemes, which sometimes varied from election to election.
For 2000, CNN was using red=Republican, blue=Democrat, And in the mess that happened, talking heads at CNN started using “red state”/“blue state” shorthand. That migrated into the American vernacular, and other broadcast news outlets adopted the color scheme.
