Canada's Election
The conventional wisdom appears to be: the Conservative party made big gains as long as it was seen as the decent alternative to a tired, maybe somewhat corrupt Liberal government. As the saying goes, voters don't vote for someone as much as they vote against someone.
More recently, Conservatives have revealed some of the relatives they have living in the attic: conservative stands on social issues. Stephen Harper, clearly inspired by the examples of Reagan and Thatcher, has argued there is no essential disagreement between economic and social conservatives. (As he says, economic conservatives are really classical liberals).
The two groups used to have a common enemy in communism and radical socialism--which were opposed both to individual ambition and to traditional morality. Today, Harper argues, there is still a common enemy--moral relativism or even nihilism on the so-called left. Exhibit A is Gulf War II or "the war on terror" (which I still think are two different things). Bush's main opponents weren't simply indifferent about the outcome--they were clearly hoping the U.S. would lose to cruel, theocratic regimes, which regularly crack down on secular intellectuals like Bush's critics.
Harper is too sophisticated to argue, as some Americans might, that there is a Christian majority, and believers in majority rule should simply let this majority have its way in politics a certain amount of the time. Harper actually says:
"Many traditional Liberal voters, especially those from key ethnic and immigrant communities, will be attracted to a party with strong traditional views of values and family. This is similar to the phenomenon of the 'Reagan Democrats' in the United States, who were so important in the development of that conservative coalition."
Harper doesn't mention abortion, and he warns his conservative allies that progress on their issues may be "incremental." (He also doesn't mention capital punishment, or the possibility of liberalizing prostitution; he seems to be all for the war against drugs). Harper, unlike the Liberals, doesn't want to ban spanking; he does favour: "banning child pornography, raising the age of sexual consent, providing choice in education and strengthening the institution of marriage. All of these items are key to a conservative agenda."
Is there a consensus on these issues, including among recent immigrants, that might give the Conservatives a majority? Harper warns that conservative stands should not be too theocratic, but my sense is that new Canadians in general are not enthusiastica about a conservative agenda. They might like "choice in schools," or vouchers--which would allow them to remain quite distinctive, not part of a melting pot. An older generation might want to continue to legislate who can and cannot get married, but my sense is that for younger people, it makes sense that if they want to be free to make their choices, they would be wise to leave others free to make theirs.
Of course it would be hard to find any significant group that is in favour of child pornography. Is Harper right to imply that the Martin Liberals are somehow soft on this issue? I think everyone can agree that "current" kiddie porn, especially on the Internet, makes it clear that crimes have been committed against actual children in the recent past. To fail to stop the porn would be to tolerate the crimes against children. Does Harper want to deny any exceptions to a ban on depictions of children? What about clearly dated images of children (and teenagers) who have long since grown up or died? (via Hit and Run) What about Nabokov's Lolita? (see Globe and Mail). What about writings and sketches--no pictures from life--that are purely works of imagination? The Victorians, who may have invented some of the wholesome family imagery we all live with, also went in for weird kinds of kiddie porn. I'm not sure what this means, but in general Harper could probably learn about the Victorian era.
My guess is that recent immigrants like tax cuts, but they also like generous government programs more than Harper does. (Although he is promising a lot of spending on a lot of things right now). Do they want a crackdown on what was traditionally thought of as immorality? I doubt it.
Did opposing Bush II on Iraq II constitute a clear case of nihilism and self-hatred? Not in every case. I think young people fear there are no more wars to fight. Relatively right-wing young people favour old-fashioned wars; relatively left-wing ones favour massively expensive environmental reforms, and perhaps eradicating AIDS in Africa.
|
