Thank you, gentlemen, for your thoughtful comments. You will recall that the Harper government was in minority for its first five years, which effectively precluded sweeping reforms. Then there was only so much that could be done during the four-year majority. Not making excuses, just stating facts.
First of all, congratulations to all three contributors for three absolutely splendid essays.
The Red Tory has always struck me as someone who wants to eat his cake, and have it as well.
Alternatively, the Red Tory is the only acceptable version of a Canadian politician who is not ostensibly left-of-centre. That is, Canadians demand their “conservatives” to be labile, prostrate, and deferential.
Principled conservatives have found some interesting traction outside of the academy & the Laurentian deep state, but are now experiencing the growing pains from not having laid a foundational groundwork for a movement of principled conservatism, à la Buckley, Goldwater, Friedman or Reagan.
The Conservative Party of Canada needs to decide whether or not it stands for something different than the intellectual slop of tropes, memes, and slogans. Does it just want to win elections, or does it want to effect real change?
Great essays, friends; a pleasure to read and contemplate.
Harper as an example was supposed to be the "principled Burkean Prime Minster" that built the foundation of Canadian conservatism. All he proved IMHO is that Burkeanism doesn't work if the soil isn't tilled beforehand. Harper had the opportunity of a generation to move the window and he lost his nerve. I'm not sure Canadians will get that chance again. Certainly not as long as Central Canadian boomers hold a demographic lock on Canadian politics.
Succinct and agreed. He was a great steward of Canada's economics but didn't shift the culture (or even understand why it was important) and in the end it led to 10 years of decline.
Brian Mulroney was right.
Imagine if Canada had an elected head of state like you see in many parliamentary democracies without a monarchy. Mulroney would have made an excellent elected President, which in those countries tend to do the travel, networking and cultural leadership. Harper would have excelled as the PM in that system, where they are more expected to deliver a budget and focus on domestic issues.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your thoughtful comments. You will recall that the Harper government was in minority for its first five years, which effectively precluded sweeping reforms. Then there was only so much that could be done during the four-year majority. Not making excuses, just stating facts.
The Ten Tenets of Conservatism
1) a vigorous defence of capitalism, free trade, and the price system.
2) limited, effective government.
3) an acknowledgment of something greater than the present moment, be that historical or religious.
4) fiscal and monetary stability.
5) a mutually beneficial immigration system for both immigrant and citizen.
6) the acceptance of personal responsibility.
7) the notion that military strength and preparedness are essential elements of a civil society.
8) the acceptance of the existence of a common good.
9) a notion that a civil society, splendid, functional communities, and social order require the participation of a virtuous, informed citizen.
10) gratitude
I would include the family as being at the centre of society, but agreed.
Good point.
First of all, congratulations to all three contributors for three absolutely splendid essays.
The Red Tory has always struck me as someone who wants to eat his cake, and have it as well.
Alternatively, the Red Tory is the only acceptable version of a Canadian politician who is not ostensibly left-of-centre. That is, Canadians demand their “conservatives” to be labile, prostrate, and deferential.
Principled conservatives have found some interesting traction outside of the academy & the Laurentian deep state, but are now experiencing the growing pains from not having laid a foundational groundwork for a movement of principled conservatism, à la Buckley, Goldwater, Friedman or Reagan.
The Conservative Party of Canada needs to decide whether or not it stands for something different than the intellectual slop of tropes, memes, and slogans. Does it just want to win elections, or does it want to effect real change?
Great essays, friends; a pleasure to read and contemplate.
Harper as an example was supposed to be the "principled Burkean Prime Minster" that built the foundation of Canadian conservatism. All he proved IMHO is that Burkeanism doesn't work if the soil isn't tilled beforehand. Harper had the opportunity of a generation to move the window and he lost his nerve. I'm not sure Canadians will get that chance again. Certainly not as long as Central Canadian boomers hold a demographic lock on Canadian politics.
In my opinion, Stephen Harper was a good steward of Canadian assets, but failed to think on a grander scale.
In fact, Brian Mulroney challenged him to think bigger.
Good post, friend.
Succinct and agreed. He was a great steward of Canada's economics but didn't shift the culture (or even understand why it was important) and in the end it led to 10 years of decline.
Brian Mulroney was right.
Imagine if Canada had an elected head of state like you see in many parliamentary democracies without a monarchy. Mulroney would have made an excellent elected President, which in those countries tend to do the travel, networking and cultural leadership. Harper would have excelled as the PM in that system, where they are more expected to deliver a budget and focus on domestic issues.
Nothing here with which I can disagree.