Look back for strategies that work, affirm and debate the way the strategy of yesterday can reinforce our shared values of today, look ahead to describe the change that will result. None of it will be easy, but with focus and strong leadership it is doable.
Bold, but I personally have no interest in subscribing to reactionary ideas or publications.
The Canada of 34 million people was not yet an entrenched gerontocracy, that’s the greatest reason why it was better, and is also the reason Canada cannot simply “charge back”.
Today, Canada has a tiny private sector tax base to pay for the entitlements of an exploding class of retirees. The taxes collected are not nearly enough to meet their expectations of service, so we use massive debt at every level of government.
The truth is that our parents didn’t have enough children to meet their own appetites for public healthcare and senior assistance. As a result of burden of high taxes and restricted growth, our own generation has had even fewer kids.
Mass immigration wasn’t a progressive idea—it was a short-term economic bandaid—sold with progressive slogans though it was.
Taking any reactionary course culturally would be a waste of political capital—especially remigration. Likely, it would add to our collective debt burden, as it has in the states, thus dooming any chance of longer term conservative governance. “It’s the economy, stupid” echos eternal.
Turning the tap off immigration is the right thing to do. But fixing the economy and finding a way to avoid a Japanese-style decline is so much more important than mass deportations or bringing back a flag 90% of Canadians would fail to accurately draw.
I don’t think the two notions are actually incompatible.
That is, to conserve doesn’t only mean to “keep the same, unchanged.”
We can be the Party of innovation, opportunity, courage, and bold economic facilitation, and still be the Party that wants to maintain public order, the notion of a shared common good, and beautiful, functioning communities.
Burke deals with this when he writes of “change as opposed to reform”. One can desire effective change while remaining within the principles, traditions, guardrails, conventions, and values that have held us in such good stead.
Reform is the desire to rip the problem out by the roots and replant. We are very goi at change, not so much at reform.
Look back for strategies that work, affirm and debate the way the strategy of yesterday can reinforce our shared values of today, look ahead to describe the change that will result. None of it will be easy, but with focus and strong leadership it is doable.
Bold, but I personally have no interest in subscribing to reactionary ideas or publications.
The Canada of 34 million people was not yet an entrenched gerontocracy, that’s the greatest reason why it was better, and is also the reason Canada cannot simply “charge back”.
Today, Canada has a tiny private sector tax base to pay for the entitlements of an exploding class of retirees. The taxes collected are not nearly enough to meet their expectations of service, so we use massive debt at every level of government.
The truth is that our parents didn’t have enough children to meet their own appetites for public healthcare and senior assistance. As a result of burden of high taxes and restricted growth, our own generation has had even fewer kids.
Mass immigration wasn’t a progressive idea—it was a short-term economic bandaid—sold with progressive slogans though it was.
Taking any reactionary course culturally would be a waste of political capital—especially remigration. Likely, it would add to our collective debt burden, as it has in the states, thus dooming any chance of longer term conservative governance. “It’s the economy, stupid” echos eternal.
Turning the tap off immigration is the right thing to do. But fixing the economy and finding a way to avoid a Japanese-style decline is so much more important than mass deportations or bringing back a flag 90% of Canadians would fail to accurately draw.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford is neither progressive nor a conservative. He is a curious amalgam of semi-sentient primate, wind sock, and klaxon horn.
I don’t think the two notions are actually incompatible.
That is, to conserve doesn’t only mean to “keep the same, unchanged.”
We can be the Party of innovation, opportunity, courage, and bold economic facilitation, and still be the Party that wants to maintain public order, the notion of a shared common good, and beautiful, functioning communities.
Burke deals with this when he writes of “change as opposed to reform”. One can desire effective change while remaining within the principles, traditions, guardrails, conventions, and values that have held us in such good stead.
Reform is the desire to rip the problem out by the roots and replant. We are very goi at change, not so much at reform.
Yes,yes,yes!! 👏