Note: If you're not a subscriber, you'll get an ad before they feed the article.
Boyce compares the Conservatives –– an embarrassing blend of hicks from out West who hate the liberals back East (hmm) – with the tenuously empowered minority Liberals under Paul Martin. While a majority of Canadians, except those 55 and older, favor same-sex marriage, those who don't are much like the Bushies here. It's their version of a God who makes them put marriage in quotes if it's close to homosexual.
Canada's pending new marital reality "...offends the sensibility of those who believe that God is concerned about whom you sleep with and how. Some people believe he/she is; some people don't; some people don't believe in God at all. At this late date, one would think that God would not and could not enter into the matter, but the Canadian national anthem still contains the line 'God keep our land glorious and free,' which for many people means that patriotism and piety are one and the same. And we all know whom God speaks directly to south of the 49th Parallel."
Boyce gives us a perspective on the Conservatives.
The Conservative Party, which started as a regional party that catered to Canadian Westerners' alienation from the Eastern establishment, has strived mightily to make itself a national party, and it could be if it were located in the United States, because many of its members espouse the kind of social conservatism that's in vogue there. To become a national party in Canada, though, the Conservatives must hide this fact. But just when it looks like they've managed to do so, as if in a reverse Clintonian bimbo eruption, some member of Parliament from a God-fearing locale pipes up about moral depravity of one kind or another. At that point, Canadians cannot find a pole long enough to distance themselves from this bigoted brand of conservatism.Perhaps the good angle to that and the lesson we might draw from it here is that the fundamentalists remain in the minority. (Fortunately for the Canadians, they have a smaller percentage.) Their self-righteous bluster there or here may make them feel good, but it won't be convincing the rest of the freedom-loving citizens to hate along with them.
I had a very crude boss years ago who described such futile displays. As he put it, "It's like peeing in a blue serge suit. It gives you a nice warm feeling, but nobody notices.
2 comments:
I'll reserve judgment on a culture war. It looks as though the Conservatives lost this battle, badly, a long time ago. If the party leader is to be believed, as a group, they refuse to accept this and deal.
Harper's reactionary comments were challenges not only to the Bloc, but also to the others making up the government. Above or below our shared border, politics in a representative democracy includes not being able to win them all, even if you care deeply. Can you pass that message along to Stephen?
Also, if you have good sources of analysis that you find superior, let us know.
That's more similar to the U.S. side than the Canadian press presents. Here though, the status quo and reactionary sides drag out the old wagon of let-the-people-decide when it suits a particular battle -- and never at other times.
With the exception of a few rural and suburban areas that still have town meeting, we have a representative democracy. Our legislators and courts have to be a bit out front of the voters. Otherwise, nothings implemented or improved. It's easier for people to stay with what they know.
Many academicians and politicians suggest that if we used popular vote on social issues, we would not protect minorities at all. We got women's suffrage only when we went the amendment route. Neither courts nor Congress would lead that one. We let the poor vote, then let blacks vote, and much later allowed interracial marriage. Each of these would likely have failed again and again in a plebiscite.
Leaders have to lead. Yet, to be re-elected, they need to do so without terrifying the stagnant.
Post a Comment