"What's in a name?"
Condoleezza Rice needs a nickname. No, really. I know she has "Condi," but that's just not as evocative as "The Pretzeldent," "Turd Blossom," "Darth Cheney," "Scooter," etc.
So, I have a proposal: Der Condissar. A commissar ran a ministry in pre-Stalin Russia, with ministries being essentially equivalent to U.S. departments such as State, the one Rice heads. Plus, it evokes the 80s hit "Der Kommissar", as recorded by After the Fire
(English lyrics) and Falco (German lyrics). If this idea takes off, I await the inevitable music video with great interest. (I also await the screams of people saying I'm comparing America to Soviet Russia.)Michelle Malkin is bouncing up and down over the "fall of the house of Martin" and "collapse of the Canadian libs." Ed Morrissey and his commenters have more, including useful poll statistics. I have to say, conservative leader Steven Harper's comments remind me of a certain someone's pledge to restore integrity. How's that working out for you, guys?
Okay, snide digs aside, I wonder if the U.S. conservatives who are getting excited about this actually know anything about Canadian politics. The political landscape in Commonwealth countries tends to be quite different from America's, even if some of the labels are the same. (Socialized health care, tighter gun restrictions, abortion generally not particularly controversial, etc.)
According to a 2004 election guide, the Conservative Party of Canada wants to lower taxes, increase the size of the Canadian armed forces, try "violent or repeat young offenders" in adult court, cut taxes, and eliminate inter-provincial trade barriers. Oh, and they favor the traditional definition of marriage. Those are positions which I would consider conservative.
However, other stated intentions of the CPC are to continue public funding of health care (albeit with increased province control and privatization of some services), establish a nationwide sex offender registry, develop a better gun control program, crack down on industrial polluters, and spend money on research into early childhood. Those are, well, less conservative, to my mind.
Their main objection to the Liberals' proposed $5B subsidy is that it only addresses urban workers on a 9-5 schedule. "We will give money directly to all parents so they can make their own childcare choices." (Source: CPC web site.)
Also: "The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada has revealed that Canada's health care system remains in a fragile state after years of Paul Martin's cuts." The CPC web site states that the party "will stand up for ... [i]mproving the universal public health care system to prevent the drift towards a two-tier health care system."
The CPC site is running very slowly — perhaps because people all over the blogosphere are trying to learn about their positions? But if you Google the site for abortion, you get results like "A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion."
While this may be the beginning of the end for Paul Martin's liberal government (And if the reports of corruption are true, I'm sure my Canadian compadres are saying "Good riddance."), it's not exactly the sign of a coming global U.S.-style conservative hegemony.
My Canadian and British online pals have been known to make comments in the vein of "Well, America is a young country, eventually you can look back on this as growing pains." The Canadian issues and the British rape survey that's been going around have convinced me that the U.K. and Canada don't have as much room to talk as they thought. (To say nothing of Tony Blair's issues.)
2 Comments:
You're a bit off on your presentation of the CPC's stance on gun control. If you look more carefully, they want to abolish the current registry in Canada. Their proposals, I do not believe, are far from what I would say are those of most rational (a.k.a. non-NRA) American conservatives' ideas. Additionally, just by proposing more provincial involvement and some privitization of services, they are absolutely taking a more conservative stand on health care than the Liberals and NDP. The Libs and "Dippers," as they are called, wish for solely federal control and absolutely no privatization. The key to understanding the CPC stance is accepting that national health insurance is, at this point, part of the fabric of Canada. No party would have a shot at all if they said, "We are going to abolish the Medicare program." In other words, it's all relative to what is the "norm" for the particular country. A sex offender registry, I would argue, is conservative because conservatives tend to be harsher on crime and defense. Finally, abortion is hardly an indicator of conservatism or liberalism. Conservatism is a big tent. People of many ideological stripes claim the term "conservative." The primary reason the CPC has relatively no opinion on abortion in its policy declaration is that there are no regulations on abortion in Canada, so why create a policy about it, other than to fend off smears about being "scary." Again, like with Canadian Medicare, it is relative to the climate in the country. The CPC is far more conservative than the LPC, NDP, or Bloc Quebecois (and, I would argue, the Republican party here in the States at the moment), so yes, American conservatives should be excited about the prospect of a Harper-led government. It is not necessary for them to be a replica of the RNC, and frankly, US-Canada relations have generally been better with a Republican in the White House and a Conservative (or in the past, a Progressive Conservative) at 24 Sussex. That gives me plenty of reason not to be all concerned about what the CPC thinks about abortion or how they address their own healthcare system and be glad their time has come.
One last note, Harper is a conservative. Bush...not so much. That was a bad and unfair comparison on your part.
Post a Comment
<< Home