December 7, 2005

At least one country would elect Harper

Well it looks like the Americans are right excited about Stephen Harper's recent political success. And why shouldn't they be? Bush and Harper are one of a kind with their free-market-loving and anti-healthcare, anti-daycare ways. The Washington Times ran an interesting commentary piece on it. Link:

But the big question still remains. Who looks goofier in a cowboy hat? Just kidding, that's not the big question. The big question is, who looks goofier, period?

14 Commentaires:

Blogger PhillyC a dit...

The question I usually ask is...Who will spend my money most wisely? But that's just me, I'm sure other people have different priorities...

12/08/2005 2:00 a.m.  
Blogger Denise B a dit...

That's an easy one. Neither. The last time the Tories were in government they racked up a debt like none other. Right now Bush's fiscal policy is much the same. Fiscal accountability is a neoconservative principle no longer. The only party in North America that can be trusted to balance the books and keep their country in the black is the Liberals.

12/08/2005 11:01 a.m.  
Blogger Christopher Young a dit...

Or the NDP. And I'm not even joking!

12/08/2005 11:46 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

How sad that it's electorally profitable to be anti-American in Canada. Liberals have always liked to wrap themselves in the flag and claim they have a monopoly on "true Canadian values" and, the hottest one, "Canadian moral superiority".

The best example of this is Martin's speech on climate change yesterday. We virtuous Canadians were supposed to cut our emissions by 6% of the 1990 level, but they actually went up 24%! Meanwhile, Martin has the chutzpah to criticize the Americans for not doing enough.

12/08/2005 1:10 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

Or even better (and I almost forgot about that one), during his press conference at Rideau Hall after having called the election:

"We are the conscience of the world."

Wow. Nothing less.

12/08/2005 2:06 p.m.  
Blogger PhillyC a dit...

I wouldn't equate Harper with Bush so readily...they may both be conservatives but they are proposing different economic plans

12/08/2005 2:20 p.m.  
Blogger Denise B a dit...

Since is when is being critical of fiscal irresponsibility or grotesquely archaic environmental policy in an elected political party considered "Anti-American"? There is a difference between educated policy critiques and ignorant national stereotypes, and if one can't tell the difference, one most likely belongs with the ignorant and not the educated.

12/08/2005 2:21 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...


1. Asserting that Harper is "anti-healthcare, anti-daycare" isn't exactly what I would call an "educated policy critique". It sounds more like knee-jerk political partisanship and fear-mongering.

2. Dismissing critics as "uneducated" isn't characteristic of someone who claims to be, well, educated.

3. When referring to "grotesquely archaic environmental policy ", are you talking about Canada or the U.S.? Because as far as I know, we are the ones who signed Kyoto and yet our emissions went up 24%...

12/08/2005 2:50 p.m.  
Blogger Denise B a dit...

Okay, Captain anoynymous. Despite the fact your refused to respond to the actual premise of my retort and instead decided to begin a whole separate stream of criticisms demonstrates a blatant weakness in argumentation style, I'll still bite. Why? Because I'm right and I look forward to seeing a response that will no doubt touch on a whole separate arena of issues rather than directly addressing the debate which you begun with your claims of "Anti-Americanism."

1. Harpers supports privatizing parts of our healthcare system. He also supports eradicating the national daycare program in favour of a tax return. In my mind that makes him anti-healthcare and anti-daycare.

2. Dismissing someone who is uneducated as undeducated is not uneducated. It's factual. Using the "I'm rubber and you're glue argument," however, that's uneducated.

3. It's true that Canada has not yet met its Kyoto targets, but the fact that we're working to reach those targets by invested billions in the Green Budget, are an active member of the current international regime working against climate climate change, and have signed the Protocol and Accord at all indicate that we are progressively moving in the correct direction. The Republican government in the United States has done no such thing, and many members of the administration still refuse to recognized the legitimacy of climate change science. To recap, that makes their policy stances archaic.

12/08/2005 3:06 p.m.  
Blogger Jason Cherniak a dit...

Funny. As reported on the main CTV blog, the Conservatives are issuing daily press releases asking whether Martin agrees with the views of Ignatieff on issues like the Iraq war. Meanwhile, we Liberals are demanding that Harper account for support, possibly money, that he is receiving directly from American interest groups. Who are the real fear mongers?

12/08/2005 3:19 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...


Re: anti-Americanism. It would be hard not to recognize that fear of the U.S. is often used in election campaigns by Liberals. Look at Martin's rhetoric on climate change and softwood lumber and remember Turner in the free trade debate. And why blame them? English Canadians define themselves in oppisition to Americans, so it could therefore be argued that the Liberals have found a pretty solid electoral clientèle for that kind of behaviour.

Re: (1). Wouldn't it be possible that Stephen Harper believes the healthcare system would be more efficient were the private sector allowed to play a role? That's not being anti-healthcare to me. It's legitimate to think there are alternatives to a 100% public system. The same applies to Harper's position on daycare.

Re: (2). I didn't know you had access to my academic record and transcripts. But since you do, I suppose there's nothing I can say.

Re: (3), granted, an effort will be made. But none has been made so far.

Look, I'm not a Conservative Party supporter and I will not vote for Harper. I only happen to think that Liberals cannot always claim the moral high ground or pretend to be the only alternative, the only party that represents "Canadian values", the only legitimate party in Canada.

12/08/2005 3:28 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

12/08/2005 3:57 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

12/08/2005 3:57 p.m.  
Anonymous Alisa a dit...

Hey Anonymous,

I don't think Denise was claiming Liberals had a monopoly on Canadian values. Whether or not certain conservatives can claim to represent them is another matter.

Personally, I don't think Stephen Harper is any less Canadian than myself, despite his rejection of things like multiculturalism and the Charter of Rights, which I consider to be fairly well-ingrained Canadian institutions. The thing that interests me is that Americans whose policies I completely disagree with are so very very FOND of Stephen Harper. They've created this Harper messiah of Conservative values in Canada. Which makes me wonder:

a) Are they just idiots without a good grasp of the issues, responding favourably to a "Conservative" label? (Which as we know in Canada can mean a lot of things - and conservatives aren't only found in the Conservative party.)

b) Do they have an interest besides low taxes, (which Paul Martin supports) and same-sex marriage? Could it be a values issue - especially, how values and politics coincide?

Let's not confuse "values", the religious, with "values", the Canadian. For one thing, Canadian values, at least as I interpret them, means no significant religious influence in the public sphere. In comparison to the US, we might as well be a nation governed by atheists. Frankly, every time I see Hillary Clinton make a Jesus shout-out, I cringe and thank my lucky stars I live in a nation where we value good governance over faith, and human rights over Christian-based "tradition".

I'm pretty fond of Americans as far as things go, and wouldn't describe myself as anti-American by a longshot. What I have a problem with is government that relies on a lot of faith-based interest groups to interfere with issues like human rights, and it just so happens that there's an excellent example in the United States. So, when we see the American right-wing, who has really amplified the religious aspects of politics in America, cheering on Stephen Harper so blatantly and for religious-based reasons, can you understand why that might make a girl who likes her secularism in government a bit anxious?

12/08/2005 6:10 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home