| |
Blog of Adam Daifallah -- author, journalist, law student. Lover of politics, writing, golf, curling, fitness, fashion, bacon and maple products -- not necessarily (but probably) in that order. Partisan of the Anglosphere. Contact me via email at adam@daifallah.com. This summer I am joined by Keir Wilmut and Omar Soliman.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Urquhart is sloppy
Uncharacterisitically shoddy column today by the Toronto Star's Ian Urquhart, usually the most readable scribe in that mostly unreadable newspaper.
Urquhart uses the term "neo-conservative" liberally to describe those on the "right" in the Ontario Conservative Party. That term is a misnomer. As most are aware, neocon is an American word applied to former Communists and Leftists who gravitated to the right during the Cold War. Most are hawks on foreign policy, and support George W. Bush's policies. Neocon in the Canadian context has never been properly defined or used. A better term for these Ontario PC Party members would be "small 'c' conservatives" or "ideological conservatives."
A few comments:
Urquhart: Does the election of John Tory — a Bill Davis acolyte — as leader of the provincial Conservatives signal the death of neo-conservatism in Ontario? No, although it is certainly in retreat.
Me: Neoconservatism in Ontario was never really alive. (See above). Also note that Mike Harris left office in 2001 with the size of government bigger and social spending higher than ever -- a fact Urquhart and others rarely (never?) write about.
Urquhart: In North America, the neo-conservative cycle began with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Me: What is a "neo-conservative cycle"? Maybe he means ascention to power. Ideological conservatives had in fact wrestled control of the Republican Party away from its moderate wing in 1964, when Barry Goldwater was nominated as their candidate.
Urquhart: But the neo-cons used the time [1985-1995] to take control of the [Ontario PC] party under Mike Harris' leadership and to draft a radical platform, the Common Sense Revolution. It called for a sharp reduction in taxes, cuts to social programs (welfare) and red tape, a return to law and order, and the sell-off of government assets.
Me: Labeling the Common Sense Revolution "radical" is not analysis, it is polemics. Reducing taxes is not a radical prosition; it has been done by all parties including the Liberals and even the NDP. The Harris Tories, in the end, did not sell-off government assets -- not mentioned by Urquhart. If this was radical, I'd love to know that unradical looks like.
Urquhart: Neo-conservative Harrisites were welcomed back into [Ernie Eves'] fold and given the reins of power. In the run-up to the 2003 election, they produced a platform that called for more tax cuts, a ban on teachers' strikes, more police, a crackdown on illegal immigrants, and a scoop law for the homeless. Much of it was borrowed from Flaherty's leadership campaign platform. The voters rejected it and elected McGuinty and the Liberals.
Me: Eves was a bad campaigner and suffered from credibility problems. Those "in the know" (and likely many voters, too) could tell that Eves didn't really believe in the platform he was espousing. It was the same problem Jean Charest had in the 1997 federal election: he didn't believe what he was running on -- tax cuts, etc... The discomfort was palpable.
What Urquhart and some others erroneously assume is that Tory's centrist approach to politics (a respected colleague once convinced me of the inherent wrongess of using the term "moderate" to describe "centrist") is what voters really want. Precious little evidence exists to support that claim, yet it is advanced as though it is a fact all over the media. Ideological conservatism can win if the ideas are explained clearly and the messenger believes in the message.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 1:27 PM
|
