| |
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.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Of Light Bulbs and Toilets
First it was light bulbs...and now it's toilets!
Nope, not making this up.
Such is Ontario politics these days. And I can't say I disagree either. I am one to believe (and I am probably alone on this) that conservation, in all its peculiar forms, is inextricably tied to the ideals of a genuine conservative.
Elsewhere, I have seen conservatives (read: libertarians) use the mantra of liberty to argue against such encroachment. Fundamentally, this crowd has confused the American conservative tradition with the Canadian conservative tradition--very different narratives altogether. It's a matter of fact that the liberty line resonates much better with Americans than it does with Canadians: our Founding Fathers weren't as interested in ceding themselves from the Motherland. The tory tradition in Canada is all about moderation, collectivism, and order--the emphasis on liberty is not as prominent.
A lot of the stuff that guys like Ron Paul (who describes himself as a "constitutionalist") are saying these days reminds me of the political rhetoric of Ronald Reagan. In Reagan's Inaugural Address on January 20, 1981, he famously noted: In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.
Notice how similar that is to pronouncements made in the Declaration of Independence (1776): Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. I may be simplifying this argument, but, in a nutshell, this is what distinguishes one of the tendencies in American conservatism from Canadian conservatism: namely, and I'm pretty sure my friend Adam would disagree with me here, Canadians are probably more willing than Americans to accept "attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction" over them. Is it right for governments to do this? Probably not.
# posted by Omar Soliman : 8:59 AM
|
