liberals Archives - More Letters to the Corinthians

One of the ways politics gets confusing is how we use the term liberal. Officially it means two things: freedom (both economic and social) and an ideology to describe political parties. Most everyone agrees with the first (freedom), the second is now coming to an end. To better understand, let’s look at history.

Stage I

Government was initially run by a single person, typically some dictator or a king. People went about their day in accordance with sovereign views until things changed in the late 1600s. That’s when Britain overthrew its monarch and made elected parliament supreme. France soon followed and later came the US.

In the early days, parliament took only two forms—one designed by the British and another by the French. In Britain, there were two parties, Conservatives and the Whigs. They took electoral turns while the other played loyal opposition. No matter what the government proposed, the other’s job was to object. If government said raise taxes, they said “no way”; if government said let’s have Sunday shopping, opposition said “not a chance.” Under this system, before any bill could pass it had to be thoroughly thought out and fought over. Kind of like an argument going on inside your head.

In early France, everyone advocating for change sat on the left side of the chamber and those preferring things stay the same sat on the right. Terms we still use today. Again, with this system there were proposals and objections—just like with the Brits.

Stage II

A second stage came when the Whigs changed their name to Liberals and adopted an ideology. As a party they stood up for two things: social freedom away from the Bible and the creation of a welfare state. Remember, the separation of church and state was a large part of democracy but much of religion remained within law. And at the time, economic productivity was just reaching the point where a welfare state was even possible.

The hallmark of this movement occurred in 1904, when Winston Churchill crossed the floor to join the governing Liberals and usher in Britain’s first welfare state. Then as time went by, more cons wanted to join in. They were called progressive conservatives.

Common beliefs

Within any political system there are always three boxes. A wide one along the bottom—to represent what everyone believes—and two more on top, to show differing views.

In Canada, our common beliefs rectangle is pretty thick. There’s little of Christianity left within our system and we boast a pretty robust welfare state. So at least in our country, the Whig agenda has won. Liberals are currently finishing things off through doctor-assist (Bible), legalizing dope (Bible), and beefing up CPP (welfare state). After that, there isn’t much left. So where do we go when we mostly agree? And what’s the new difference between liberals and cons?

Stage III

Going forward leaders will be more about competency than ideology, and issues will be more individual than according to theme. Yes, parties will be different but not along Whig-Liberal lines. Conservatives favour eliminating unnecessary business regulations but shouldn’t everyone be doing this—they’re unnecessary. They’re also big on personal responsibility, but even under left-wing governments I don’t qualify for welfare. So no matter the stripe, there’s only so much dough to go around.

In Ontario, Doug Ford campaigned against McGuinty-Wynne debt but is this Liberal policy? Paul Martin ran 13 federal surpluses and belongs to the same party. Wynne privatized hydro and invested heavily in R&D. Couldn’t conservative government have done the same thing? And how about Alberta’s NDP fighting for pipelines?

When NAFTA was redrafted, it was strictly business. Any party could have done it. Same goes for banking regulations, privacy laws, and increasing the minimum wage. And like it or not, other than maintaining or increasing the welfare state, when it comes to economics, we’re looking for optimal standard of living. So no matter your slant, it must work within human nature. Raising taxes too high makes the gifted give up, and no economy can operate like that.

Summary

In Canada we’re pretty lucky. We’ve never been overly religious so resistance to social change was soft. For example, conservatives opposed gay marriage and 10 years later passed it into their party platform (making the argument gone for good). We’ve also been fortunate financially, which made building a welfare state rather easy.

Today’s challenges are postmodernism on the left and US-style wackos on the right. Liberals seem to be linking to some PM causes and for some reason crazies like the prospect of lower taxation. In both cases it’s important to vote down the middle. I don’t know enough, but postmodernists seem to lack brainpower and may be riding on the Whig-Liberal’s good name. I doubt it’s something I’ll fight for. Likewise, I don’t understand the American beef against social programs. Isn’t government supposed to operate monopolies?

Bottom line: we’re mostly good people who all want the same thing. Yes, we get divided by what goes on in the States but they’re not us. Down there it’s a different situation that varies by a lot. Up here life is mostly good. Let’s hope we don’t wreck it.

See also Left is for Liberal and Conservatives.

In the last federal election, I voted for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Though I felt Harper was far-right on some social issues, I waived this for the sake of his competence with numbers. But I’m not angry the Liberals won. On the contrary. As a centrist, I believe society is better served when both parties get a turn. I’d rather see 10 years of left and 10 years of right before 20 years of either one—because that’s how our system gets to the centre.

We simply haven’t evolved to the point where all parties “manage from the middle.” So instead of long serving centrist parties that sometimes take from the left and sometimes take from the right, we get wild swings of one way or the other. One team shoves its ideology down our throats, then the opposing side takes the field and reverses the controversial bits but leaves what they should have passed when they were in charge. This all-left, all-right style does sorta produce centrist rule but it’s disruptive and most people don’t like it. Business definitely doesn’t like it—they prefer slow and gradual change.

But enough of this centrist stuff, what do I think of Justin? Two things: he’s an intellectual lightweight and his Prime Ministership will be of great importance.

Since he has none of his dad’s philosopher king capabilities, his intellectual skills are suitable only for consensus-style management—and this style will, for the very first time, be put to the national test. The article on Modern Decision Making explains the pitfalls of the consensus model, concluding that it’s a combination of the two styles that works best. Within this government, it will be the role of somebody else to perform the duties of suffering, responsibility, nursing, and consistency—not the PM.

But who? When George W was around, everyone knew Dick Cheney was pulling the strings. So who’s pulling Justin? The answer is a committee. And that’s what’s interesting. For the first time in history we’re going to be managed by a committee. Now let me be the first to say this is not necessarily a bad thing. As a matter of fact, it’s a coming of time. We’ve been highly educating people in this country for over 60 years and may have arrived at a point where we no longer defer to an expert. It’s group rule.

At the beginning I explained why I voted for Harper. I said that despite my opinion of his negatives, I was willing to vote for his positives. But since Trudeau’s election, I haven’t heard anyone say, “though Justin’s not a genius, we had to make a change.” People feel sufficiently confident that, collectively, we can do this and that there’s nothing wrong with Justin—he’s just like us.

Trudeau is a repercussion of mass education and a further peg in the female style of management. Staunch conservatives aren’t afraid of the liberal ideology—we’ve had it before. They’re afraid of being guided by an airhead. They liken it to a company overrun by staff or a family being run by the kids. But these committee people are neither employees nor kids. They’re professionals who’ve been successful in their former lives and aren’t new to the concept of being a boss.

Justin Trudeau will not be an exceptional Prime Minister but this country is. And what he represents about Canada is a new belief system that says we’re intelligent people who care about one another, and not a bunch of trolls needing to be led. Personally, I’m going to sit back and watch this unfold. I’m not going to be a sour-grape, sore loser and complain. I’m going to watch, witness, and evaluate whether my country has attained the ability to almost govern itself.

I have to tell you, Justin, I’m looking forward to the ride. (And I wish you well.)