In her riposte to Scott Anderson, Sharon Ramsdale made some good points, and took pains to point out the quasi-socialist characteristics of John A MacDonald and other “Conservative” governments that succeeded his in the early years of this country’s existence.
Mercantilism, blind loyalty to the mother country (odd for a Scot, when you think of it), the creation of the CBC, the wheat board, the handgun registry — all very “activist” and Progressive, as she says.
And mostly unnecessary and harmful, though that is perhaps an argument for another day.
The crucial point she misses is this: the definitions of words change over time, and the meanings of terms like conservative, liberal, democratic etc., in the political sense have evolved a bit since 1867, 1911 or 1917.
In John A’s day, being conservative did indeed mean preserving tradition, more specifically preserving the privilege of the remittance men and other assorted fakers who passed themselves off as the new country’s upper class in those days.
It was the Liberals, under Laurier, who were then the party of individual freedom, free enterprise, closer ties with the U.S. than with the Crown, free trade etc. How things change!
Now, a century or so later, the Liberals (federal and provincial) are the party of regulation, rule by bureaucrat, cronyism, an ever-expanding state and a complete disregard for the freedom of the individual citizen.
Not exactly living up to their OED definition either, are they?
And it is now conservatives, particularly the B.C. Conservatives, who favour liberty, true free enterprise (as opposed to crony capitalism and “managed trade”), and a shrinking of the state and it’s influence over and cost to the citizenry.
Of course, there is that other great example of of a badly misnamed institution, the NDP.
They are, as is well known, not remotely describable as “new,” having been around under one name or another since the 1930s.
And any party which subscribes to socialism, and intends to impose it on the populace at large, has a lot of nerve calling itself democratic.
Her comparisons to the U.S. Republican Party are curious. With the exception of some of the newly-elected Tea Party members, most Republican congressmen aren’t remotely conservative (in the modern sense described above).
So perhaps John A MacDonald would be appalled by modern Canadian conservatism, with it’s emphasis on equality before the law, lowering taxes and tariffs, non-interference in the lives of the citizenry, and zero tolerance for public sector malfeasance.
Just as we modern conservatives are appalled when we look at the cronyism, bribe-taking, and general dishonesty that characterized his governments.
Most people are appalled by such things, and would not consider them to be “our Canadian traditions.”
Ian Tribes, North Okanagan
