Conservatism in Canada and how it compares to US politics - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14897769
I came upon this today. It's an excellent article and may give some insight into what a Conservative is, to some people.

Note: I'm a Canadian Conservative, but wouldn't be an American one(in how it exists currently)/

How do they compare?

How to Save the Conservative Party
The days of conservatism as a revolutionary force are gone. The movement must instead rebuild as an intellectual force—one that can win minds, not just the odd election
https://thewalrus.ca/how-to-save-the-co ... ive-party/
#14901609
I am always a bit nervous discussing conservatism and liberalism in Canada knowing that it means somewhat different things to our respective populations.

To me conservatism is promoting and encouraging those traditional values that have served the individual and/or humanity in general well along with a willingness to discard policy/mindset that do not serve the individual and/or humanity well. Conservatism is striving for social contract and policy and shared laws/services that works for the greater good while respecting the God given/natural rights/liberties of every person.

The linked article is not necessary wrong, but it is written as a liberal would write, i.e. in theory, ideology, and a rather vague and fuzzy concept of what needs to happen. But what speaks to the American conservative are principles and facts that affect him/her, loved ones, friends, neighbors, colleagues such as the price of food at the grocery store, the daily traffic jam going to work, fixing what is broken, securing futures, etc. High sounding moralistic platitudes without any substance behind them don't sell well with the modern day American conservative.
#14901616
I've discovered, that American Conservative tends to be a far different animal, or at least the Conservatives on this forum are very right wing, and generally against personal liberties if it seems that it might work against tradition.

Canadian Conservatives are very economically conservative, while being more liberal minded when it comes to personal freedoms and liberties.
#14901619
Interesting perspective as I see American conservatives more as you describe Canadian conservatives and the authoritarian ones these days--those who are generally against personal liberties if those liberties violate their ideology--are the modern day American liberals. There are always exceptions to both observations of course.
#14901622
:lol: No. If you think the liberals are complaining because of personal liberties, then you have it all backwards.

Liberals are not complaining because they think transgenders shouldn't be using the wrong washrooms(according to them).

Liberals are not against homosexual marriage, or adoption.

Liberals are not against free speech, but the freedom to exercise it even if it offends.

Now, granted, there is a VERY small minority of extremists on both sides who go so far as to be absurd. That's not the norm, however. Exceptions exist, hower.

The Kaepernick situation was actually Conservatives not liking that a black man was exercising his Constitutional right to peaceful protest(a long-standing tradition, unless you take into account his"race"). It seemed that this was not a minority of Conservatives, either. As I said, the exception, and fueled by media and celebrity.

Most Liberals and Conservatives, however, fall into the area between the looney toons who want toilet police to prevent transgenders using the "wrong toilet", or to police the use of gender pronouns, and fining people who don't use the correct pronoun, as it's abuse. Social Justice Warriors abound on the fringes, but even if they get most of the media attention, they are hardly the norm, nor looked at with anything but the derision they deserve.
#14901634
@Godstud
Your reasoning, like many liberals, start with the assumption your views are universally accepted and then progress your reasoning on that faulty premise.
I think if you reread your post you might see this.

Edit: Your examples are all liberal issues. You give conservatives a couple things to argue about, but nothing that will determine their vote. It is all argued from your view of what is important.
#14901649
They are issues of liberty and equality which are HUMAN issues. Did your alien overlords not teach you about empathy and compassion?

I am sorry if your right-wing echo-chamber doesn't allow you to see past your own narrow-minded, archaic views, but the majority of people are on board on these issues. The majority is not what you fucking represent, that's for sure, even if you think you're a populist conservative.

Note: These wouldn't even be issues if it wasn't for Conservative right wingers having their feelings hurt.
#14901710
Godstud wrote:They are issues of liberty and equality which are HUMAN issues. Did your alien overlords not teach you about empathy and compassion?

I am sorry if your right-wing echo-chamber doesn't allow you to see past your own narrow-minded, archaic views, but the majority of people are on board on these issues. The majority is not what you fucking represent, that's for sure, even if you think you're a populist conservative.

Note: These wouldn't even be issues if it wasn't for Conservative right wingers having their feelings hurt.

You actually confused me when you posted all these issues. I am still not sure how they relate to the discussion that was ongoing. You simply jumped from what conservative issues are to ‘here is what matters to me’. These are YOUR issues, not conservative issues. Your erratic jump to your issues show you have zero interest in what conservatives want.
#14901714
These issues are what Conservatives have been bitching about. Don't try to pass the buck. The Kaepernick thing was NOTHING until Conservatives got their panties in a bunch about it.
#14901723
Godstud wrote:These issues are what Conservatives have been bitching about. Don't try to pass the buck. The Kaepernick thing was NOTHING until Conservatives got their panties in a bunch about it.

Yes, but you insist it is about race because it is your issue. I don’t even consider Kaepernick Black, so your issue is irrelevant to me.
My issue with the NFL started with all the pink. A political/commercial collusion based upon views of breast cancer that is in conflict with the most extensive studies. The American cancer society admitted long ago to misleading the public with the excuse of “the ends justify the means”. Breast cancer has an extremely high spontaneous remission. Admittedly they do some very humanitarian things, but are basically an evil political entity. The player protests were just the last straw. I don’t care what color the players were. They were amateur spokes people with zero credentials to expect national tv coverage. Their amateur views were tolerated due to politics. No different to me than if they were white and wanted to protest for Buddhist prayers before the game.
YOU insist it is about racism because YOU want it to be about racism. Why can’t you believe I just thought they were morons with no right to distract from my enjoyment of something free of politics? The fact they were mostly Black morons did not really matter to me.
#14901730
Godstud wrote:I came upon this today. It's an excellent article and may give some insight into what a Conservative is, to some people.

Note: I'm a Canadian Conservative, but wouldn't be an American one(in how it exists currently)/

How do they compare?

How to Save the Conservative Party
The days of conservatism as a revolutionary force are gone. The movement must instead rebuild as an intellectual force—one that can win minds, not just the odd election
https://thewalrus.ca/how-to-save-the-co ... ive-party/



Rather than asking how does US and Canadian conservatism compare, we should address the article. Where to for conservatism now?

A few observations, the author is saying liberal conservatism (sorry about that) has been replaced by popularist cronyism. But then the left is popularist also.

I disagree with the author’s view that conservatism started with the enlightenment. I could mention the Magna Carta, renaissance and the fight against absolutism. These are all foundational to what was to become liberalism. It actually annoys me when liberal conservatives appropriate everything Western and pretend our shared Western heritage is exclusively theirs.

A good example of this irritating mindset is the notion that Voltaire was liberal. No he wasn’t. He hung out with Fredrick the Great. An absolute monarch. However Voltaire can be seen as proto liberal. He certainly influenced the movement. But he was not actually liberal.

Anyway, back to conservatives. I do agree with the author that conservatives protect proven institutions. Even if he goes too far in claiming those institutions for liberalism alone. But how can conservatives today go back to being conservatives?

Without a group of people close to power who share a certain set of conventions, it is hard to see how the culture can return. The last few decades of neo liberals did a pretty good job of destroying that old restrained conservatism. It would probably take a few generations of struggle against adversity to recreate it.
#14904758
Godstud wrote::lol: No. If you think the liberals are complaining because of personal liberties, then you have it all backwards.

Liberals are not complaining because they think transgenders shouldn't be using the wrong washrooms(according to them).

Liberals are not against homosexual marriage, or adoption.

Liberals are not against free speech, but the freedom to exercise it even if it offends.

Now, granted, there is a VERY small minority of extremists on both sides who go so far as to be absurd. That's not the norm, however. Exceptions exist, hower.

The Kaepernick situation was actually Conservatives not liking that a black man was exercising his Constitutional right to peaceful protest(a long-standing tradition, unless you take into account his"race"). It seemed that this was not a minority of Conservatives, either. As I said, the exception, and fueled by media and celebrity.

Most Liberals and Conservatives, however, fall into the area between the looney toons who want toilet police to prevent transgenders using the "wrong toilet", or to police the use of gender pronouns, and fining people who don't use the correct pronoun, as it's abuse. Social Justice Warriors abound on the fringes, but even if they get most of the media attention, they are hardly the norm, nor looked at with anything but the derision they deserve.


Since this followed my comment I will assume it was intended as a response to my comment.

To U.S. conservatives Kaepernick's race had absolutely nothing to do with anger over ANYBODY being a crappy role model and setting a terrible example by disrespecting the flag and therefore their country on national TV. Certainly it increased the resentment that an overpaid, self-righteous millionaire would use a sports forum--the flag and/or sports have absolutely nothing to do with any police conduct--to do it. And for liberals to make it a 'race thing' is simply intellectually dishonest.

Conservatives, at least most, do not object to same sex unions. But, because they believe a traditional marriage with a responsible mom and dad in the home is the very best circumstance for children whether they be gay or straight, many/most objected to weakening the institution of marriage by changing the definition and therefore making it into something different than it was. Because of the same concern for children, i.e. they benefit from having a mother and father in the home, and that should be the norm for adoptions. At the same time, at least most understand that sometimes adoption by a single parent or a same sex couple is better for a child than the situation they are in and we do not object when that is the case.

As for transgenders, I am not going to debate that again. There are separate bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. for men and women for very good reasons and that separation should be enforceable by gender. Period. In single person bathroom settings, it shouldn't make any difference.

Also in the U.S., we have a cherished Constitution that includes a First Amendment that is there in part to protect unpopular, even offensive speech, because otherwise 'free speech' doesn't exist. Most American conservatives honor the intent of the First Amendments and, while we may strongly criticize somebody for what they say, we don't organize angry mobs in an attempt to punish them physically or economically.

So no, I don't think liberals complain because of personal liberties. U.S. liberals, however, too often demand liberties that THEY want, and have absolutely no moral scruples about denying conservatives the liberties that they want.
#14904766
Godstud wrote:The Kaepernick thing was NOTHING until Conservatives got their panties in a bunch about it.

As you said with respect to YouTube, NFL teams are private corporations. They can decide whether or not they want their players expressing political views on company time. Since their contracts also contain morals clauses, NFL teams can also impose penalties based on conduct players engage in when not playing football. Similarly, Google can fire James Damoore. The only thing corporations can't do is to do something like that for a wrongful reason--such as taking action on alleged behavior with no proof that it actually occurred. There is no doubt James Damoore wrote a memo, but it is debatable that it said what some peole say it said. There is no doubt that certain conservative opinions get squelched on YouTube. There is no doubt that Kolin Kaepernick used NFL games to advance his private political beliefs and the NFL suffered a significant ratings decline in part due to his actions. You have been pretty passionate in supporting private companies squelching conservative opinions as a free exercise of their rights. The opposite also works too. Kaepernick is persona non grata not because the NFL wouldn't hire him, but because their audience doesn't like him. The customers don't have to like the product.

FoxFyre wrote:So no, I don't think liberals complain because of personal liberties. U.S. liberals, however, too often demand liberties that THEY want, and have absolutely no moral scruples about denying conservatives the liberties that they want.

This is why Godstud has no moral high ground here. It's pointless to argue laws based on equality if you don't believe in equality before the law. Kaepernick is just as much a firing candidate as James Damoore--in fact, much more so as he actually hurt not only his team but the NFL's ratings.
#14905002
Oh fuck off with your "moral high ground" nonsense. NFL ratings were already sagging, prior to this incident. It had little to nothing to do with Kaepernick. If anything, the Kaepernick fiasco brought more people to watch the NFL.

The morons who can't stand a person peacefully kneeling(when some pud-fuckers sit during the anthem and no one says "boo"), are the problem. Kaepernicjk wasn't doing anything you could deem "disrespectful" during the anthem. If you don't agree with that, then that's your fucking problem, and probably because you've been brain-washed by the right-wing propaganda that you prefer to look at, because you side the vast unwashed, uneducated American Republican base.
#14912039
blackjack21 wrote:
This is why Godstud has no moral high ground here. It's pointless to argue laws based on equality if you don't believe in equality before the law. Kaepernick is just as much a firing candidate as James Damoore--in fact, much more so as he actually hurt not only his team but the NFL's ratings.


As to Kaepernick, his fate is between him and the team he played for. The rest of us have complete right and ability to say what he think about his actions, but that's as far as it should ever go. There is no moral authority for any of us not affiliated with that organization to demand that any kind of action be taken or for any of us to try to organize to punish it/him for his unacceptable (in my opinion) behavior.

He didn't hurt the NFL. Those who decided to emulate Kaepernick hurt the NFL with the same unacceptable (in my opinion) behavior. My spouse and I were offended enough by that behavior and the NFL's response to it that we didn't watch NFL games last year. (It was kind of nice having Sunday afternoons free actually.) We didn't try to get anybody else to not watch but it was interesting to see how many made the same choice.

And that is the way to handle socially unacceptable behavior that is simply offensive and not materially harmful. To me, to organize and actively try to hurt people materially and/or physically, simply because they say or do something that offends us is not only unAmerican, but it is hateful and far more offensive than anything their target could have done.
#14912047
NFL was in decline before Kaepernick.

The real cause for decline in viewership is much simpler, and far less political:
- Concussions: Parents are far far less willing to have their kids play the game. This include myself, I will NEVER let me son play that game. NEVER. He is already growing up with the idea that "Football is bad for your brain." This isn't just my son, but most of his friends too.
- Millennial and younger generations don't care about sports in general as previous generations. Mainly because there are so many other forms of entertainment that are doing a better job of capturing their attention.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

ISIS wants to create a division between Chechens […]

PoFo would be a strange place for them to focus o[…]

In my opinion, masculinity has declined for all o[…]

@ingliz good to know, so why have double standar[…]