[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

I disagree.  I think the evidence is pretty good that, on average, the best outcomes in raising children is when they are raised by their married biological parents.  And that raising children is absolutely essential not only to preserving our society, but our economy as well

That doesn't mean that kids can't be well raised by single parents, adoptive parents, same sex parents, grandparents, or whatever.  But it's harder.  So I think that we should try to promote traditional families, but without shaming other kinds of families.

How would you promote traditional families?

[Barrister]

I disagree.  I think the evidence is pretty good that, on average, the best outcomes in raising children is when they are raised by their married biological parents.  And that raising children is absolutely essential not only to preserving our society, but our economy as well

That doesn't mean that kids can't be well raised by single parents, adoptive parents, same sex parents, grandparents, or whatever.  But it's harder.  So I think that we should try to promote traditional families, but without shaming other kinds of families.

How would you promote traditional families?

Look, I was put on the spot by Oex asking me (seemingly out of the blue) for a "positive definition of community for Conservatives", and only part of which my answer included traditional families.

The decline of traditional families has concerned conservative thinkers for a few decades now.  And unfortunately many of those have resorted more to being anti-non-traditional families, as opposed to coming up with policies that are pro-traditional-families.

The best I've got are a series of policy nudges on the one hand (tax breaks, limited income splitting, various grants) that would encourage marriage and children, and using the government "bully pulpit" to encourage traditional family formation on the other.

But I'm a government hack spitballing ideas before lunch, not a candidate for office with a well-defined policy platform.

[viper37]

I disagree.  I think the evidence is pretty good that, on average, the best outcomes in raising children is when they are raised by their married biological parents.

I think the best outcomes in raising children is two loving parent.  Most studies I saw suggest having same sex parents doesn't impact the child's development either way.

And that raising children is absolutely essential not only to preserving our society, but our economy as well.

Well, yes, but that is not the business of the government to promote in any way, other than by giving tax incentives.
Otherwise, you start deciding that kindergarden at age 2 are mandatory and mothers must take 2 years off paid work to stay at home.
Is that really a conservative value?  It's not one I agree with, at least.
Kindergardens at 4 are not only a failure but a drag on resources.  Numerous studies have proven they don't produce any differences past grade 3.
Mandatory preschool care has produce a huge deficit, a boom in >120k$ directors and administrators, a shortage of daycare centers, but not any noticeable effects on children's education.
Maternity leave has become an absolute right.  Women are entitled to 1 year off from work.  No matter how it screws up SMBs.  No matter if it reduces their chances of advancement in the private sector.  It is a right.  Not a benefit, but unemployement is now a right.  Just like seasonal workers who used to have "a right to unemployment" in their offseason.


Imho, that's the results of policies promoting "families".

[Barrister]

I disagree.  I think the evidence is pretty good that, on average, the best outcomes in raising children is when they are raised by their married biological parents.

I think the best outcomes in raising children is two loving parent.  Most studies I saw suggest having same sex parents doesn't impact the child's development either way.

And that raising children is absolutely essential not only to preserving our society, but our economy as well.

Well, yes, but that is not the business of the government to promote in any way, other than by giving tax incentives.
Otherwise, you start deciding that kindergarden at age 2 are mandatory and mothers must take 2 years off paid work to stay at home.
Is that really a conservative value?  It's not one I agree with, at least.
Kindergardens at 4 are not only a failure but a drag on resources.  Numerous studies have proven they don't produce any differences past grade 3.
Mandatory preschool care has produce a huge deficit, a boom in >120k$ directors and administrators, a shortage of daycare centers, but not any noticeable effects on children's education.
Maternity leave has become an absolute right.  Women are entitled to 1 year off from work.  No matter how it screws up SMBs.  No matter if it reduces their chances of advancement in the private sector.  It is a right.  Not a benefit, but unemployement is now a right.  Just like seasonal workers who used to have "a right to unemployment" in their offseason.


Imho, that's the results of policies promoting "families".

Agree on pre-kindergarten - and that's kind of the opposite of a "conservative" pro-family policy.

And I have zero problem with mandated 1 year maternity leave.  If anything the benefits should be expanded.

[Razgovory]

I don't entirely know the answer, but I feel there should be an answer out there.  There should be a way to embrace traditional families as the bedrock of society, without shaming those who are different (LGBTQ).  To embrace the founding nations and heritages of Canada, while still welcoming the contributions of others.  That we should be able to talk about Canadian Values, without them being either boiled down to meaningless drivel, or to have them as code words for being anti-muslim.  That we should be able to genuinely celebrate Canada's history without whitewashing or ignoring the bits that are distasteful.

I agree completely: I am just disappointed that it's not there.  I prefer disagreeing with decent people, like you, than with despicable assholes.

I disagree with everyone.

[Jacob]

I disagree with everyone.

You can be disagreeable, yes.

[Jacob]

Look, I was put on the spot by Oex asking me (seemingly out of the blue) for a "positive definition of community for Conservatives", and only part of which my answer included traditional families.

The decline of traditional families has concerned conservative thinkers for a few decades now.  And unfortunately many of those have resorted more to being anti-non-traditional families, as opposed to coming up with policies that are pro-traditional-families.

The best I've got are a series of policy nudges on the one hand (tax breaks, limited income splitting, various grants) that would encourage marriage and children, and using the government "bully pulpit" to encourage traditional family formation on the other.

But I'm a government hack spitballing ideas before lunch, not a candidate for office with a well-defined policy platform.

Fair enough.

Though, while keeping it in the spitballing territory, I think it is going to be very very difficult to find a way to encourage "traditional families" specifically without being anti-"non-traditional families".

I'd think your better bet - if you wanted to avoid the anti-"non-traditional families" implications - would be to support all families (in whatever ways) and be content in knowing that "traditional" families would get most of the benefits since there are so many of them.

[PRC]

Here is a follow up article by Scott Gilmore of Macleans:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-are-gay-rights-and-climate-action-not-conservative-values/

How are gay rights and climate action not conservative values?
Scott Gilmore is launching a national tour to talk about a renewed conservative party. He may be coming to a city near you.
Scott Gilmore
April 5, 2017

Despite a few accusations to the contrary, I'm a conservative. I don't think government is the solution to every challenge; I believe in the importance of individual freedom; I value our traditions and institutions; and I think the best judge of how to spend my money is me. In Canada, this makes me a Tory, at least notionally.

But here's the problem: I also support gay rights. I believe immigration makes this country strong. I think climate change is real and needs to be addressed. And I don't care if you want to smoke weed. You would think these would be natural conservative values—if you believe in personal freedom, shouldn't that include who you can love and what you can smoke? And surely prudently protecting our environment is the essence of being "conservative"? Unfortunately, several candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada don't just disagree—they actively oppose these values.

This reflects a central tension in conservative movements around the world. In the least nuanced way, this is described as being a struggle between social conservatives and libertarians. In Canada we use labels lifted from two now dead parties, one side of this ideological battle are called "Reformers", and the others are "Progressive Conservatives". It's not quite so clean cut, of course; and in truth, many of the leadership candidates have taken a little from Column A, and a little from Column B. But, overall, there is no question the CPC skidded out of the last election, swerved right, and crashed into the socon ditch.

My last column, entitled "Confessions of a self-loathing Tory", complained that the Conservatives had grown so acute I was beginning to wonder if we needed a new party, one that accurately reflected the values of all those Canadians who, like me, describe themselves as "fiscally conservative and socially moderate".

Apparently, I am not the only one asking this question. Over the last few days I have received over a thousand emails, phone calls and messages from Canadians in every province and territory who share my dismay with the direction the party is taking, and wonder what they can do about it.

Their responses are remarkably similar: these are voters utterly disenchanted with the direction of the Conservative Party. They want a smaller government, but they aren't willing to abandon facts or compassion to get there. And they are tired of supporting a party that tolerates racism, climate change deniers and populist clowns. As one person wrote me: "Every day, it gets harder and harder to defend the party to my friends and family."

In my column I proposed organizing three dinners, in Calgary, Toronto, and Montreal, to spark a conversation about the current values of the party. I'll be honest—I wasn't optimistic that anyone would be interested in joining me. But the response was immediate and overwhelming. In fact, we had to quickly set up a website (newconservatives.ca) to handle them all. So far over 1,200 people have signed up, and we have expanded the dinners to include Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Halifax.

Not everyone is supportive, however. Some party members, pundits, and even one of the leadership contenders dismissed my criticisms as those of a crypto-Liberal. What they strangely don't understand is that you don't have to be a big-government, social-engineering Liberal to believe in climate change, gay rights, or immigration. And, if these Conservatives still insist on labeling these values as "Liberal", they are committing political suicide. Just ask all the people who are joining us for dinner.

Other conservatives have called me "disloyal", suggesting debates like this should not be held in the open. This criticism is the hardest to fathom, but suffice to say, I will never support a party that is too frightened, or too controlling, to allow transparent debate.

More reasonably, there have also been concerns that if the political right splits, it would take us back to 2003 and keep the Liberals in power indefinitely. Perhaps it is too soon to be talking about starting a new political party. Regardless, the first question should be, "Does the CPC still reflect the values of moderate conservatives, and if not, can it change?" But if the party can't move back to the centre, that will also ensure the Liberals stay in office for a very long time.

So here is the plan. Because of the huge response from you, the readers, I'm going on a national tour this month. There are several people now helping me to find some great venues, and organize these dinners. We'll be joined by a few of Canada's smartest writers and political researchers. Odds are, we are going to be coming to your town—so join us. Go to the New Conservatives website, sign up, and we'll be sending your invitation shortly.

This is a great country. It got that way because every once in a while people just like you cleared their throats and asked, "Can't we do better?" These dinners will give us an opportunity to do just that. Some interesting things might happen, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Scott Gilmore is a member of the Conservative Party, and married to a Liberal Cabinet member.

[Oexmelin]

Look, I was put on the spot by Oex asking me (seemingly out of the blue) for a "positive definition of community for Conservatives", and only part of which my answer included traditional families.

I didn't mean to put you on the spot, but it wasn't so much out of the blue. It's just that some people on the forum were bemoaning the influx of a certain rhetoric within the Conservative party, to which you answered that these people were, presumably, not true conservatives - or that their conservativeness, limited to fiscal matters, was quite thin. I can sympathize with that, and can sympathize with being a party supporter/ a militant. However, I wanted to point out that, there was something more than lack of conservative credentials behind the complaint: a certain change in the nature of conservative rhetoric, and its seeming difficulties to address social issues in a positive ways. As one of the few (the only?) Canadian conservative, militant one at that, who takes pride that his conservativeness goes beyond fiscal issues, you must have thought about that - and perhaps even it was a problem you had also identified. So I asked you.

[Grey Fox]

Scott Gilmore was born in the most interesting canadian city; Flin Flon.

[Barrister]

Scott Gilmore was born in the most interesting canadian city; Flin Flon.

Flin Flon is actually kind of cool (I lived there for 6 months), but the "most interesting Canadian city"?

[Grey Fox]

It's in 2 provinces & the birthplace of Bobby Clarke!

[crazy canuck]

There should be a way to embrace traditional families as the bedrock of society, without shaming those who are different (LGBTQ).

I don't think there's any need to embrace any of that.  And I think that just embracing something like that leads to shaming others who are different.

I disagree.  I think the evidence is pretty good that, on average, the best outcomes in raising children is when they are raised by their married biological parents.  And that raising children is absolutely essential not only to preserving our society, but our economy as well.

That doesn't mean that kids can't be well raised by single parents, adoptive parents, same sex parents, grandparents, or whatever.  But it's harder.  So I think that we should try to promote traditional families, but without shaming other kinds of families.

The conservative argument for the traditional family has, historically (traditionally if you will ) not been based on the best outcomes for children.  It has been based on wariness of accepting other forms of family units.  That is why most conservatives denigrate non traditional forms of familial relationships.  Conservatism is a political theory of being slow to change but to change when the evidence demonstrates the change is for the benefit of society.  The family values issue is a good example of people who call themselves conservative actually having a different agenda and an unwillingness to accept change even when the evidence demonstrates otherwise.

Also, you have to admit most "conservatives" are really basing their objections to same sex parents on religious arguments.

Btw, if  one were to encourage the family unit which produces the best outcomes for children, on average, then the government really should be encouraging more gay and lesbian couples to raise children since those children fare at least as well as the traditional family.

[viper37]

The Story of us is not the story of Canada

And that's after one episode...  Can't wait for the next one!

[Valmy]

The Story of us is not the story of Canada

And that's after one episode...  Can't wait for the next one!

Man I am glad the British taught you about nice clothes and hygiene.