ALBERTA: Provincial Elections!

[Barrister]

- but I fear the celebration of tolerance is, in a way, a celebration of indifference towards our fellow citizens. Do what you want, as long as I don't have to care about it.

That is why I largely question the social/individual analysis you and BB ascribe to.

Tolerance is about community.  One cannot have a functional community without tolerance.  But tolerance cannot be mandated by criminal laws which try to make everyone conform to a particular behaviour - eg though shalt not be gay. (the social conservative route) Nor can tolerance be enforced by making everyone economically the same - eg wealth shall be redistributed so we are all functionally the same (the socialist route).

Tolerance is important.  But surely it is not the only ingrediant to a healthy community.

[Barrister]

Tolerance is about community.  One cannot have a functional community without tolerance. 

That seems to me a cop out. Of course, communities need tolerance - but they always have a varied tolerance to varied things. Communities are usually pretty intolerant of a large variety of behaviours; are pretty open to forgiveness on some and are willing to be voluntary blind to other infractions. The question remains: what kind of tolerance is our individualistic society is celebrating? The short version we have all heard, and often repeated, is "anything that does not infringe upon the liberty of others" - but that is hugely circular, and never truly addresses the kind of liberty our social context is liable to give us. To even get at that point in a conversation, you need to recognize the existence of social limits on liberty and therefore, to discuss what these limits are or should be... In other words: what should we be intolerant about?

And then, you run into another problem, which is that of social change. Obviously, values change and have changed, and I do think it would be difficult to say that regulations and, judgements arrived at by the play of courts and governments haven't had any impact - in other words, they cannot dictate change (what human force can?), but they certainly can steer it by broadcasting a plain message of what we should celebrate, and what we should shun. And thus we return to a discussion of what these norms and values should be. And this is something no fixation on fiscal conservatism (government as corporation), liberal left (anything goes!), or libertarianism (me & my consent) can solve on its own.

I see Oex gave a much more thorough response.

[crazy canuck]

Oex and BB have constructed a rather elabortate refutation of what I said based on something I didnt say.

But an  interesting read all the same.  Particularly the bit where Oex think fiscal conservatism means government as corporation.

Now there is an assumption that needs some unwrapping...

[Sheilbh]

I thought about mentioning Aquino, but I thought it was generally felt that her actions in the transition to democracy were wonderful, she had a less than successful government.  Same for Indira Gandhi - it's remarkable she was Prime Minister of India for such a period, but her overall record was mixed.

I think she's better than Indira, whose record, in my view is pretty negative.  I'd put Aquino in the same camp as Mandela or Walesa.  The quality of her government may have been mixed but the success of leading the movement that overthrew a regime and successfully transitioning to a pretty durable looking democracy shouldn't be underestimated.  Suu Kyi will join that group if Burma continues as it is.

Can't say I'm familiar with Sirleaf or Clark.

Sirleaf's, I think, a former World Bank Governor and has been in my view a good post-civil war President for Liberia.  She's signed Africa's first Freedom of Information, been pretty tough on corruption, established universal free education and done a lot to establish and maintain respect for their constitution.  If growth continue and she steps down at the end of her second term I think she'll have been a great leader.

I just like Clark because I've got a thing for Kiwis, I also like the current PM and the magnificent David Lange.  But her government's record is pretty strong.

I agree with Oex and BB on the social conservative thing.  In this country we've largely got over the gay issues and abortion is an issue of conscience for individual MPs.  So for example the Tories want, for socially conservative reasons, to include a tax credit for married couples.  That's opposed by Labour, Leb Dems and, I imagine, more libertarian Tories (like Boris Johnson or George Osborne) as imposing a moral judgement that marriage is better and discriminating against cohabiting couples.  The social conservative point, in my opinion, would be that it definitely does impose a value judgement.  In their view marriage is a social and moral good which should be encouraged.

Here's Cameron's socially conservative pitch to Tory Party Conference last autumn:

I once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn't matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we're consulting on legalising gay marriage.

And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it's about equality, but it's also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.

I think if either social conservatives or outsiders focus just on gays and abortion then it distracts from their wider message - which is about things like drug policy, charity, community and an active, somewhat meddling society.  Basically what would social conservatives do if gays and abortion weren't an issue?  They wouldn't just wither away.

[crazy canuck]

I think if either social conservatives or outsiders focus just on gays and abortion then it distracts from their wider message - which is about things like drug policy, charity, community and an active, somewhat meddling society.  Basically what would social conservatives do if gays and abortion weren't an issue?  They wouldn't just wither away.

They would largely wither away in this country, since all the things BB mentioned are, as Jacob said, largely accepted by most  everyone here as being good and laudable.

In fact the main reason someone identifies themselves as being a social conservative in this country and espouses "family values" is precisely because they are anti-abortion, anti-gay rights and anti-sex education.  Once those issues are removed there isnt much more to argue about except on the social agenda.  The main arguments become economic in nature.

[Barrister]

I think if either social conservatives or outsiders focus just on gays and abortion then it distracts from their wider message - which is about things like drug policy, charity, community and an active, somewhat meddling society.  Basically what would social conservatives do if gays and abortion weren't an issue?  They wouldn't just wither away.

They would largely wither away in this country, since all the things BB mentioned are, as Jacob said, largely accepted by most  everyone here as being good and laudable.

In fact the main reason someone identifies themselves as being a social conservative in this country and espouses "family values" is precisely because they are anti-abortion, anti-gay rights and anti-sex education.  Once those issues are removed there isnt much more to argue about except on the social agenda.  The main arguments become economic in nature.

I disagree.  You are categorizing all the things that you personally agree with as "middle of the road", and everything you disagree with as "extreme".

Tax deductions for married couples (NOT common law couples) would be hugely controversial in this country.  Particularily in Quebec.

[Jacob]

I disagree.  You are categorizing all the things that you personally agree with as "middle of the road", and everything you disagree with as "extreme".

Tax deductions for married couples (NOT common law couples) would be hugely controversial in this country.  Particularily in Quebec.

Now we're getting somewhere.

So in addition to tax deductions for married couples (and NOT common law couples), what other things would you put down as part of a social conservative agenda?

[Barrister]

I disagree.  You are categorizing all the things that you personally agree with as "middle of the road", and everything you disagree with as "extreme".

Tax deductions for married couples (NOT common law couples) would be hugely controversial in this country.  Particularily in Quebec.

Now we're getting somewhere.

So in addition to tax deductions for married couples (and NOT common law couples), what other things would you put down as part of a social conservative agenda?

Again, I'm not trying to provide some comprehensive political agenda, or some overall social conservative philosophy.  Lots of other things might be part of a 'social conservative' agenda.  I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to pin me down on.

[crazy canuck]

I think if either social conservatives or outsiders focus just on gays and abortion then it distracts from their wider message - which is about things like drug policy, charity, community and an active, somewhat meddling society.  Basically what would social conservatives do if gays and abortion weren't an issue?  They wouldn't just wither away.

They would largely wither away in this country, since all the things BB mentioned are, as Jacob said, largely accepted by most  everyone here as being good and laudable.

In fact the main reason someone identifies themselves as being a social conservative in this country and espouses "family values" is precisely because they are anti-abortion, anti-gay rights and anti-sex education.  Once those issues are removed there isnt much more to argue about except on the social agenda.  The main arguments become economic in nature.

I disagree.  You are categorizing all the things that you personally agree with as "middle of the road", and everything you disagree with as "extreme".

Tax deductions for married couples (NOT common law couples) would be hugely controversial in this country.  Particularily in Quebec.

I agree with Jacob, we are now getting somewhere.  Please clarify BB, which of the things I mentioned :anti abortion, anti gay rights and anti sex education, do you say is NOT extreme.

I would have thought that access to abortion, gays rights and sex education were firmly in the middle of the road of Canadian politics.

[Neil]

Anti-gay rights is not extreme.

[Jacob]

Again, I'm not trying to provide some comprehensive political agenda, or some overall social conservative philosophy.  Lots of other things might be part of a 'social conservative' agenda.  I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to pin me down on.

I'm trying to pin you down on what you mean by social conservative.

My understanding of what social conservatism is that it's anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-sex education, in favour of punishing extra-marital sex, possibly pro-specific versions of Christianity being explicitly imbedded in the legal framework of the country and possibly anti-immigration.

That's not really the vibe I get from you, however, so I'm curious what you mean when you speak of being a social conservative. Is it simply the things I mentioned above but in a weaker form? I.e. gay people are fine as long as they keep quiet, abortion should be difficult to get, sex education should focus on marriage and abstinence, tax incentives for married people, more room explicitly staked out for religious organizations in civic life including tax and other financial incentives?

Basically, my understanding of social conservatives is that they're pretty close to the raving bigot end of the scale. My impression of you is that you're quite far from the raving bigot end of the scale, yet you seem to consider yourself a social conservative (or at least have sympathies for social conservatives). I'm trying to get that squared away... since I don't think that you secretly have raving bigot sympathies it seems that I'm missing something in my understanding of what social conservatism is and stands for and I would like to find out what that is.

So far you've offered up some generalities in favour of community cohesion and social support, which I agree are (or can be) pretty attractive, but I don't see them as being particular to social conservatives... though, now that I think about it perhaps it's one of the things that sets them apart from other types of conservatives (except maybe the mostly extinct Red Tories) and that's your point? Because, like I said, many of those things you said are perfectly acceptable to your average Liberal or NDP supporter if you don't make it explicitly anti-gay etc.

This isn't meant to be an adversarial conversation either, by the way, so if you I'm coming across as such at some point let me know.

In the end, however, I'm still really vague on what you mean by social conservatism.

[Jacob]

Anti-gay rights is not extreme.

It is, however, bigoted.

[PRC]

Anti-gay rights is not extreme.

I'm not sure that being "anti-abortion" is extreme either.

[Jacob]

I'm not sure that being "anti-abortion" is extreme either.

Depends what "anti-abortion" means.

Does it mean that you look askance at anyone you know had an abortion, and wouldn't want one yourself?
Does it mean that you want to prevent everyone from having an abortion, ever?
Does it mean that you think it's okay to shoot abortion providers and publicly shame women who are known to have had an abortion?
Or does it mean something else?

[Neil]

Anti-gay rights is not extreme.

It is, however, bigoted.

Yeah, but who cares about that?  The only people who get worked up about bigotry aren't worth knowing anyways.