The Canadian Election

[Uzi]

@RickJay

In any event, the events of this election would suggest that the CPC was way off base here. The CPC’s endless blather about how Parliament should decide this sort of thing instead of the courts is all well and fine, but people voted against the CPC primarily because of these issues. It’s fine to say the voters should decide… but they HAVE decided.

Huh? What they chose is to allow an unelected body of appointed judges to make the choice for them. People appointed by a former lawyer who thinks that writing a contract on a napkin is a good thing. Is that what you are telling me people in Ontario are supporting? I see…

The problem is that the CPC seemed to be preoccupied with getting back at the homos.

I would suggest that most people could care less what the ‘homos’ do, or don’t do. But, if a minority such as gay people are deemed by some to be intruding on what many consider the realm of the church then people get upset. And if Parliament would actually do something like rename ‘Marriage’ to say ‘Civil Union’ and give the term ‘Marriage’ back to the Churches from which it probably came, then the vast majority of conflict would probably dissolve. I’m an Athiest myself, so I care less what the Church or people from the Church think, I’m just describing what I think the issue is.
This is why I think the courts are not the best people to decide this sort of thing. They have to look at the specifics of the case, not look at the larger problem which is what Parliament is supposed to do if they did their job.

[QUOTE]
Combined with the bizarre fetish over the child porn issue, it was as if/QUOTE]

Someone wants to do something to stop child porn and you have a problem with that? You may disagree with what they want to do, but it is more than anyone else it trying. Some people take it seriously when they think their kids are threatened.

I don’t think you’re a rednecks or a racists. But RANDY WHITE sure as hell is. So is Cheryl Gallant, who’s from Ontario. So why did your party of choice allow them to be a spokespersons for the party?

Are they spokespeople for the party, or are they just people who speak? I guess you could hand pick candidates who will only talk the party line, but that kind of defeats the purpose of democracy - having people who represent your ideals and know your issues in parliament, not some hand-picked flack who acts like a trained seal.

THAT’S THE PROBLEM. It’s not that Westerners are evil, or even all that different. The problem, as I patiently explained, is that the Reform-Alliance-Conservative party has never done a good job explaining why anyone should vote for them.

And yet it seems pretty obvious in the West. Why is that?

[Gorsnak]

@Uzi

Huh? What they chose is to allow an unelected body of appointed judges to make the choice for them. People appointed by a former lawyer who thinks that writing a contract on a napkin is a good thing. Is that what you are telling me people in Ontario are supporting? I see…

There’s this little thing called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? It requires the government to treat all people equally before the law. This, as it turns out, includes treating people equally with regards to civil marriage. This wasn’t decided by the courts. It was decided by Parliament when they did that whole constitutional repatriation thing.

I would suggest that most people could care less what the ‘homos’ do, or don’t do. But, if a minority such as gay people are deemed by some to be intruding on what many consider the realm of the church then people get upset. And if Parliament would actually do something like rename ‘Marriage’ to say ‘Civil Union’ and give the term ‘Marriage’ back to the Churches from which it probably came, then the vast majority of conflict would probably dissolve. I’m an Athiest myself, so I care less what the Church or people from the Church think, I’m just describing what I think the issue is.
This is why I think the courts are not the best people to decide this sort of thing. They have to look at the specifics of the case, not look at the larger problem which is what Parliament is supposed to do if they did their job.

A few points:

1. Gay people aren’t intruding on the realm of the church. Heck, the Ontario case that started the court battle began because a church married two guys by means of publishing bans, and then sued the govt of Ontario when it refused to recognize it.
2. The term ‘marriage’ doesn’t come from the church.
3. The courts are required to determine whether legislation contravenes the Constitution. This is a central part of their job, and they are best instrument we have for this job. If Parliament doesn’t like the manner in which the courts interpret the Charter, it has two choices. It can amend it - fat chance, at least on this issue. Or it can invoke the Notwithstanding Clause and live with the consequences.

Someone wants to do something to stop child porn and you have a problem with that? You may disagree with what they want to do, but it is more than anyone else it trying. Some people take it seriously when they think their kids are threatened.

Taking it seriously doesn’t require asserting that the Prime Minister personally supports kiddy porn.

Are they spokespeople for the party, or are they just people who speak? I guess you could hand pick candidates who will only talk the party line, but that kind of defeats the purpose of democracy - having people who represent your ideals and know your issues in parliament, not some hand-picked flack who acts like a trained seal.

They may not have been spokespeople for the party, but the party didn’t make that clear. In fact, it seemed to me like Stephen Harper went out of his way to avoid suggesting that those people didn’t speak for the party.

And yet it seems pretty obvious in the West. Why is that?

Not as obvious as you think. The new Tories didn’t get a majority of the popular vote in any western province except Alberta. And Alberta apparently still votes based on the National Energy Policy. Don’t ask me why, but they do.

[emacknight]

None of what I have read here about Western or Quebecois alienation has anything to do with a failure in our electoral system. The problem quite simply is that in both Alberta and Quebec Provincial parties ran in a Federal election. So the result should not be surprising to either province when they feel they are under-represented in Parliament. As Rickjay said, that is why we have provincial governments. If the West should be mad at anyone is at Quebec since the CPC received zero seats in the entire province. Why? Again because a provincial party ran in a federal election. Right now the Bloc and the CPC have more seats than the Liberals. If the two parties could get their heads out of their respective provinces they might have a shot at ousting their mutual enemy.

But in the end, Atlantic Canada gave 20 seats to the Liberals, why? Mainly because they still see the CPC as Alberta’s Provincial party. I have a feeling BC did the same thing.

Federal politics does not need as much regional representation as people seem to cry for, that is why we have a provincial level of government: to deal with regional issues.

If the CPC wants to win in the 2005 election they need to look at their platform and throw out anything that is not widely appealing to ALL Canadians. Its fine if you want to focus on issues that are important to Alberta (lower taxes), since many in Canada share the same issues. But the CPC lost because they held on to the issues (abortion, gay rights, private health care) that a significant chunk of Canadians did not agree with.

The lesson we should learn from this election is that federal parties need to run in federal elections. For those in Alberta/Quebec ask yourself: how would provincial politics change if an Edmonton/Montreal party suddenly arose that only represented the interests of the city, but because they each get so many MLAs they prevent any of the provincial parties from forming a majority. Would you in Calgary/Quebec City vote for a party that only represented Edmonton/Montreal, or would you tell them to grow up and deal with civic levels in their civic governments?

[Sam_Stone]

They may not have been spokespeople for the party, but the party didn’t make that clear. In fact, it seemed to me like Stephen Harper went out of his way to avoid suggesting that those people didn’t speak for the party.

That’s your interpretation. Harper’s is that they are citizens with a point of view, and he’s not about to stomp on it for political gain. His position is simply that the commons should vote for these contentious issues.

A lot of people misunderstand Stephen Harper. He is not an old religious reformer like Preston Manning or Stockwell Day. He’s more of a fiscal conservative, almost-libertarian. He has a masters in economics from the U of C, studying a school of free-market economics heavy on the Hayek and light on the Galbraith. He’s an intellectual - a policy wonk. But he is the leader of a party that still has a powerful religious presence, and they have strong views on social policy. The solution Harper fell back to was to simply allow free votes in the commons. That way, unless the Conservatives have a majority strong enough to survive some potential defections, they’ll never bring the vote anyway, and if they did, and the rest of Canada feels strongly opposed, they will vote it down.

Much has been made of the schism between the “Reform” religious conservatives and the old tories, which were much more progressive. But a third faction was also fighting for control - the academics. And they won the battle. It’s interesting - the parallel in the United States would be the takeover of the Republican party from the old paleo conservatives like Buchanan by the Neocons. Harper has a lot more in common with Newt Gingrich than with John Ashcroft.

Well, it might be a bit much to say they ‘won’, but the leader of the party is definitely one of them.

[Sam_Stone]

Under-representation is just a symptom. The root cause of alienation is simply that we don’t share the same values or think in the same way as the east does. All the rest follows from that. Most Albertans don’t know what our ‘unique Canadian values’ are. We basically align more with the United States on most issues. Albertans were as supportive of the Iraq war in the beginning as was the average American. We are not just the most conservative province in Canada, we are the most conservative by a mile.

The “Alberta Values” are military strength, small government, balanced budgets, and more freedom. We do like our health care, though. But being more free-market oriented, we’re willing to at least listen to proposals to improve the system by offering a limited amount of private clinics or delisting some procedures that are voluntary and letting the free market handle it. We hate the gun registry with a passion. While we don’t mind the equalization system very much, we tolerate it. But we get sensitive about feeling unappreciated or slandered. We think the rest of Canada looks down their nose at us. In short, we feel somewhat alienated. I’m not sure that problem is fixable, short of something happening to cause our values to merge closer together again.

Alberta isn’t monolithic - Edmonton has elected an NDP mayor in the past. And I’m just describing general tendencies, and not how strong they are. I honestly don’t know how strong alienation is in Alberta right now. I don’t sense any great political pressure to put up a firewall or anything like that. Certainly we’re nowhere near Quebec in terms of our dissatisfaction.

[Gorsnak]

How is Harper a libertarian? He’s a self-proclaimed Burkean-style conservative. Of course, you think Klein is a social liberal, so I guess I can see the consistency here, if nothing else.

[Uzi]

@Sam Stone

Under-representation is just a symptom. The root cause of alienation is simply that we don’t share the same values or think in the same way as the east does. All the rest follows from that. Most Albertans don’t know what our ‘unique Canadian values’ are.

I wonder if this is because a large portion of Albertans are immigrants from other provinces who lacked the job opportunities that Alberta has? It usually takes a certain type of person to pick up and move half way across the country, leaving their friends and family behind. Although, I don’t know if it is such a big deal today as it once was.

I honestly don’t know how strong alienation is in Alberta right now. I don’t sense any great political pressure to put up a firewall or anything like that. Certainly we’re nowhere near Quebec in terms of our dissatisfaction.

I’ve been sensing a strong ‘dump Canada’ note in conversations I’ve been having with people. Granted most of these people are in the expat community and tend to look at borders as hinderances to be tolerated until you can find a way around them.

[Sam_Stone]

How is Harper a libertarian? He’s a self-proclaimed Burkean-style conservative. Of course, you think Klein is a social liberal, so I guess I can see the consistency here, if nothing else.

My understanding is that he studied economics at the U of C, and became heavily influenced by a ‘brain trust’ of economists and social scientists that agree on free-market economics but from there diverge into various camps. I read an article this weekend which quoted members of that group (mostly professors at the U of C) who described Harper as very bright, a guy who basically operated at a peer level with the docs while competing his degrees. He was described as being ‘more of a Libertarian persuation’ compared to the social conservatives, which is where I got that from.

[Sam_Stone]

Alberta isn’t going to dump Canada. A sovereign Alberta is impractical. We’re land-bound, dependent on the countries around us just to move goods. We have no military, no police force. It just isn’t going to happen.

But that doesn’t mean we have to like it when a Prime Minister rides a train through the province literally giving us the finger as he passes by.

[Uzi]

@Sam Stone

Alberta isn’t going to dump Canada. A sovereign Alberta is impractical. We’re land-bound, dependent on the countries around us just to move goods. We have no military, no police force. It just isn’t going to happen.

I guess Switzerland is dirt poor because it is subject to the same conditions. Alberta has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world. You think the ROC isn’t going to buy from us? You think they aren’t going to let us transport goods? And if they won’t the US certainly will. Why do we need the rest of Canada for anything? But, I agree it isn’t going to happen unless something like another NEP comes down the pike at which point it would be a good possibility.

[Gorsnak]

@Sam Stone

My understanding is that he studied economics at the U of C, and became heavily influenced by a ‘brain trust’ of economists and social scientists that agree on free-market economics but from there diverge into various camps. I read an article this weekend which quoted members of that group (mostly professors at the U of C) who described Harper as very bright, a guy who basically operated at a peer level with the docs while competing his degrees. He was described as being ‘more of a Libertarian persuation’ compared to the social conservatives, which is where I got that from.

I don’t see what his purported intelligence has to do with his policy positions - I never questioned his academic credentials. And “more of a libertarian persuasion” compared to social conservatives isn’t very meaningful unless the comparison class is described with some specificity and the degree of difference is noted. I quite agree that he doesn’t fit the religious conservative mold of Day (I don’t think Manning was quite in the same camp as Day either, though), but then I said he was a self-described Burkean-style conservative, not a religious conservative. Burkean views are not libertarian, though one supposes that one might describe them as “more of a libertarian persuasion” compared to certain rather extreme religious social conservatives.

It’s not like Harper is particularly secretive about this aspect of his views, though he did downplay them to an extent during the campaign. But note this story from the Globe and Mail*, quoting Harper:

Canada and conservatives, Mr. Harper argues, must rediscover and re-establish the fundamentals of Burkean social conservatism. That means taking such steps to promote and protect the traditional family as “banning child pornography, raising the age of sexual consent, providing choice in education and strengthening the institution of marriage. All of these items are key to a conservative agenda.”

Perhaps you can explain what Harper might have meant by “strengthening the institution of marriage” outside of protecting it from those gays, or possibly increasing the difficulty of obtaining divorces? And then you can explain how governmental interference in how people form families is in any way related to any aspect of libertarian political philosophy.

The full text of the speech in question can be found here. I confess that my reaction to the stated views varies from mild disagreement on some points to grave offense on others. For example:

Conservatives need to reassess our understanding of the modern Left. It has moved beyond old socialistic morality or even moral relativism to something much darker. It has become a moral nihilism - the rejection of any tradition or convention of morality, a post-Marxism with deep resentments, even hatreds, of the norms of a free and democratic western civilization.

Jeez, Stephen, paint with a broad (and inaccurate) brush much? :rolleyes: He also displays a substantial portion of muddled thinking on foreign policy, but that isn’t particularly germaine to his conservatism, except for his gratuitous and unfounded insults of the center-left’s response to 9-11/Iraq, and the extent to which he swallowed uncritically the line fed to him by the White House on that issue.

[Sam_Stone]

Having read that speech, I have to agree with you somewhat, but with some caveats.

The thesis of the speech is that old-style conservatism was an alliance between Burkeans and Neo-cons. He argues that the free trade, low tax, small government conservatism was somewhat adopted by the left, and with the fall of Communism the last ‘glue’ that held conservatism together was gone and the parties fractured along old differences.

This speech was a discussion of how to get them together again. Now clearly in the speech Harper takes the ‘Burkean’ social conservative side, but it’s interesting in how he suggests it be applied - from what I could tell, he’s not in favor of massive state intrusion into morality (but he is admittedly vague about how he would ‘strengthen marriage’), but rather a new way that is compatible with the more Libertarian side of conservatism. It’s also not a Christian Right thing. He specifically says that conservatives have to be careful to make sure their values are applicable across denominations and different faiths. So he’s not talking about putting the Ten Commandments in the House of Commons or a bigger role for the church - he’s talking about more fundamental values like family, community, and other aspects of traditional social order. He even explicitly says, “It helps when social conservative values overlap those of a more Libertarian orientation.”

As for his depiction of modern liberalism as nihilism, I think he over-states the case and paints with a broad brush. But quite frankly, if you find those notions it’s up to you (as liberals) to start disassociating yourselves from the radical wing of the movement that DOES believe this. Just as the conservatives had to go through a period where they disassociated themselves from the bigoted reactionary extremists. But when I see Democratic leaders embracing the likes of Michael Moore, I have to wonder.

I’m going to have to read more of what he’s had to say.

[RickJay]

@Uzi

Huh? What they chose is to allow an unelected body of appointed judges to make the choice for them. People appointed by a former lawyer who thinks that writing a contract on a napkin is a good thing. Is that what you are telling me people in Ontario are supporting? I see…

No, and that’s a ridiculous comment. We were faced with a choice of policies; vote for a party that would not pass laws against gay marriage, or vote for one that would. Most Ontarians (and most Canadians, actually, in nine of ten provinces) chose the former.

It’s the job of courts to make decisions based on Constitutional law. Ultimately, however, Parliament can make law one way or another. We had the option to choose a party that hinted it would overturn the Supreme Court’s decision, and most chose not to. No matter how many times you bitch about unelected judges, it is still the choice of the voters in the end to select a government that will or will not use the notwithstanding clause, or even amend the Constitution, to make law as it sees fit.

I would suggest that most people could care less what the ‘homos’ do, or don’t do. But, if a minority such as gay people are deemed by some to be intruding on what many consider the realm of the church then people get upset.

And it was the opinion of the quite a few voters that the legal recognition of gay marriage had nothing to do with churches. And those voters voted accordingly. In a democracy, that’s how it works. Some people have one opinion and some people have another, and so we vote to decide who’ll run the government.

Someone wants to do something to stop child porn and you have a problem with that?

No, and straw man arguments don’t impress anyone, you know.

What a lot of people DID have a problem with was parties suggesting that other candidates “support child porn,” which is stupid. Child porn was not an issue that Canadians found compelling because everyone is opposed to it. There’s already lots being done to stop it, and there would be lots done to stop it no matter who’s elected. Issues that matter are issues on which the parties disagree. Suggesting that the other parties support child porn is transparent bull, and the voters knew it.

Are they spokespeople for the party, or are they just people who speak?

Are you joking?

Someone who is RUNNING FOR PARLIAMENT is sure as hell a spokesperson for their party. These are the people who would, you know, make up the government, remember?

I guess you could hand pick candidates who will only talk the party line, but that kind of defeats the purpose of democracy - having people who represent your ideals and know your issues in parliament, not some hand-picked flack who acts like a trained seal.

You can pick anyone you want to. That’s up to you. But if you pick people who say things the voters disagree with and then voters choose not to vote for them, don’t be surprised. That’s what an election is; you present a platform to the voters and they choose between you and the other parties.

And yet it seems pretty obvious in the West.

No, it doesn’t, apparently, since most Western voters did not vote for the Conservatives. Look it up.

[Gorsnak]

@Sam Stone

As for his depiction of modern liberalism as nihilism, I think he over-states the case and paints with a broad brush. But quite frankly, if you find those notions it’s up to you (as liberals) to start disassociating yourselves from the radical wing of the movement that DOES believe this. Just as the conservatives had to go through a period where they disassociated themselves from the bigoted reactionary extremists. But when I see Democratic leaders embracing the likes of Michael Moore, I have to wonder.

I’m a bit confused by this. The position of the left on, say, gay marriage is an explicitly moral argument, i.e., it’s immoral to treat people unequally on the basis of their sexuality. Indeed, I don’t think there are any people of any stripe who care about what the government does in the social sphere who are moral nihilists. All such people think that there are things that the government should and should not do. That entails that their positions are based in moral considerations, albeit potentially very different moral considerations. Moral nihilists think that ‘should’ and ‘should not’ are meaningless.

I have no idea what sort of groups you mean by a radical wing of the left that is nihilistic.

I also have no clue why you think the behaviour of American Democrats is relevant to what one can legitimately conclude about the position of the Liberals or NDP or Greens, or why you would connect Michael Moore to nihilism.

Actually, I suspect you aren’t trying to make such a link. Harper’s simply wrong in using the nihilist label. I don’t know whether he just doesn’t understand normative ethics, or whether he’s intentionally demonizing his opponents, but he’s simply wrong in either case. Most of the left aren’t even moral relativists, even though many would (mistakenly) claim that title for themselves. But I digress.

I freely grant your point that Harper’s social conservatism takes a rather different (and IMO less dangerous) form from that of conservative evangelical Christians like Day.

One last note: “It helps when social conservative values overlap those of a more Libertarian orientation.” is nearly incoherent. Libertarianism mandates that the government do the absolute minimum. Provide defense, both nationally in the form of military, and personally in the form of police/courts - though they should only protect you from harmful overt actions of others, and nothing more - and enforce contracts, again by means of the courts. Anything else the government is forbidden to do. Where is there room for anything resembling social conservatism in that view? Any action by the government to influence how society behaves itself (outside of clubbing people on the head or welching on contracts) is out of bounds.

[ElvisL1ves]

Just as the conservatives had to go through a period where they disassociated themselves from the bigoted reactionary extremists.

When did *that * happen? I must have missed it.

[Sam_Stone]

One last note: “It helps when social conservative values overlap those of a more Libertarian orientation.” is nearly incoherent. Libertarianism mandates that the government do the absolute minimum. Provide defense, both nationally in the form of military, and personally in the form of police/courts - though they should only protect you from harmful overt actions of others, and nothing more - and enforce contracts, again by means of the courts. Anything else the government is forbidden to do. Where is there room for anything resembling social conservatism in that view? Any action by the government to influence how society behaves itself (outside of clubbing people on the head or welching on contracts) is out of bounds.

No contradiction required. Basically, I think what he’s saying that in an environment where the government regulates much of our lives, social conservatives and Libertarians can find common ground by removing certain statist ideas. For example, Libertarians oppose national child care policy because they see it as a gross intrusion by the state in their private lives. Social conservatives also oppose national day care plans because they feel it is another destabilizing influence on the family. Social conservativism does NOT require state intrusion. it can also take the form of defending traditional values against encroachment by the state. Public education is another example. School choice is something both social conservatives and Libertarians can embrace. Same with public funding for art, government-enforced ‘multiculturalism’, language laws, Canadian Content laws, federal municipal planning schemes, excessive welfare, and a host of other issues.

I’ll give you a good example - when Edmonton had an NDP mayor, she wanted to do some things that were opposed by both social conservatives and Libertarians. For example, she wanted to re-integrate economic classes by busing children from the suburbs into inner-city schools. She wanted every suburb to reserve space for welfare housing. Libertarians saw this as a gross intrusion into their families, and social conservatives saw it the same way. If I choose to move my family away from the city because of the lousy schools, the government should not force me to ship my children there to meet some larger social goal.

There are also issues that are divisive between Libertarians and Social Conservatives. Things like prayer in schools, laws against gay marriage, drug laws, and other ways in which social conservatives want to use the state to push their own values, rather than wither the state to prevent the erosion of them.

What Harper is saying in that speech is that Burkeans and neo-cons and libertarians still have common ground, it’s just that it’s different than it was in the cold war. He’s trying to re-establish that common ground and emphasize the things that can unite the right, rather than focus on those things that split the right. That’s a sound strategy.

As for the nihilism of the left, I can give you plenty of examples. For example, support of the war in Kosovo, while opposing the war in Iraq and even opposing the war in Afghanistan (which a lot of people on the left did oppose - especially outside the United States). Supporting the legalization of drugs, but the criminalization of tobacco. Claiming to support the rights of women and minorities, while opposing wars to topple the most virulent bigots and oppressors of women on the planet. Their total silence on what’s happen in the Sudan. In Moore’s case, he is treading dangerously close to outright support of Saddam and Osama Bin Laden, simply because their enemies are his enemy. But this is a debate for a different thread. And like I said, I think Harper over-states this case. I do NOT think the mainstream Democratic party fits this description at all. But the Moveon.org and International A.N.S.W.E.R. types certainly do, and they are being increasingly embraced by the mainstream left as a matter of convenience.

[Balduran]

@Sam Stone

While we don’t mind the equalization system very much, we tolerate it. But we get sensitive about feeling unappreciated or slandered. We think the rest of Canada looks down their nose at us. In short, we feel somewhat alienated.

As far as the slander goes, welcome to the club. I come from a region where in Harper’s words we “suffer from a culture of defeatism”. The west coasters are a bunch of pot-heads, and, when I lived in Calgary, I thought Ontarians were a bunch of Peter Pocklingtons. You are not unique in being region stereotyped.

Every tax-payer in the country is paying to support those less fortunate. A nurse in Nova Scotia is contributing just as much (if not more) as a nurse in Alberta. Just because Alberta has a higher concentration of rich people doesn’t mean we should be especially gratefull to you. Until Alberta thanks me for paying taxes, I’m not going to thank them.

[Sam_Stone]

Until Alberta thanks me for paying taxes, I’m not going to thank them.

Of course, Alberta doesn’t get anything for those taxes, since we pay out $3500 more per person to Canada than we receive. Nova Scotia, on the other hand, receives an additional $4500 per person from the equalization system.

But like I said, I personally don’t begrudge the equalization system, other than on practical grounds, which is that I think it creates a welfare state writ large. Heavy equalization payments to some provinces have the effect of reducing the incentive of them to reform their economies. “W5” did a great program on this a few years ago, comparing Atlantic Canada to the Atlantic states in the U.S. They found that the Atlantic states had much more economic diversity, by necessity because they didn’t have federal support. Winter economies hired fisherman that had no employment in the off-season. In Atlantic Canada, there was simply dissatisfaction and large amount of unemployment.

[ElvisL1ves]

Just out of curiosity, how do you folks think your regional attitudes toward government and toward each other would be different if the oil fields had happened to be under Newfoundland instead of Alberta?

[Gorsnak]

@Sam Stone

For example, Libertarians oppose national child care policy because they see it as a gross intrusion by the state in their private lives.

Huh? Libertarians oppose national child care because they see it was an inappropriate use of taxpayer money. How the heck is a program which guarantees access to child care intrusion into private lives? It’s not like it’d be mandatory to place your kids in it. Your examples here are all places where the agreement is on the economic interference side of things, or places where laissez-faire economics happens by chance to support the social status quo.

What Harper is saying in that speech is that Burkeans and neo-cons and libertarians still have common ground, it’s just that it’s different than it was in the cold war. He’s trying to re-establish that common ground and emphasize the things that can unite the right, rather than focus on those things that split the right. That’s a sound strategy.

That’s not an unreasonable take, I grant.

As for the nihilism of the left, I can give you plenty of examples.

Umm. How to put this diplomatically. This paragraph provides examples which demonstrate a lack of understanding of what nihilism is, but it does not provide any examples of leftist nihilism. It may show some cases of hypocrisy, though I think you are misunderstanding some of the positions, but there’s not a whit of nihilism to be seen.