quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Responsible enviromental policy is good fiscal policy.

---

A quick example, the Harris/Eves government in Ontario encouraged urban sprawl, did nothing for mass transit, gutted the Environment Ministry, especially the enforcement division. Their policies were consistant in advancing the short-term interests of medium to large busisness, developers etc., but did nothing for the environment.

Even speaking as flaming Leftist, I can understand the concept that a thriving business sector can do wonders for the economy in the short term. Ignoring the environment and social developement (Education, Health, etc.) however has long term costs to the economy and the people. I never saw the Harrisites as a "conservative party" in the way that's being discussed above, but rather as a "Business Party" (as directly opposed to the traditional idea of a "Labour Party"). And there seems to be more to running a government than a business/labour dichotomy.

[ 14 December 2003: Message edited by: Steve N ]

quote:

---

Therefore they have coalesed into the Republican party; a party of soc-cons, Classical Liberals, constitutionalists, religionists, isolationists, and interventionists.

---

...and Maid-of-the-Mists, and death-with-five-fists, and I-hate-Beethoven's-music-but-I-like-Franz-Liszt's, and oy, my-hemorroids-are-acting-up-I've-gotta-have-a-sitz (...no, that last one doesn't really work, does it?)

[ 15 December 2003: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catus:
HOW DARE THE ACCUSED RIGHT WINGER DEFINE AMERICAN CONSERVATISM! He is undermining the state's definition as disclosed by the all powerful Hinterland! The "right winger" with confuse the masses with honesty and forthrightness, how dare he try to shed light. Particularly when we know that the almighty Hinterland is the bearer of all light!

---

Define it? You gave a list of possible suspects without any clear theory linking them, any suggestion of what the kernal of their camradery might (or might not be) and without any detail as to how each one of the 'groups' you identified is a kind of construction in and of itself without clear boundaries. For instance, an 'interventionist' in the case of Iraq or on the issue of social justice worldwide, may be an 'isolationist' when it comes to some other issue - say Taiwan, or expanding foreign trade. I'm sure that along with many 'right wingers' you think 'the left' is too full of confusing language and bafflegab, though you seem to think that a list of undefined 'ists' and 'isms' is the same as a definition.

Heck, in a sense, Hinterland's definition was as accurate and true as yours...

"Accused" right-winger, huh? Amazing when someone openly prides themselves on something (and is motivated to troll a board seeking verification and justification of their 'rightness'; assuming so many meanings of that term) and then claims a persecuted status when others identify them as such.

Seems to me that you get a little upset when others don't take your crusade to 'show them leftists' as seriously as you do and won't bow to your self-ascribed authority on any given subject.
Your need to appear 'expert' and define yourself as the voice of 'the right' and 'reason' in a sea of dark and dim-witted 'leftists' speaks - at the very least - to an emotional need for acceptance through conflict. It's interesting that your entirely defensive reaction to any challenge to your authority reveals your need for constant emotional assurance of your 'wellness' even when it must come from those you define yourself against: i.e. those you feel more 'reasonable and rational than, those you feel more 'grounded in reality' than, etc. In short, you come demanding our adoration and respect and yet seek to achieve this without ever having to admit that you are inadequate somehow. You want us to 'see your light' but won't admit that we are capable of seeing it, let alone that you aren't even sure of it yourself. This conflict is a big part of your behaviour here on Babble, and I suspect elsewhere...

[ 15 December 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

quote:

---

the Conservatives in the US are typically Constitutional Conservatives who value religion as the one remnant of traditional conservatism that actually exists in the USA.

---

Well, that's one group of conservatives. The other group thinks that the market is the only value.

For this group, it goes without saying that Sunday shopping laws, for example, are wrong, because they interfere with individualism.

I was mocking Hinterland, unfortunately humour travels poorly across the electronic highway of the internet.

I was not seeking to define conservatism but merely pointing out its disparate roots in the US.

What is conservatism? It depends on what nation we are talking about as to how we might define conservatism. But coming up with a simple definition is hard because it does not apply to all nations nor all times.
If we talk about Modern Conservatism in the US and Canada we are certainly dismissing European conservatism. They are vastly different.
Conservatism in Canada and the US tends to be a melange of contradictory forces; interventionism vs isolationism, social conservatism vs libertine Free-market conservatives, religious conservatives vs secular conservatives.

US conservatives nearly always rally around the US Constitution and the Founding Fathers. This is typical of US conservatism ( though the Neo-conservatives are less likely to strictly adhere to original intent).

Canadian conservatism is just as complex but tends to be more reactionary (I use the term very loosely and without its Marxian connotation) or more socially conservative than the US style. It tends to attract many Classical Liberals thus showing a clear kinship to American conservatives.

Is this better Courage?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve N:

A quick example, the Harris/Eves government in Ontario encouraged urban sprawl, did nothing for mass transit, gutted the Environment Ministry, especially the enforcement division. Their policies were consistant in advancing the short-term interests of medium to large busisness, developers etc., but did nothing for the environment.

---

There is a difference between promoting irresponsible environmental policy and not supporting a large beaurocracy.

That being said, the Harris/Eves administration does not have a sparkling record. But then again, their fiscal accountability also left much to be desired. If I were a conservative in Ontario, I would have been so pissed at the PC government that I might vote Liberal just because they are not the PC party. Hmmm...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

There is a difference between promoting irresponsible environmental policy and not supporting a large beaurocracy....

But I ahve yet to see proof that being environmentally friendly (within a reasonable scope of comprimises, of course) is anything but good for business.

---

I don't disagree with you about the perils of beaurocracy, I think the Left has often been weak on that front and we have to improve our performance there. However (speaking primarily of Ontario) the beaurocracy has most often built up under Tory/Liberal governments.

quote:

---

Courage, i do not think of myself as "right-wing" nor would I identify with that label. I also would never pretend to be the voice of conservative reason nor the voice of free-trade.

---

The I who wrote this apparently hasn't met your other I's who have posted elsewhere on this site. You have quite specifically oriented yourself as a 'right-winger' debunking the claims of some chimerical 'left'. You have relied largely on second-hand material posted elsewhere - usually on right-wing and free-market oriented sites (i.e. The Mises Institute) and have made no secret that you feel yourself particularly blessed with "reason" and "rationality" (your words elsewhere). I have not come to my conclusions about you lightly or without due investigation.

You have developed your 'Catus' identity in order to "give those lefties some". Don't lie to me or to the rest of us.