Stories

So-cons to Harper: You owe us

Tim Anderson
June 23, 2011
Canada’s social conservatives contributed a lot to the recent Conservative party majority. It’s payback time argues Tim Anderson…
Stories

So-cons to Harper: You owe us

Tim Anderson
June 23, 2011
Canada’s social conservatives contributed a lot to the recent Conservative party majority. It’s payback time argues Tim Anderson…
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

<spanlang=”EN-US”>The recent Conservative election win is, for social conservatives, excitement that must be tempered with facts. The Conservatives dismissed the possibility that a majority government would restrict abortion or re-visit same-sex marriage, and since election night, the Prime Minister has not wavered. This is so and despite how social conservatives assisted the Conservatives, whether through riding-level volunteering, private donations or support at the polls.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>The relationship between social conservatives and the Conservative party brings to mind a thought from Søren Kierkegaard, who wrote that the only affliction that causes complete death is despair.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>For example, Lazarus rose from the dead because his disease was not “unto death”; although he physically died, his death failed to end his existence. Had it, he could not have been raised. Kierkegaard writes: “If you have lived in despair then whatever else you won or lost, for you everything is lost.” Those consumed with despair are lost death because they saw nothing else to hope for.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>Social conservatives may experience this now. It is easy enough to believe that if a Conservative majority will not promote pro-life policies or traditional marriage, then no one will. This logical thought process is actually despair.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>Thus, one can imagine social conservatives retreating from partisan political life, and in so doing, softening Conservative support to the benefit of “progressive” parties. But in their dejection, social conservatives risk ceding their place on the political stage. If so, others will move into that space to deleteriously influence Canadian politics, at least from the socially conservative perspective.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>However, this sickness is not unto death. While the new government intends to push aside older issues, this does not mean that all socially-conservative policies are dead. The soul of social conservatism stretches beyond the traditional ones.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>But on at least two issues, social conservatives can and should expect a majority Conservative government to repel creeping liberalization. Due to recent court cases, the government faces challenges to the criminality of narcotics and polygamy. Social conservatives support keeping these issues illegal since their restriction promotes traditions that benefit society.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>Narcotic addiction may impel one into violent crime in order to satisfy that addiction. Polygamy undercuts the biblical tenet that marriage is an exclusive union where two flesh become one in order to create and nurture children. Instead, multiple women “wed” one man; often the women are abused and children exposed to unhealthy socialization. If social conservatives rest their hopes on these issues, they can expect to have their support for the Conservatives validated.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>Regarding narcotics, in Vancouver, the federal government is currently fighting to close Insite. That’s a drug-injection centre where heroin addicts, assisted by medical professionals, freely shoot up. Many conservatives – large C and small c – oppose Insite because they argue the centre harms society. Also, the party has promoted mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, including cannabis. Given the Conservative party’s consistency here, social conservatives can justifiably anticipate that the country will not be transformed into a grow-op.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>Moreover, a British Columbia Court will soon rule on whether the current prohibitions to polygamy offend the Charter rights of Canadians. Should the Court rule that polygamy ought not be outlawed, it would be reasonable to expect the Conservative government to fight back.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>The government has sufficient power and political capital to pursue the case to the Supreme Court. Moreover, because a strong majority of Canadians support the current ban of polygamy (an Abacus Data poll in April 2011 showed that 68% of Canadians agree with the current law), it is plausible that the government could invoke Section 33 of the Charter (i.e., the Notwithstanding Clause), if necessary. The Conservatives supported traditional forms marriage in the past; one can suspect that this trend will continue vis-à-vis polygamy.

<spanlang=”EN-US”>

<spanlang=”EN-US”>The Conservative government has received considerable help from social conservatives in the past. However, the Conservative party is less than anxious to act on policies that most social conservatives consider essential. That should change on at least two matters: narcotics laws and any openness towards polygamy.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Beyond the Blue: How SpaceX and Reusable Rockets Are Fuelling a New Space Economy

Plenty of critics weighed in on last month’s stock market debut of Elon Musk’s SpaceX, questioning the staggering valuation of a company that has yet to turn a profit, and evidently miffed that its oddball founder is now the world’s first trillionaire. But what is most remarkable – and most important – about SpaceX, writes Gleb Lisikh, is how it has launched a revolution in space. By driving down the costs of lifting objects into orbit by multiple orders of magnitude, Musk’s reusable rockets have sparked a new industrial space age that appears set to transform the economy and the way we live. And has already revived excitement, optimism and a sense of adventure for a new generation. With a special Editor’s Introduction, this final installment of C2C’s series marking the U.S.’s 250th anniversary shows how individual ingenuity unleashed in a country offering the freedom to risk it all is once again changing the world.

Beyond the Tantrum: Canadian Self-Determination Demands More Than Anti-Americanism

With another Canada Day having passed, it’s a good time to reflect on the patriotic fervour sweeping the country. In P.M. Szpunar’s estimation, much of it is nothing to be proud of. From performative “Buy Canadian” campaigns to booing U.S. children on visiting sports teams, too many Canadians have responded to American swagger with self-righteous sneering, assuring themselves their country is wiser, kinder and more civilized. This even as the southward flow of Canadian money, talent and innovation accelerates. Self-indulgent anti-Americanism is not just lazy and immature, argues Szpunar, it’s counter-productive, distracting Canadians from the real work of addressing our own weaknesses and rebuilding our strengths. A serious country should want better.

“We hold these truths”: The U.S. Declaration of Independence at 250

As America celebrates its 250th anniversary, it is worth taking a fresh look at the U.S. Declaration of Independence to rediscover how the principles embedded in this foundational document have provided the basis of a free society for a quarter-millennium. More than just a demand for freedom, and no mere list of grievances, David W. Livingstone regards the Declaration as a work of genius that speaks to all of humanity. In the worldview it propounds, human equality comes first, individual rights are intrinsic to that principle, and governments don’t “grant” rights but instead are formed to protect rights that every person already holds. The “truths” that America’s Founders proclaimed to be “self-evident”, Livingstone writes, have endured because they are true – and will continue to shine as a beacon for all.

More from this author

Liberal losers

When political leaders lose elections, most of them slink off to lick their wounds in private. Not Hillary Clinton and Michael Ignatieff. Both of them wrote books about how and why they lost. Tim Anderson reviews What Happened and Fire and Ashes and concludes that Clinton is the greater self-deluding narcissist.

Another Clinton, for Better or Worse

Now that the FBI has decided Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges for mishandling classified documents on her private email server, nothing stands in her way winning the U.S. presidency except Donald Trump, and he seems to be doing his best to blow it. So we better get used to the idea of President Clinton II. Tim Anderson and Paul Bunner suffered whiplash charting all the policy and philosophy zigs and zags she’s taken on her path to the White House. They suggest Canadians buckle up; her presidency is going to be a rough ride for us.

Founded not floundered

Ridiculing the Senate has become all too easy in recent time, but as Tim Anderson explains, critics would do well to understand why the Fathers of Confederation made heavy weather of installing it.