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

Canada’s Other Productivity Crisis: The Daily Irritants That Slow Us Down and Sap Our Spirit

Multi-factor verification. Customer surveys. SMS alerts. Endless online check-ins. Technology was supposed to free up our time for better things. Instead, it has created endless obstacles to getting anything done. Plus there’s the constant impact of government regulations and questionable safety measures that further rob us of our valuable time. Peter Shawn Taylor looks at the absurd and annoying ways that 21st-century life ties us up and grinds us down. While some examples seem faintly comical, taken together they comprise what Taylor argues is a micro-productivity crisis of national proportions that is no laughing matter.

A Mess and Minefield: Ottawa’s Clarity Act on Provincial Separation is Anything but Clear

Proponents of independence for Alberta seem to believe the federal Clarity Act provides a sure pathway to secession should they win a referendum vote. But as Jim Mason and George Koch explain, the Act is less pathway than political minefield. It demands a clear question with a clear majority vote – but offers no criteria for either. It provides no instructions on how separation negotiations should proceed, but it does allow other provinces, Indigenous groups and others to intervene. And it assigns virtually all decision-making to Ottawa. It is, Mason and Koch find in the first of this two-part series, a formula not for resolution but deadlock, virtually certain to frustrate any constitutional effort to secede. Almost like it was designed that way.

Bubble-Wrapped World: How Safety Culture Has Destroyed Our Sense of Adventure

Why were our forebears more adventurous than we are today? Was it just that they had more empty space to explore, no GPS or instant communications to keep them safe, no social welfare state to protect them? It’s all that and more, writes Murray Lytle. The derring-do of days past, he argues, sprang from a value system that admired courage and saw risk-taking as a social virtue – even a duty – that could expand knowledge and build a better world as well as protect the nation. Lytle urges our society to shake off its smothering safety culture and rediscover a sense of adventure.

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.