Pierre Trudeau Is My Homeboy

Have Your Say: "New" "Democratic" "Party"

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:45:00 +0000

With the recent discussion at the NDP convention of dropping the "New" part of the name as well as the controversy of removing past candidates and screening resolutions, I have to ask - is the "N" part of NDP the only inaccurate part? Take part in the online poll to the right to have your say and let's see if the NDP is any of those.

Guadalajara Blues

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:37:00 +0000

H/T: Calgarygrit

Alberta's NDP and "Community Leauges"

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:01:00 +0000

With Brian Mason's recent temper tantrum, I decided to do a quick read through of his website.

Bush-league would be an accurate description. The website (which is still copyrighted as of 2007...) is simply a joke. For instance, under the "take action" tab, you find this page. Given the massive white spot in the middle of the page, it seems the NDP is subtly suggesting that nothing can be done (given the irrelevancy of the NDP in Alberta politics, that may actually be true). The short list of tips for writing letters to the editor found on the right-hand side is a list that boggle the mind. "Make your points clearly." Reallllllllllly? So that's what's been holding the NDP back in Alberta for so long!

The pages are off-kilter and pictures often over-flow the areas meant for them giving the website the look of something put together as an after-thought at the last minute.

The cherry on top though is the multiple times "leagues" is mis-spelled as "leauges".

No wonder nobody takes this party seriously in Alberta...

Ed Stelmach - Anti-Boy Scout?

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:32:00 +0000

Ed Stelmach stated today that Canada shouldn't be "boy scouts" when it comes to climate change. The use of that term struck me as odd. Honestly, I found it hilarious.

You see, Ed isn't exactly a "bad ass" (is "bad ass" the opposite of "boy scout"?) Does anyone really believe Ed isn't a boy scout? Remember Ed, the Alberta Nanny from Air Farce?

You see, Ed has a nasty habit of telling other people how they should live their lives when it comes to issues particularly relating to morality; minimum liquor laws anyone?

I'm curious if the PCs will be putting their new anti-"boy scout" approach to climate change to work on anything else.

Alberta Still In Recession

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:07:00 +0000

Finance Minister Iris Evans admitted today that low natural gas prices (that won't increase in the near future) will likely keep Alberta in recession for now.

If only there had been someone saying we should diversify our economy so it's not so reliant on energy prices...

Cha-Ching

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:59:00 +0000

Liberals quadruple fundraising totals

Jane Taber

Globe and Mail Update Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 30, 2009 07:01AM EDT

The Ignatieff Liberals have raised $3.9-million in the second quarter for this year, four times the amount raised last year at this time when Stéphane Dion was leader.

The party posted its results on Twitter Wednesday evening with an update that read, in part: “Exclusive 2nd Quarter Fundraising numbers are in: $3.9M More than 4 times last year's.”

Last year, in an election year, the party raised a total of $5.8-million. So far this year, the Grits under Leader Michael Ignatieff have raised $5.7-million.

It is not known yet what Stephen Harper's Tories have raised for this period, but last year they attracted $3.5-million in the second quarter. Liberal Party spokesman Daniel Lauzon said the results are “cause for optimism” as the Grits have had trouble raising funds.

A Change that Works for Ed Stelmach

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:01:00 +0000

With the news today that Guy Boutillier has been kicked out of the PC caucus, we see yet another example of how the PC Party is no longer a viable political party.

The Wildrose Alliance continues to seemingly pick up steam and most PCs I talk with are concerned that upper party brass just don't seem to care. A sense of invincibility and triumphalism has spread throughout Ed's entourage since the 2008 election; they feel they can do whatever they want. As Ron Liepert so eloquently put it, "screw the opposition, we got our majority."

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the PCs have become too big of a tent. Parties are meant to be coalitions of individuals who, for the most part, can agree and find compromise. The PCs however, have come to dominate Alberta politics to such a degree that pretty much anyone who wants to have any sort of influence whatsoever just joins them. Thus you have a party where, at least on some of the edges, people have nothing to agree about. That's why the Wildrose Alliance seems to be picking up strength - it appeals to the hard-right conservatives who feel as though they no longer have a place within the PCs.

What I find an interesting question then is, do progressives within that Party feels as thought they still have a place in it?

The Rougher Than Originally Thought Road Ahead...

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:04:00 +0000

"He who angers you conquers you." - Elizabeth Kenny

Talk about awkward...

No hard feelings from Tory leadership campaign, right?

Jun 29, 2009 04:30 AM
Robert Benzie

Whitby-Oshawa MPP Christine Elliott was the only one of Tim Hudak's rivals to show up at his victory party Saturday night, a fact the newly elected Progressive Conservative leader acknowledged yesterday.

During the leadership campaign, Elliott had attacked Hudak's plan to scrap the Ontario Human Rights Tribunals in favour of a courts-based system as a "politically toxic" move akin to former leader John Tory's ill-fated plan to fund faith-based schools.

While Elliott coped well with defeat, her husband, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, appeared bitter during the crowded celebration at a downtown pub, astonishing Tories with his demeanour.

Three sources told the Star that Flaherty told Tory MPP Ernie Hardeman (Oxford) to "f--- off" because he hadn't supported Elliott.

Elliott placed third on the second ballot, forcing her elimination.

Flaherty ran for the provincial party leadership twice – in 2002 and 2004 – and lost both times.

Insiders note that Elliott's disappointing finish has likely undermined Flaherty's status as Prime Minister Stephen Harper's point man in Ontario.

Instead, federal Transport Minister John Baird, a key Hudak supporter, may have emerged from the provincial contest as the most influential federal Conservative in Ontario.

Peter MacKay at PCPO Convention

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:45:00 +0000

With Rodney MacDonald announcing his resignation as Leader of the Nova Scotia PC Party, this interview with Peter MacKay is very interesting. No hint of interest from MacKay and drops a few names of people that are being mentioned as possible candidates. Of course, with no official announcement on the way the leadership race will be run, perhaps people are just waiting to see what turns up. Hmmm…

H/T: Stephen Taylor

More Back-Door Health Care Privitization?

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:58:00 +0000

When the Health Minister declines to comment, there's likely something up. Just a thought since it is Ron Liepert - not exactly known for being camera shy. The evaluation by ALP leader David Swann - "they're allowing little bits of privatization here and there" - is a fair and accurate one.

The fact that this clinic operates for those willing to cough up $3000 makes it pretty clear it's goal is to be a business. Furthermore, the claim that doctors are available for free for clients is a pretty flimsy one given that you have to pay $3000 to become a client. I'd be interested to see a lawsuit on that; does paying to be a client to then see a doctor constitute payment for a doctor's services?

City Sued for Alleged Monopoly

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:25:00 +0000

With the Plan It Calgary hearings over and a decision made to at least move forward in the short term with it, it seemed like the City was through hearing from angry industries who feel that the alleged sanctity of the invisible hand had been violated. Not so it would seem! In the past day an interesting news story has caught my eye; it seems that an association involving several of the city’s private curbside recycling companies are suing the City for damages resulting from the recent launch of the government-run curb side recycling program.

The consequences for this case could go far beyond simply the new-born City curbside recycling program. If successful, this case could embolden other groups who have an interest in the status-quo of this City. I'm not convinced this case will succeed and it may well just be posturing from the Association, but all the same it should be watched carefully given the way the City is moving in the direction of more sustainable programs and development.

Thoughts on Plan It Calgary to Date

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:51:00 +0000

As interesting and encouraging as City Council's decision to pass first reading of the Plan It Calgary is, their decision to also refer back 76 amendments which will be debated in the fall could seriously undermine any progress made by his decision. While it may not be polite, I can't help but look a gift horse in the mouth due to the fact that first reading was passed unanimously.

I know there are some members of Council who are vehemently against Plan It, and hence for them to vote in favour signals a sense that they must be certain that their amendments will be passed. I haven't had a chance to see the amendments and Alderman John Mar has said that we won't see them until they come back for a vote in December. These amendments have the potential to completely torpoedo the entire purpose of Plan It - especially if they start to tinker with the density requirements set out in the document. With a unanimous vote in favour of first reading, it seems safe to assume that several Aldermen are fairly certain that their amendments will gut the proposal.

Listening to the hearings online was certainly an enlightening experience. It was made all the more interesting with the running commentary on Twitter's #yyccc hashtag. I found several of the developers against Plan It were exceptionally biased in the information they presented. For instance, many argued that Calgarians were interested in purchasing higher density developments in neighbourhoods such as Garrison Woods but were not willing to pay the high price. The outgrowth of that observation (which they failed to mention) was that there was high demand for that sort of choice in housing that could be satisfied with higher supply.

Of note was also the hilariousness of how obvious it was that several questions from Alderman to developers were planted. In particular, Ward 6 Alderman Joe Connelly seemed to have a nasty habit of asking questions which the presenter just happened to have a slide to answer with...I digress.

My support of Plan It comes from a firm belief that a higher density approach to urban design with a strong emphasis on public transit is the key to constructing a Calgary that can handle the next million people. What are matters of convenience today will be matters of necessity tomorrow. Our current growth plan is not sustainable and will just pass on bigger problems to future generations. Urban planning takes time to mature and have an impact; starting now is key.

Liberals Announce Support for Net Neutrality

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:15:00 +0000

You know, I really like Marc Garneau. He's a solid worker who just gets stuff done.

OTTAWA - The Liberal Party announced its support for the principle of net neutrality in the House of Commons yesterday.

"The Liberal Party supports the principles of net neutrality and an open and competitive Internet environment," Liberal Industry, Science and Technology Critic Marc Garneau said during yesterday's Question Period.

Net Neutrality refers to the principle that internet traffic management should not selectively target certain websites, users or legitimate internet applications. Currently, no laws in Canada exist regulating the flow of Internet traffic.

"In a free and open democracy in the 21st century, in an innovative and progressive economy, no tool is more paramount than the Internet," said Mr. Garneau. "The Internet is the backbone of today's flow of free ideas."

Mr. Garneau asked the Conservative government whether they supported net neutrality but Industry Minister Tony Clement refused to answer the question.

"The issue of net neutrality is a global one," said Mr. Garneau. "Internet management should be neutral and not be permitted for anti-competitive behaviour nor should it target certain websites, users, providers or legitimate software applications. We must protect the openness and freedom of the internet, and maintain competition to spur innovation, improve service levels and reduce costs to users."

Video: Girl Shot in Iran

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:37:00 +0000

I'll get back to our own country's political drama later, but for now, just be thankful for where we live.

It's a Trap

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:50:00 +0000

So today Iggy laid out his preconditions for possibly allowing the Tory government to continue on. As Wells noted, it's a clear (and I'd say fairly effective way) to have the Tories "carry the nasty." Or, as Admiral Ackbar would say, "it's a trap!"

All in all, I think this actually increased the chances we'll be heading tho the polls soon. Stephen Harper and the Tories aren't the most conciliatory of folks and I can't see them climbing down to make this Parliament work. I'd love to be a fly on the wall inside the Tory death star right now to see how they're reacting.

Dexter's Day

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:05:00 +0000

Congratulations to Darrell Dexter and the NDP on forming a majority government in Nova Scotia. It's a truly impressive feat and one that hopefully they will follow up with with good governance, fiscal prudence, and a government that's inclusive for all Nova Scotians.

By landing the gig of Leader of the Official Opposition, Stephen McNeil has taken a huge step forward. Granted it was only an increase of a few seats and a couple percentage points, but the new role comes with a lot more publicity which is always a good thing. Stephen is one of the most kind-hearted and sincere politicians I've ever met so I'll be excited to see him in action.

So what's next for Rodney MacDonald and the PCs? Falling from government to third party status has to smart and can be taken to be a firm rejection. It's hard to believe MacDonald would try to stay on; I'll bet he announces his retirement in the coming days and a new interim leader is chosen. Leadership predictions? There are some obvious choices in the new PC caucus. Oh, I dunno, maybe this guy.

"Cancer is the New Pink"-Gate

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:17:00 +0000

I'm really not sure what to say about Lisa Raitt's absolutely callous and insensitive remarks that have come to light.

First, this is an important issue and we should be paying attention to it so I suppose Lisa Raitt saying that it's attracting a lot of attention is a fair observation. However, to plan to use this to advance one's own political career is beyond reproach. Furthermore, to call it "sexy" shows a serious lack of appreciation for the seriousness of the problem.

She should be fired, plain and simple. The fact that she continues to be a Minister of the Crown really speaks to Stephen Harper's judgment (or lack thereof).

In other news, what is John Baird pointing at? Why, he's pointing at Toronto, and apparently telling them to "f*ck off". Classic.

UPDATE: Baird apologized and good on him. I believe that it was a moment of frustration for him. So why hasn't Lisa Raitt apologized? Slif's theory; "No one should apologize for sexiness."

Friday Roundup

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:54:00 +0000

All the signs of summer are in the air. Birds are chirping. Animals are frolicking. And the constant media rumours of a summer election are in full swing. Anywho, a few things are worth a couple mentions here and there;

1) With news that the economy shed another 42,000 jobs in May, it may be too soon for the Tories to start hoping for an end to the dire economic news. The recession may be coming to a close, but the human impact of it will be felt for a while to come.

2) The Tories may be considering changing the way the Federal government interacts with aboriginal groups. I'll wait and see what they have in store. Of course, it's no surprise that this news story has brought out the usual crowd of racists who basically repeat the mantra that "Aboriginals steal our money."

3) The Nova Scotia NDP has found itself mired in an electoral scandal with allegations of improper donations from unions. Union relations was always going to be a weak point for the NDP and this certainly can't help. Will it significantly impact the provincial election there? We'll see on Tuesday.

4) Friend of the blog and AB political guru Corey Hogan has thrown his hat into the ring for the ALP nomination in the upcoming Calgary-Glenmore race. Corey's a brilliant strategist & would have his work cut out for him. I wish him all the best and will do what I can for him while I'm still in the province for the summer. On a related note...

5) Wildrose Alliance members will find out soon enough whether Danielle Smith will be their Messiah. Smith would definitely be an interesting addition to the Alberta political landscape and a possible run in the Glenmore by-election would likely create an intriguing three-way race between the WAP, PC, and ALP.

20 Years Ago

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:57:00 +0000

It's days like today that I'm so thankful to live in such a wonderful country with so much freedom. I'll spend the day reflecting on what these brave souls tried to achieve and what I can do to make our democracy better.

Harper's Conservatives are Lost

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:53:00 +0000

Fallout

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:04:00 +0000

I'm not sure what's more shocking; the fact that nuclear secrets went missing or the fact that either nobody noticed or they tried to ignore it for a week.

I must admit I do enjoy Maxime Bernier's perfect sense of timing. He's a smart guy; he obviously has an axe to grind - either with Raitt herself or her boss.

It's hard to see how she survives this especially considering the bus Bernier was thrown under almost exactly a year ago. It's also hard to see how this government's credibility isn't going to take a massive hit; when you can't keep nuclear secrets confidential, there are serious problems with competence.

The Aggressive Conservative Party of Alberta

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:50:00 +0000

With the imminent passage of Bill 44, it's clear we've entered a new era of politics in Alberta. With a super majority secured, the Tories are free to do effectively whatever they want for at least the foreseeable future with little to no resistance. So if they want to launch a divisive change to the Human Rights Codes of Alberta that could result in teachers being hauled before a commission for teaching standard curriculum, they can. They can even do it in the middle of a massive economic crisis.

Anyways, I digress. Many moderate Tories I know just sorta shrugged and ignored this issue. Over twitter many admitted they were embarrassed by this but don't seem particularly interested in doing anything about it. This signals that there has been an obvious resurgence of social conservatism in the party; in the days of Ralph Klein he may have thrown the occasional bone to that section of the party but never anything on this scale.

Simply put, the PC Party is too big of a tent. It has been in power so long that many people who would normally not be members of a conservative party have joined it for the simple fact that they wish to have influence within government. How has this emerged? The longevity of the Tory regime is a clear factor. Also the knee-jerk unwillingness to engage in a party named "Liberals" by many leads them to join the PCs even if they may align more with the centre of the political spectrum. Non-conservative PC members justify this by saying that they can affect change from within - Bill 44 is a clear rebuke of that line of argument.

This imbalance in the political spectrum has also caused the ALP to have a more leftward tilt than it would normally have. Most Liberal Parties in this country have a left and a right contingent. The ALP has pretty much only a left-wing contingent with a few right-wing members (albeit within influential positions of the party.) Effectively though, the grassroots of the party is a hodgepodge of left-leaning groups.

The long-term way out of this situation is for a party (the ALP or any other party) to reclaim the moderates who are Tories in Alberta but would be Liberals anywhere else. This would rebalance the political landscape in a way that would make Alberta politics fairly competitive.

The $50 Billion Dollar Man

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Wed, 27 May 2009 22:19:00 +0000

Guess Whose Back...Back Again

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Tue, 26 May 2009 15:59:00 +0000

So yet again I've fallen off the blogging wagon only to try and climb back on. There are several reasons for this; long hours of law school, my new love for twitter, a general existential crisis of what I want this blog to be. I even toyed with the notion of shutting it down, but I've figured I can keep it going still at least half heartedly.

With all the debate over Bill 44 in Alberta, I think it's appropriate to just post this speech made by Minister Ted Morton as a way to show the worldview of the social conservatives that the Tories are trying to placate with the parental opt out option. It's truly a scary read when you think about it's implications. And yes, this is a provincial Minister ranting and raving about the "gay-feminist project". Enjoy.

H/T: Paulatics

A Preferential Option for the Family

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Ted Morton Ph.D.

Remarks to The World Congress of Families II

Introduction

We gather today at a unique moment in human history. We are standing on an ever-shortening bridge from the second to the third millennium. Surely this is a time to take stock in what has gone before and what lies ahead.

In Europe and North America, we can look back at the century that we are leaving, and take just satisfaction in having triumphed over the enemies of justice and freedom, first fascism and then communism. When we look beyond the Western world, we see a growing acceptance of Western institutions--not just our technology and market economy, but also our political institutions and principles of human freedom and equality. Turning our gaze to the future, the twenty-first century seems to hold forth a unique opportunity--the chance to harness the productivity of free markets with the freedom of representative democracy and the rule of law. Could it be that the utopias that seemed within man's reach at the end of the last century will in fact be realized in the next?

For those who consider themselves the friends of liberal democracy--and I am one--this moment should be a one of unprecedented optimism. And yet, it is not. What happened?

Ironically, as the threats of fascism and communism recede into past, they have been replaced by an uneasy sense of an enemy within. A domestic decay seems to be undermining those very things that we cherish most--our relationships with one another: be it husband and wife; parent and child; grandparents and grandchildren; friends, neighbors and what we use to call "our fellow citizens." In the immortal words of Pogo, "We have met the enemy, and it is us."

This has been called the American paradox--not because it is unique to the US, but because it is there that the contrasts of the paradox are most vivid: the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind cannot stem the growth of poverty and crime in its own cities. The most advanced medical care system in history is not available to one-quarter of Americans. The nation that can send a man to the moon must live in gated communities at home. Old people strive to stay younger longer, and young people get older faster.

The "American paradox" appears most clearly--and most terrifyingly--in the growing list of school yard shootings. The horror of these tragedies is that it is children--our own children--who shoot and are shot. Their crumpled little bodies are like mirrors--reflecting back on us the culture from which they came; and we see ourselves, dimly but disturbingly, as somehow complicit in this slaughter of the innocents. How could this have happened? What is going wrong?

In the wake of the most recent of these tragedies--the shootings this past April at Columbine High School in Colorado--Peggy Noonan captured this sense of social unraveling: "The kids who did this are responsible," she said. "The did it. They killed. But," she added, "they came from a place and a time, and were yielded forth by a culture." [i]

What kind of culture was that? According to Noonan, "What walked into Columbine High School Tuesday was the culture of death. . . . The boys who did the killing . . . inhaled too deep the ocean in which they swam. . . . Think of it this way. Your child is an intelligent little fish. He swims in deep water. Waves of sound and sight, of thought and fact, come invisibly through that water, like radar; they go through him again and again, from this direction and that. The sound from the television is a wave, and the sound from the radio; the headlines [and pictures] on the newsstands, on the magazines, on the ad on the bus as it whizzes by--all are waves. The fish--your child--is bombarded and barely knows it. . . . This is the ocean in which our children swim. This is the sound of our culture. It comes from all parts of our culture and reaches all parts of our culture."

Of course much of the finger-pointing that went on was pointed at Hollywood, and rightfully so. Sex and violence are nothing new. But their commercialization in the mass media is. And here, Noonan noted something new after Columbine. This time, Hollywood didn't defend themselves with its usual excuse: "'If you don't like it, change the channel.' They now realize something they didn't realize ten years ago: there is no channel to change to. You could sooner remove an ocean than find such a channel."[ii]

Public Morality: Liberalism's Forgotten Dimension

How has our liberal culture of freedom degenerated into a culture of death? There are, of course, multiple causes: secularization, commercialization, urbanization, technology, the rise of rights and the decline of duties, and of course the weakening of the family. But behind these more immediate causes is a proximate cause: we--not just the Americans but all of us--have forgotten the moral foundations of freedom.

Liberalism's emphasis on individual liberty and equality have obscured the role and importance of the family in sustaining free societies. Liberal democracy is usually understood as only a political or an economic project; a collection of equal, rights-bearing individual citizens, or as a collection of individuals rationally pursuing their economic self-interest in free markets.

This view of liberal democracy as simply a political or an economic project is incomplete. Liberal democracy is also a social project. Just as democracy presupposes a certain political and economic infrastructure, so it requires a certain moral infrastructure. Most of the intellectual founders of modern liberalism recognized the need for "citizens with republican character" and the role of the natural family in producing public morality.

According to Rousseau, it is the experience of family that attaches children first to their relatives and then to their fellow citizens. Conventional bonds, he states, can only be built on natural bonds. He describes the family as "la petite patrie," and challenges his readers if it is not "the good son, the good husband and the good father who makes the good citizen."[iii]

American Founding Father James Madison, while a realist about the low side of human nature, also recognized that man is capable of living a life based on rationally conceived principles of justice: "Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form."[iv]

Alexis de Tocqueville, perhaps the pre-eminent analyst of the dangers as well as the opportunities of modern democracy, was adamant in his defense of the democratic family.[v] "No free communities existed without morals," Tocqueville wrote, and families are the wellsprings of moral sentiment.[vi]

In sum, two hundred years ago, at the beginning of this radical experiment called liberal democracy, there was a consensus that a free society presupposes free citizens, and that the family played an important role in producing "republican character." The founders' understanding of liberal democracy as a three dimensional project--combining a moral as well as a political and economic infrastructure--has been neglected for most of the Twentieth century. The moral dimension of their thought was eclipsed by their more stirring appeals to individual liberty and equality. This forgetting of the moral foundations of freedom is the deeper source of our present problems.

Civil Society and Social Capital

Recently, however, the moral dimension of liberal democracy--and the family's crucial role in it--has been rediscovered by social scientists. This new body of social science recognizes the importance of the natural family to a properly functioning democracy. The key concepts in this new field of research are "civil society" and "social capital."

Civil society is the network of voluntary associations that fill the gap between individual citizens and the state. These associations are voluntary, and have a wide variety of purposes--social, economic, religious, recreational, political, and educational. Civil society produces the social connectedness and trust that allows individuals to cooperate for mutual benefit and happiness.

Civil society is important because it produces "social capital." Social capital is a new expression for an old concept--civic virtue or public morality. At a minimum, it means not doing harm: obeying the laws and respecting the rights of others. More expansively, it denotes doing good by helping others; an altruism born of the knowledge that one's own happiness is connected to the well-being of those around us. Social capital focuses attention on the institutions that generate "the habits of the heart"; that transform the "me" into the "we." The most important source of social capital is the family.

Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam is the leading exponent of this new school. Putnam's research claims that societies in which civil society is strong enjoy better schools, faster economic development, lower crime and more effective government.[vii] Putnam goes on to argue that American democracy is threatened by the weakening of civil society and declining social capital.

Putnam's work is complemented by the work of sociologists such as Sara McLanahan of Princeton University, David Popenoe of Rutgers University and Patrick Fagan of the Heritage Foundation. Their research measures the effects of family breakdown on children. McLanahan's research shows that children who grow up with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who are raised in a household with both of their biological parents.[viii] Popenoe's studies reach similar conclusions.[ix]

McLanahan's studies found that children from single-parent families are twice as likely to drop out of school; twice as likely to have a child before the age of 20; and twice as likely to be unemployed in their late teens and early twenties. This trend holds regardless of family income, educational background, race or whether the resident parent remarries. There are also higher correlations with drug and alcohol abuse, sexually transmitted diseases and criminal behaviour.

What children from single-parent families lose, according to McLanahan, are parental guidance and attention, as well as equal access to community resources. She describes this as a deficit of social capital--"an asset that is created and maintained by relationships of commitment and trust." Social capital, McLanahan concludes, can be just as important as financial capital in promoting children's future success. While Putnam and McLanahan are Americans, the importance of preserving social capital--and the natural two-parent family--is beginning to find its way into public policy debates elsewhere.[x]

These new truths--and really, they are old truths--are good news. After years of producing research that contributed to the weakening of civil society, social scientists are finally recognizing the social and economic value of the traditional family and the moral infrastructure that it helps to sustain.

The New Egalitarians

If the rediscovery of the social value of the family is good news, there is bad news on another front. There is another stream of modernity--represented primarily by the gender feminists and gay rights movement--that target the natural family as public enemy number one. According to the feminist-gay gospel, the great evils of this world are sexism and homophobia, and their breeding ground is the traditional family. Hence, the gay-feminist project has become a social engineering project--to use the coercive power of the state to undermine the existing family and to reconstruct in its place their gender-equal utopias.

These New Egalitarians, as I call them, travel under the banner of human rights. But what exactly do they mean by human rights? Those standards of moral right and wrong that transcend dominant opinion in any one nation? Those minimum conditions of civilized conduct that are recognized by all religions and all codes of ethics? Natural rights--those first principles of individual freedom that limit both what governments can do and how?

No. This new version of human rights has been reduced to a single, monotheistic principle: equality. Moreover, this new equality means not so much economic leveling as moral leveling; not the old Left's socialist program of state-coerced redistribution of wealth, but the new Left's embrace of moral relativism. The embrace of moral relativism is evident in most of the new "human rights" issues: abortion, homosexuality, pornography, euthanasia, legalizing recreational use of drugs.

On all of these issues, we are now told that "freedom of choice" is a basic human right. Competing concerns about the effect of that choice on family members and neighbors--not to mention the character and happiness of the chooser--are dismissed as secondary. The important thing, we are told, is not what I choose, but that I be completely free to choose it. It is the act of choosing, not the contents of that choice, that matters. The freedom of choice principle is tarted-up as an issue of "individual human dignity," regardless of how undignified or socially destructive the actual choice may be.

The new role of moral relativism in the redefinition of human rights is obvious in such issues as abortion and gay rights. But it is also curiously evident in the death penalty debate. Many of the opponents of capital punishment denounce it as a violation of human rights. Yet these same people, with few exceptions, have no problem with other contemporary forms of taking of human life--such as abortion or doctor-assisted suicide.

Their opposition to capital punishment is not based on the sanctity of human life, a traditional human rights position. Rather, as David Frum recently pointed out, "what offends them is not that the death penalty kills, but that it judges. They object not to a specific punishment, but to the very ideal of justice."[xi]

Here is the great paradox in this "new improved" version of human rights. Whereas human rights once stood for something objective and eternal, now it stands for the subjective and the temporal. Whereas once human rights pointed toward what is right always and everywhere, regardless of government policy or public opinion; now it means "what I want, here and now."

I can assure you that no other civilization in the history of mankind--East or West, North or South--has ever had such a low and vulgar definition of the good.

The New Egalitarians further debase the value of the human rights standard by stretching it to cover their most recent cause-du-jour. Despite "great progress," we are routinely told, human rights are still under attack around the globe: Kosovo, Tiennamen Square, Rwanda, East Timor--and yes, in Ohio and Alberta! Suddenly genocide and ethnic cleansing are on a par with supporting private religious schools; torture and political prisoners are equated with opposing pay equity; the Holocaust is lumped together with opposition to state-endorsement of homosexual rights. Indeed, there is hardly an issue on the feminist or gay-rights agenda that is NOT presented as a "human rights issue."

Such rhetorical overkill has become the stock in trade of the so-called Human Rights movement. Its bombastic and self-serving moral imperatives are destroying the very meaning of human rights. Moralistic inflation has the same effect as monetary inflation--it devalues the currency.

A final distinguishing characteristic of the New Egalitarians is their love affair with non-representative, non-accountable institutions: courts, rights bureaucracies and recently the United Nations. Their recourse to the coercive authority of non-accountable institutions is not by accident. The principal obstacle to the achievement of this brave new world are the present middle-class occupants of the old world--people like us. Since we refuse to be reconstructed voluntarily, they must rely on institutions whose authority is not based on consent and whose exercise of power is not accountable. Just as Lenin had to create the Communist Party as the "Vanguard of the Proletariat" to construct Marx's workers' paradise, so the courts (and other non-accountable institutions) have become the "Vanguard of the Intelligentsia" in the construction of the new egalitarian utopias.[xii]

The Fabric of Freedom: Responsibility

The New Egalitarians like to present themselves as the party of freedom, and accuse the defenders of family and traditional moral principles as authoritarian. This of course is absurd. The constant recourse to non-democratic institutions--courts and other non-accountable bureaucracies--discloses their true authoritarian bend.

But there is a subtler and more dangerous dimension to the moral leveling of the Egalitarians. Their mantra--"Freedom is the right to choose"--regardless of the content of that choice--certainly appears to make them the defenders of the private sphere of human freedom. This private-public distinction easily gives rise to confusion, and we can turn to Alexis de Tocqueville to sort out the truth of the matter.

Modern liberalism clearly expanded the scope of "the private"--individual liberty--by reducing the scope of "the public"--those aspects of individual activity subject to state regulation. Tocqueville, a self-confessed political liberal, approved this change as enhancing the exercise of human freedom. On the other hand, he also saw an implicit threat to liberty in the nascent social atomism that accompanies this change. Tocqueville captured the threat posed by the "privatization" of the regime in the novel phenomenon of "individualism."

An unchecked individualism creates social atomism, a condition that actually favours the expansion of the powers of the state by increasing demands on it. The democratic despotism feared by Tocqueville would occur as civil society withered, leaving behind a mass of increasingly disassociated and self-seeking individuals on one side, and an increasingly powerful state on the other. Because such individuals no longer are inclined to take care of one another, the state's "welfare function" expands accordingly. As individuals exercise less and less self-restraint in their actions toward their "neighbors," the state's police function continues to expand in order to protect personal and property rights.

Tocqueville feared that over time this trend threatened to destroy political liberty. To arrest this trend, Tocqueville recommended that matrix of institutions and traditions that fostered the self-dependence of families and local communities, and the ethical self-restraint of individuals. The family is one of these institutions. It is private in that it arises out of a voluntary association, is not part of the state, and is not (generally) subject to state regulation. However, its social consequences give it a political and thus a public significance.

If allowed to succeed, the New Egalitarians will lead us down the path to the soft-despotism that Tocqueville both predicted and sought to deter. We will become like sheep rather than citizens. As the true friends of human liberty, we must oppose these crude forms of egalitarianism and libertarianism that emphasize rights while ignoring responsibilities. The weaker the bonds of civil society, the stronger those of the state. These trends must be reversed. Free societies require citizens who meet their responsibilities as well as exercise their rights.

Pro-Family Policies

To avoid the soft-despotism of New Egalitarians, we must make enlightened family policy a cornerstone of the democratic state. We must incorporate the new truths of civil society and social capital into public policy.

We can do this in two ways. The first is to persuade our governments to require a "family impact" statement for every new policy or law that is being considered. Before legislation is voted on, there should be an investigation and written report that assesses its impact--positive, negative or neutral--on the following aspects of family life:[xiii]

*

Family income
*

Family stability
*

Family safety
*

Parental rights and responsibilities--especially the right to educate their children in the moral and spiritual traditions of their choice.

Our governments already do this for the natural environment by requiring Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). Why not for the human environment?

At the Second World Congress in Geneva, Mr. Kevin Andrews, the Member of Parliament from Australia, went further still, recommending that governments adopt an explicit family policy.[xiv] I would second this proposal. It would facilitate opening up the family dimension of economic policies, such as the threat posed to income security programs by our aging population. A more comprehensive approach would create opportunities to educate politicians and the public on the research that shows the positive economic impact of intact families[xv] and the negative family impact of big government and over-taxation.[xvi]

Secondly, we can identify a number of specific areas where pro-family, life-affirming, freedom-enhancing policies should be adopted and/or defended. These policies are based on the proven social advantages of two-parent families and need for a social environment that encourages and strengthens such families.

Personal income tax policies must be revised to support the traditional family rather than put it at a competitive disadvantage. Combined family income--not individuals' income--should be the basis for calculating tax rates. This could be easily achieved by allowing income splitting between parents.

Subsidies (in the form of tax expenditures) for divorced families should be reduced or eliminated. Why should we subsidize--and thus encourage--family arrangements that are less beneficial for both children and society at large?

Parental child-care must be put an equal tax footing with commercial or public daycare. So-called "public daycare" should be discouraged. Instead, tax-credits for child care should be equally available to all parents--both those who look after their own children and those who choose child care service of their choice.

The family-choice principle should be extended to primary and secondary education. This can be achieved easily and efficiently by expanding the school voucher programs. The state maintains responsibility for the universal availability of primary and secondary education, but parents are given the power to choose the kind of school they want. We know that state monopolies provide inferior service in every other field of human endeavor. Why do we continue to support it in education? This is especially true when we know that the New Egalitarians have targeted the public education system as a primary instrument for their social engineering.

On the subject of education, we must bring back education in moral character that includes more than just toleration. Toleration is an important virtue, but hardly the only one. Under the cult of "non-judgmentalism," we have allowed toleration to crowd out all the other virtues that we value in fellow human beings: honesty, courage, generosity, industriousness, fidelity, modesty, compassion, chastity, moderation. We must help our children to recognize what we all know as adults: that there are otherwise noble individuals who are intolerant; and also very tolerant individuals who are otherwise moral scoundrels and a source of sorrow for all who depend on them.

We must support politicians and political parties that will restrict the explosion of hardcore pornography that has flooded into our societies--especially child pornography. The pornography industry is central to the culture of death. It degrades and harms the people who are used to make these films, and corrupts those who consume it. It teaches us to use others as a means to our own end--pleasure. Since much of this materials falls into the hands of impressionable minors, it leads them to confuse sex with love and coarsens relations between the sexes. All of these effects undermine marriage and the family.

On the abortion issue, we must try to win back the ground we have lost in recent decades in the battle for public opinion. In North America, at least, it seems to me that this will best be done by accepting "the right to choose" status quo and refocusing on increasing the probability that young women make the right choice--life. This can be done directly by supporting "informed choice" legislation and mounting the kind of paid media advertising that addresses the issue of choice in a direct and personal manner. Here I have in mind the powerful, thirty-second television spots developed by pro-life groups in Michigan that have helped reduce the rate of abortions among teenagers in that state.

There are also indirect policy options. We should take advantage of the new emphasis in public health on fetal alcohol syndrome. Similarly, the growing acceptance of "open adoption"--which emphasizes the mother's on-going responsibility for her child--should be well publicized among teenage women. These non-coercive steps would help raise public awareness about life-before-birth and help to nudge public opinion in a pro-life direction.

Last but not least, marriage laws should be strengthened: both by making it more difficult to become married and more difficult to dissolve a marriage. The covenant marriage option adopted recently in some American states appears to be a promising option since it naturally appeals to the optimism of young, engaged couples. Many churches have strengthened their marriage preparation courses. This development should be encouraged and extended to non-church based courses.

On the subject of marriage, I would conclude by stressing the importance of resisting the growing pressure to accept so-called homosexual or gay marriage. Homosexuals have--or should have--the same rights to individual freedom and personal privacy that the rest of us enjoy. But they should not have more. Enlisting the coercive power of the state to force people to "approve" homosexual relations is the antithesis of toleration. Toleration loses any meaning if we are not allowed to continue to disapprove of what we tolerate!

As for gay marriage, it will simply further weaken the institution of marriage and fuel the growing number of fatherless children. As David Frum recently observed, most governments will try to minimize the political costs of legislating gay marriage by framing it in euphemistic terms and extending it to cover a variety of co-habitating adults, including heterosexuals.[xvii] The French are calling it a "Civil Solidarity Pact." In North America, "registered domestic partnership" is perhaps the most well known of these euphemisms. These alternatives extend most of the benefits of marriage with many fewer of its responsibilities. These new legal arrangements must be equally available to heterosexual couples, and, because they are convenient, will be used by heterosexual couples.

From this perspective, the argument over gay marriage becomes less about gays and more about marriage. The functional equivalents of gay marriage, Frum argues, will not extend marriage but rather abolish it, and put "a new, flimsier institution in its place." Since the average heterosexual co-habitational relationship lasts less than five years, the real losers will be the increasing number of fatherless children. As Frum puts it, "The gay marriage argument . . . pits the wishes of adults against the needs of children, the urgings of the self against the obligations of the family."

I would take this analysis one step further. It is not just the "obligations of the family" that are at stake, but the future or our societies. We should recall the adage that civilization may be thousands of years old, but it is only a generation deep. Or, as Thomas Sowell more pointedly observed, "each new generation born [is] in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians who must be civilized before it is too late."[xviii]

This process of "civilizing" can only be done efficiently through in tact families. As the late Christopher Lasch observed,

"If reproducing culture were simply a matter of formal instruction and discipline, it could be left to the schools. But it also requires that culture be imbedded in personality. Socialization makes the individual want to do what he has to do; and the family is the agency to which society entrusts this complex and delicate task."[xix]

Where but in the family will one first learn to be his brother's keeper?

Conclusion

In 1965, more than thirty years ago, American Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan argued that the lack of any family perspective explained the failure of many of the anti-poverty programs targeted at Black poverty. Calling for a family policy for America, Moynihan wrote:

"From the wild Irish slums of the Nineteenth century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: a community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future--that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest and disorder--most particularly the furious unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure--that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable. And it is richly deserved."[xx]

Moynihan was largely ignored. Today, the levels of illegitimacy for all of American society is 33 percent--higher than what existed in the Black community Moynihan was describing in the 1960s. But being ignored and being wrong are two different things. Indeed, Moynihan's message has been proven true time and time again, most recently and most tragically at Columbine High School.

At the opening of the second World Congress of Families, Bishop Njue of Kenya declared, "Without families, you cannot have government." I would qualify this only slightly: "Without families, you cannot have free government."

If democracy is the last best hope for mankind, then surely a more informed family policy is the last best hope for democracy.

Welcome to the First Day of Rob Anders' Life

noreply@blogger.com (Glen) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:27:00 +0000

Now that the dust has settled and the initial buzz has passed, it seems like time to take stock of what exactly has taken place in Calgary West. Is Rob Anders truly the dead duck that he's been portrayed as? Enlightened Savage has an intriguing post about this which has actually changed the way I look at this. My answer is...yes and no.

To be honest, I was clearly uninformed about the issue; I was under the impression that it took 2/3 of the board to vote in favour of a nomination meeting for that to take place. ES has corrected me by showing that it actually is 2/3 of all CPC members in the riding (not just those who vote) who have to choose to have a nomination process. Taking control of the Board just denies the Anders folks their biggest mouthpiece and pulpit (especially given that Anders himself doesn't say much at all...)

In a sense though, the worst damage has already been done. Anders base has always been the hardcore right-wing of the former Reform/Canadian Alliance crowd and the scale of the anti-Anders folks' victory shows that even his base is willing to stay home to send him a message.

So what is this message? Basically it can be taken to be, pretty much, stop screwing around. Back when he used to, you know, say things, he'd at least appease the hard-right with his crazy ramblings. Now however, he's just pissing off everyone with his vanishing act. The moderates still hate him given that he's crazy and the hard right people hate that he's shut up showing that he's willing to sacrifice his principles. This impression of willingness to sacrifice principles is especially pronounced given the way he's been protected by the Party in recent years from the wraith of the local grassroots.

So is Rob Anders on his way out the door? Yes and no. It still would take a great deal for Anders to actually be punted by the grassroots and in that sense I'll say that his goose isn't cooked just yet. However, if we're talking about the concept of Rob Anders then it very well could be the end of the road. Anders will have to now work with a board of moderates ("closet Liberals" as he called them) while also appeasing his own base. Thus we could see a very different version of Rob Anders in the future.

So in a sense, we have seen the end of Rob Anders - Rob now has to deal with moderates and for him, that could be worse than any retirement they could impose on him.