A Word To The Pragmatists From A "So-Called Conservative"

The right-wing blogosphere has witnessed a massive polarization over the question of the proper assessment of Stephen Harper's recent budget. In response to the dissent that many tories have shown over the complete capitulation of the right to the demands of the socialists, many bloggers are meeting dissent with condemnation.

The following entry, found at the Conservative Reporter's blog, provides an excellent example of this trend:

I don’t know about everyone else but I am getting very disgusted with all the so called conservatives who are giving the PM and this budget a hard time. It doesn’t have this, it has too much of that.

Wake up and smell the facts.

What do you think the coalition would have done. The media was on their side, they love iggy, he can do no wrong.

Give this budget a chance to get some results. It is a use it or lose it budget. There are strings attached.

As sorry as I am to 'disgust' you, I cannot help but take issue with the alleged factiness of your position.

The welfare state is built on the assumption of a constantly expanding population, a model which is currently in the process of breaking down in a big way. This means that, within the next however many years, the Baby Boomers will begin to retire and expect the next generation to pay off their debts. But the population has stopped expanding. Add to this the measly little $85 billion deficit that Harper has so bravely incurred to keep himself in the seat of power and we have what is referred to in crass circles as a 'serious fucking problem'.

We are condemning ourselves to financial crisis on a large scale with the short-term thinking that is evident in Harper's 'pragmatic' approach. The Prime Minister has the luxury to do this because he doesn't expect to remain in power long enough to catch the brunt of the long-term consequences. It is, in fact, the citizens of Canada at large who will have to deal with the implications of this budget. And those implications will be profoundly unpleasant.

The global economy's current state of crisis was caused by similar short-term thinking and left-wing economics. "Government intervention in the economy," exclaimed defenders of Bill Clinton who supported increases in subprime lending in the late 1990s, "is the safest bet. Capitalism is fine but it needs a little help from the government to stay on track." Today's defenders of the budget and the bailout economics that it represents assume, even if only implicitly, a similar kind of reasoning.

The root of this problem seems to be the way that many conservatives look at the very purpose of politics. We are told to stand by our Prime Minister while he sells us down the river because it's only temporary. Allow me to remind you that nothing about the government is ever 'just temporary'. Most programs that are touted as nonpermanent stick around for years after their intended sunset and those that do expire on time leave trails of consequences that reverberate for decades down the road. This is especially true of deficits.

Harper is playing clever politics with money that doesn't belong to him. I don't recognize Harper's right - nor anybody else's right - to a minute of my life or a cent of my money. I have supported the Prime Minister in the past because I believed that he had the good sense to fight for economic freedom. This was not an unreasonable belief to hold given the statements that he had made before becoming Prime Minister, particularly regarding the importance of property rights in a free society, the limited role of the government, and the deleterious effects of welfarism on the economy and the state's citizens. But, instead of living by his words, Harper has confirmed the old bromide that politics attracts the power-luster and repels the man of principle.

The budget's conservative defenders have gone out of their way to cite the pragmatic political sense of Harper's decision but they have conspicuously failed to mention or defend the pragmatic financial sense that all budgets should be expected to make. This is because, were they to take their support to its logical extension, they would find themselves defending Keynesianism. As little as many conservatives may know about the economy, they are aware of enough to recognize that this is a bad thing. (Don't believe me? Ask Henry Hazlitt: 'The Failure of the "New Economics": An Analysis of the Keynesian Fallacies' - PDF)

In a recent article, Andrew Coyne pronounced the Canadian conservative movement dead and I disagreed - to a certain extent, anyway. However, the conservative movement truly is dead if we fail to reclaim the principles that we once defended, foremost among them capitalism. Defending man's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property and, accordingly, defending the only economic system that is consonant with those rights (i.e. capitalism), should be what makes a person 'conservative'; these are, in fact, the very principles that we ought to be focused on 'conserving'.

By cowing to the threats of the coalition, Harper has taken capitalism completely off the table as an option for Canada - there is nobody left in power to defend it. So, before sneeringly labeling all of those who reject Harper's pragmatism as "so-called conservatives", please ask yourself precisely what ideas you are effectively preserving in the process of defending the budget.

The answer to that question may surprise you.

The End of Canadian Conservatism?

Who can save us?

Andrew Coyne paints a rather bleak picture of the prospects for Canadian conservatism moving forward:

With this week’s historic budget, the Conservatives’ already headlong retreat from principle has become a rout — a great final leap into the void. Understand: there will be no going back from this, for the party or for the country.

Mr. Coyne is perfectly correct on one count: Harper's 'retreat from principle' in the recent budget seems to sound the death knell for the Conservative Party's present momentum towards their much-desired majority government. The man who has been branded a tyrant by his political opponents has allowed himself to be bullied into submission by the weakest Liberal Party that we have seen in decades.

If Harper had stood his ground, would Ignatieff have called him on it? Perhaps. From all accounts, he is nowhere near the anorchid bureaucrat that was his predecessor. But, so what? Ignatieff hasn't had the chance to sell himself to Canadians yet. Harper would have come off as strong and unflinching by standing up to the coalition and the LPC's new leader. If the governor general had allowed the coalition to take over (unlikely), the electorate would have punished the Liberals in the following election. If the governor general had called an election, Harper would have been returned to power with a strengthened mandate and a shot at a majority.

The main thrust of Coyne's argument can be found in the following warning:

We are on course toward a massive and permanent increase in the size and scope of government: record spending, sky-high borrowing, and — ultimately, inevitably — higher taxes. And all this before the first of the baby boomers have had a chance to retire.

What is it about twenty-first century 'conservatives' and expanding the size of government?

But what of Coyne's prediction that this budget marks the death of the Canadian conservative movement? Is it truly as dead in the water as he suggests? The answer to that question depends entirely on us: its constituent parts. Many on the right have appropriately chosen to reject Harper's budget. Many have called for a return to economic conservatism - i.e. a return to the capitalism that has allowed the western world to achieve the unprecedented level of wealth and wellbeing that we currently enjoy. This is the key to the future health of our movement. There is nothing to be gained from the compassionate-conservatism of the George Bushes or the pragmatic-conservatism of the Stephen Harpers or the red toryism of the Jim Prentices.

So who does that leave us with in the CPC?

Um.

Rona Ambrose?

Not too many tories seem to fit the bill. If you have any better ideas please put them in the comments.

Memo From The Prime Minister's Office: No Principles Allowed!

In a recent interview, Kenneth Whyte of Maclean's Magazine sits Stephen Harper down to ask some questions related to the coalition crisis, the recent auto industry bailout, and even freedom of expression in Canada. Unsurprisingly, answer after answer from the Prime Minister touted the importance of the "pragmatic" approach.

Whyte asks:

We have Stephen Harper now embracing targeted bailouts and large deficits. Is conservativism dead at the federal level in Canada?

A chilling question, and one most Canadian conservatives haven't thought to ask since the right was united. But Harper's slow march to the center and the expansion of value-compromise within the Tory ranks makes it a perfectly pertinent issue.

Harper's response:

No, we’re just dealing with the times and the realities we have.

[...]

We have to be pragmatic. We have to handle each problem according to the reality we’re in.

And how about you tell us about the government's inaction on section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a section that has been used by quasi-judicial bodies to restrict the freedom of expression of Canadian citizens?

The government has no plans to do [anything about 13.1] ... And it is a very tricky issue of public policy because obviously, as we’ve seen, some of these powers can be abused. But they do exist for valid reasons, which is obviously to prevent public airwaves from being used to disseminate hate against vulnerable members of our society. That’s a valid objective. It’s probably the case that we haven’t got the balance right, but I’m not sure the government today has any answer on what an appropriate balance would be.

Great. Thanks for nothing, Mr. Prime Minister.

Harper Announces Auto Bailout, Sheds A Single Tear For Lost Principles

Gasp. Can it be? Are the rumours true? Has Prime Minister Stephen Harper betrayed his free market convictions for simple political expediency?

CTV:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty have announced a $4-billion aid package for Canada's struggling auto industry.

Shock. Betrayal. Surprise. I feel ... none of these emotions. Harper has made his willingness to cater to whomever demands it of him perfectly clear so long as it prolongs his time in power.

For one, I disagree unreservedly with the popular wisdom that a man must either be principled or practical, the point being that the two spheres are mutually exclusive. In my mind, there is nobody more practical than the person who acts on principle. Evidently, Mr. Harper begs to differ.

I've made my thoughts regarding the auto industry bailout rather clear so I won't beat a dead horse in this post. I will, however, recruit Publius to summarize the bailout decision as well as my own opinion on the matter to provide a little bit of closure:

This is, we belabour the point because it is not made enough, the economic equivalent of putting four billion dollars on a huge raft, lighting it on fire and then letting it drift to the middle of Lake Ontario to sink.

So for now, the Canadian auto industry will avoid bankruptcy. Financial bankruptcy, that is. They've been bankrupt of integrity for years.


ALSO: The cold hard facts about auto profits and sales (or lack thereof) in the United States. Again, linked by Publius.

Why Conservatives Must Abandon Anti-Intellectualism & Reclaim The Realm Of The Mind

On one level, I can appreciate why so many North American conservatives have chosen to turn up their noses at academics. Having spent the majority of my adult life dealing with the so-called 'intelligentsia,' I can confirm that they are, to generalize, an impossible group of garrulous and anorchid weasels. The few scholars who are able to scramble out of the pit of evil that is modern day pragmatism do so only to embrace some trendy political philosophy, typically Kantian or some idealistic derivative thereof, that is so entirely divorced from reality that one is left to wonder whether they can still be said to live on earth.

That said, it would be unwise for the right to abandon the realm of philosophy in protest. As a post at The New Clarion points out, just look at the influence one blue-collar man who has read Austrian economics had on the American election:

Just think: one plumber who has read Mises rocked the Obama campaign for days. If one educated American can have such an effect, imagine what would happen if just 5% of Americans read good economics and good philosophy. The welfare state would be seriously challenged. It might even be over.

The author's point is well taken. If 1.65 million (or approximately 5%) of Canadian citizens had read any decent economics or philosophy before the last Canadian election or even during the coalition crisis, is there any chance whatever that the Conservatives could have failed to secure a significantly stronger mandate?

I wrote in a recent post that I couldn't understand why Keynesianism has remained so popular in Canada despite its thorough refutation and the existence of profoundly more rational alternative economic models. After giving it some thought, however, I have concluded that at least some portion of the blame must be laid at the feet of those individuals who choose to base their opinions on floating abstractions and refuse to ground themselves in reality. That criticism is meant for both the left and the right. In fact, perhaps it should apply most to the alleged defenders of capitalism, particularly those currently involved with the US Republican Party, whose arguments in favour of laissez faire economics consists largely of religious hokum and half-understood snatches of Adam Smith.

The solution to our problem is to promote the pursuit of philosophy, not to abandon academia to our enemies. The solution is to reclaim the realm of the mind from the pragmatists, postmodernists, and idealists, not to allow them victory by default. As a commenter at The New Clarion puts it, all you have to do to save the world is think.

H/t Thrutch