I have never been a huge fan of Nova Scotian politics, and I live here. That changed today with this article by the Chronicle Herald that explains Premier Rodney MacDonald's promise to cut taxes. Now, while I'm sure this is common in the West, it's not every day I hear of Maritime politicians taking traditional conservative stances and publicly declaring them. MacDonald said the personal tax exemption would increase by another $1,000 by 2014. In 2006, MacDonald committed to adding $250 to the exception limit every year for four years. Over the four years, on average about $200 will be added to the pockets of Nova Scotians.
“I’m a believer that people should have the opportunity to decide where they want to spend their money.”
Mr. MacDonald is a true conservative and it appears it's not only the PCPO candidates that are staying true to their roots but the NSPC candidate as well.
I also applaud MacDonald's ability to keep the exemptions like he promised even in tough economic times: “This speaks to what we stand for – we make a commitment, we stand by it, and we live within our means to pay for it,”.
On the other hand, there's Darrel Dexter. Dexter is the leader of the Nova Scotia NDP and of course holds a seat in Cole Harbour where he, and I, live. Common to socialists, he insists on throwing taxpayer money at something that has failed time and time again: our socialized system of Health care. Beating a dead horse comes to mind, but for the NDP, campaigning means making people unable to refute the things he wishes to pour money into. What common person, especially in the left-wing world of the Maritimes, is going to refute keeping ER's open?. After all, if you don't support his proposals, you appear to be a heartless individual or a "right wing extremist" according to the Left. For Dexter, it's a win-win situation.
Perhaps it's just my perception, but to me the NDP is continuing their tradition of emotion baiting and failed logic. In contrast, the Progressive Conservatives have been campaigning on solid, sound ideas that are simple: Tax cuts are good for businesses, good for the working class, and good for the economy. With the current state of the economy, the choice seems clear.
After reading the excellent new book by conservative activist Ezra Levant titled "Shakedown", I knew I wasn't finished talking about the ideas of the great Edmund Burke. In Burke's 1790 classic "Reflections on the Revolution in France", the concept of spontaneous grouping within society was introduced and defended passionately. Levant praised the internet, essentially stating that the internet has been the one forum of free speech that has allowed him to speak his and his supporters' minds and bring justice to the table. The media and the government weren't going to help - that would be too much trouble and cause negative publicity. To me, Levant was saying that the internet is the base for today's version of Burke's "little platoons"; the cornerstone of society that cannot simply be tweaked by the state.
Burke described an organic state that formed without planning, as opposed to the socialist idea of an artificial, organized, planned state (the French Revolution in Burke's day, for example). He argues that an organic society is adaptable; change occurs in an evolutionary manner that sways with the times. As one can guess, rigid societal structures and the obsession of the left with perfecting humanity can and will lead to violent revolution. While many enjoy the thought of a bloody revolution like in the late 18th century in France, classical conservatives prefer slow reform that comes from the private citizens, as a relatively collective move towards what is needed. Don't get me wrong, I am largely an individualist. However, I do not believe that natural society can occur through planning by the government or media. Even if there is no formal planning, there is an incredible amount of folks in Canada who either wish to indoctrinate people with their ideas that would undoubtedly (to them) help create the perfect society.
Burke may have lived hundreds of years ago, but what he wrote about will never not apply. I have to agree with Burke, that society or rather the "social fabric" must me acted upon almost without even speaking to one another. I don't mean people don't speak about what their culture or society consists of, but it's something the people of a certain group do naturally, without thinking about it. It's something that's ingrained in us, handed down from generation to generation. The aspects that transcend generations and work stay, and the failed ideas sink like the sun - the natural way of things. This may all sound obvious, but that's exactly the point. Society is organic, and the reason all this mumbo jumbo sounds obvious is because it's the natural way of life that practically every ethnicity, nation, and tribe has been following for hundreds if not thousands of years.
One has to wonder why the left insists that humanity is perfectible and that the state can (since it has the power to do so) do certain things to push us in the "right" direction. The obvious problem is the idea of whether or not the government has the right to push us in a direction, no matter what direction it is. Some of us think that's the job of parents, little platoons, and common morality. This leads me to believe that as crazy as this sounds, conservatives are the ones that are pro-humanity. Even though historically conservatives believe and accept the idea that humans are naturally flawed beings, we think humans can overcome such flaws - without the state giving us a hand. We appreciate the offer to be sure, but we happen to have a little respect and faith in ourselves.
By Dane Richard
In this essay I will argue that Edmund Burke’s view in “Reflections on the Revolution in France” (1790) and Michael Oakeshott’s view in “On Being Conservative” (1956) both share the ideas of change, familiarity, and innovation; the three main facets of conservatism. Although Oakeshott’s work was written much later than Burke’s, the ideas are nearly identical, proving these facets of conservatism are some of the most common in the ideology, and that the ideas of the conservation of traditions and respect of familiarity still exist and are thus timeless conservative ideals.
Both Burke and Oakeshott emphasize the vices of radical change and the virtues of gradual change when necessary. Burke argues in Reflections on the Revolution in France that nations are built on traditions and persistence, as opposed to radical change. However, that was precisely the goal of the French Revolution, which was to be brought about by uprooting or “dissolv[ing] the whole fabric” of society ¹. Burke believed that trying to create social institutions from scratch would end up destroying the nation, as the long term evolution of society is what creates successful social institutions, and should thus be gradual. The English Revolution of 1688, for example, was an adjustment rather than the total removal of tradition: “All the reformations we have hitherto made have proceeded upon the principle of reverence to antiquity” ¹. In other words, Burke is saying that all of the changes that came from the English Revolution of the mid-17th century, was done as reformations, with deep respect for the social fabric of society – something that is formed over a long period of time. The French Revolution was quite the opposite. Oakeshott also valued gradualism and persistence; he states “…[the conservative] will find small and slow changes more tolerable than large and sudden; and he will value highly every appearance of continuity” ². Continuity of course cannot occur if familiarity is not respected.
Familiarity is another point the two men discuss in detail. Burke believed that the traditional definition of revolution, “a procedure or course back to a starting point”³ ( italics mine) is the proper function of revolution – the French Revolution was radical, seeking to completely replace long standing society with something new. What it was to be replaced by was ambiguous; at the time Burke wrote Reflections on the Revolution in France, the French Revolution was more of an abstract idea of peace and justice, which was untested and therefore carried much social risk, including bloodshed, as Burke feared. Clearly Burke preferred the familiar to the untried new in the same way that Oakeshott describes in a more general sense; he states “[f]amiliar relationships and loyalties will be preferred to the allure of more profitable attachments”. Oakeshott argues, like Burke’s view on traditional institutions and long developed culture, that to keep and enjoy things one has learned to love is far more important than instilling new, grander ones, even if they appear as better. If applied to the events of the French Revolution, the two writer’s ideas are identical.
Gradual change is one of the most emphasized facets of conservatism that was presented by Edmund Burke in the late 18th century. 166 years later, Michael Oakeshott argues this facet of conservatism, but from a slightly different perspective. His writings were, like Burke’s, unmistakably conservative: “To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untested, ...” ². Oakeshott argues that change for its own sake is not always positive. For example, the death of a loved one or the loss of favoured customs are changes that are hard to accept, things one “actually enjoyed, ... and what takes its place is something [for] which [one] has acquired no attachment” ². He discusses this concept further, stating “The man of conservative temperament believes that a known good is not lightly to be surrendered for an unknown better” ². To compare the two writers’ theories, the “known good” can easily be taken in the literal sense as the social fabric described by Edmund Burke, and the “unknown better” as the peace and justice that was sought during the French Revolution.
Burke greatly preferred experience, historical proof, and traditional institutions to innovation, stating “A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper and confined views. People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors.” ¹. Despite the criticism of abstract change, Burke was not against change in general; he argued for incremental, rational change that’s based on past experiences, and argued that “[a] state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.”
Oakeshott argues that to be conservative is a manner of “accommodating ourselves to changes” ², as well as being averse from them. He also shares Burke’s view on using what is traditionally known to defend: “[T]he only means we have of defending [ourselves] against the hostile forces of change is in the open field of our experience…” ². In other words, the negative consequences of change can be challenged by one’s inherent beliefs and knowledge, as well as the experience of long-standing society. Oakeshott attacks blind innovation on the same argument as Burke; he states that “a [conservative] is not inclined to think that nothing is happening unless great changes are afoot…”. Finally, Oakeshott, like Burke, realizes that “[the end result] can neither be foreseen nor circumscribed” ² when it comes to innovation for the sake of improvement. He argues that innovations guarantee some sort of loss but some sort of gain; there’s no sure way of proving the innovation will be better as a whole except for the innovator’s word. Burke argues that a lack of restraint from the appearance of liberty in blind innovation, as well as the throwing away of common wisdom and virtue in exchange for the new is “folly, vice, and madness” ¹. It is clear these views of Oakeshott and Burke on change and innovation and the way in which we reform society are unmistakably conservative.
Comparing the two writer’s thoughts, it is easy to consider the ideas originally presented by Burke; that gradual change is better than radical change, familiarity is better than the unknown, and that blind innovation is dangerous are the most common, important assumptions of conservatism. These ideas coincide perfectly with the common conservative idea of conserving one’s society and its traditions, and as displayed by Oakeshott, will forever be apart of the conservative ideology.
References:
¹ - Michael Oakeshott, “On Being Conservative” [1956], Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (London: Methuen,1962), pp. 168-196
² - Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France [1790] (Pearson Longman, 2006), p. 144.
³ - www.Dictionary.com
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
VANCOUVER, March 31, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a talk given to North Shore Pro-Life, the outspokenly orthodox and strongly pro-life and pro-family archbishop of Vancouver, The Most Reverend J. Michael Miller, said that the Canadian pro-life movement must continue to lobby the government for legislation to protect the right to life of the unborn.
"The pro-life movement, therefore, if it is to be effective, cannot abandon its efforts to foster legislation which will curtail and eventually eliminate attacks on innocent human life," the Archbishop said in the context of a talk given on the renewal of society in the face of the "dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the `culture of death' and the `culture of life'."
Noting the "legal void" created by the Supreme Court's infamous 1988 Morgentaler decision, which left Canada with no legal restrictions on taking the life of an unborn child, Archbishop Miller said, "I am convinced that Canadian criminal law should acknowledge, defend, and promote the authentic moral values which can be known from reason; that is, it should mirror the natural moral law hardwired into our very humanity. Indeed, Parliament should enact legislation that would ensure respect the right to life of every innocent human being.
"We cannot forget that government is the guardian of our inalienable human rights. It has no power to modify or abolish them, and when it arrogates to itself the right to countenance the disposal of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, it fails in its fundamental obligations."
The Archbishop concluded that though this will be "a long and arduous path," the pro-life movement cannot give up the fight.
"Our goal is, simply stated: we seek a Canada in which every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life. Legal reform - which we must work to foster through the political processes we are fortunate to enjoy in a democracy - and a spiritual/cultural renewal must both take place if Canada is to experience a new birth of freedom ordered to goodness."
Link to full text of Archbishop Miller's talk in the B.C. Catholic: http://bcc.rcav.org/09-03-23/editorial.htm