Hmmm... I think this may stem from a different read on what it means to be a neo-Conservative. Here is the definition to which I ascribe.
Quote:
1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits, as well as the potential benefits, such as budget surpluses.
2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, adherence to social conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture
3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, the ability to distinguish friend from foe, protecting national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military.
|
Perhaps, "nonsense" wasn't the best word to use but I stand by my assertion that the current Conservatives are neo-cons.
My issues stem more from their socially conservative elements than anything else. I think I also react to the massive chip that sits on most big C conservatives shoulders (but what can be expected when they have been living on the fringe since the Mulroney years).
I also stand by the fact that the Liberals (adscam aside for the moment) have exhibited strong fiscal conservatism in their larger policy. Martin and Chretien got rid of deficit spending and reduced the debt at a time when nearly all other western nations were doing the exact opposite.
I am not saying they were perfect. Far from it. But in terms of the mix that the PC government's represented, yes, they were firmly treading that ground.
The biggest problem with the Liberals was political complacency. They got lazy and they grew corrupt in the face of no real competition, no real political pressure. Reform/Alliance was in a shambles, the NDP was floating into obscurity unsure of what their purpose was and the Bloc was limited by the borders of Quebec.
The Liberals managed to hold onto power by stealing the best ideas of the NDP and Reform/Alliance while living in the centre with no real threat to loss of power.
It wasn't until the sizable voting block of the PCs was added to the sizable (by all Western) voting block of Reform/Alliance that any threat began to shape up.
To me it was a classic error of complacency, mixed with the perfect storm of elements: Growing alternatives in the new Conservatives, a massive scandal and party that no longer had a distinct vision.
I am willing to concede that Harper has made some interesting moves politically but I also think that one man can't do it all. There is still a strong element of Reform at the core of the Conservatives. It is just a matter of time before that element either rises up to get what they want or they splinter off to get it elsewhere.
The fact of the matter is Canada, on the whole, is a socially liberal place and no one party is going to change that and stay in power.