IS THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY MY FRIEND?
These are interesting times. After reading many blogs and posts over the past few days since the debates and subsequent smear ads by the Liberals, there seems to be several views taking place. On the one hand, people on the far left tend to be genuinely frightened; in a very real and tangible way. I feel sorry for them. They do not need to be.
On the other hand, there are some on the right who fear a conservative majority also...as though Stephen Harper either wouldn't want it or couldn't deal with the responsibility of it.
I will make my views plain here. I want a Conservative majority. I do not think it is probable, but I do crave it. I do not understand the views of those who question it. The logic seems to be this:
Let Harper get in with a minority and prove himself with 'centrist' policies that the media and left will like. Then go for the 'gusto' in the next election and go for a big majority after which true conservative policies can be broached. This is flawed reasoning for several reasons.
First off, the goal of any government is to implement an agenda. In a minority government, Harper will not be able to do anything conservative. He will maybe pass the Federal Accountabilities Act but the other platform points most likely will fail.
Do you really think the NDP will help him pass his child care plan?
Those people on the left who are helping Harper now, such as some Jean Chretien loyalists and political pundits, do not really want Harper to win. They want to punish Paul Martin for what he did to Jean Chretien, who is, in the opinion of The War Room, a petty bigot who disgraced the office of the Prime Minister of Canada. No need to be subtle.
What these media pundits and Chretien loyalists want is a 8-12 month period where Stephen Harper will be neutered and they can get rid of Paul Martin and rebuild the Liberal Party with a Chretien loyalist instead.
Do you really think that Michael Ignatieff is running so that he can help the elderly get heat when the pipes break in the dead of winter?
After this neutered period, and after a new leader is picked you will notice everyone turn on Harper again just like in 2004. Just like in the spring. Just like in the fall.
Those who seem to be on your side now will call him 'incompetant'. They will say that he couldn't accomplish anything. They will say that he squandered the good will of the NDP. Ideology does not change overnight and neither have these pundits.
Do you really think people like Shelia Copps or Warren Kinsella are on your side?
Do you really think the same academics and lawyers who are now pushing for polygamy want a Stephen Harper government in 12 months?
Do you really think the media will support Stephen Harper if his government were to find that Jean Chretien was more than a casual observer to wrong doing?
Do you really think the media that is going relatively fair on Harper now wants a caucus that will have good relations with America...with George Bush?
Do you really think the pundits will go fair on Stephen Harper in the next election when the Liberals have a new leader and Christians like Stockwell Day are in government?
I am not saying that any of these people are 'bad people' or even dishonest. I am only saying that their motivation for helping you is not what many of you seem to think that it is. Just because two adversaries have the same goal does not mean that they share the same reasons for why.
Strange times make for strange alliances, but do not for one minute think these people will be with you or Stephen Harper if he only gets a minority and another election is called in 8-12 months.
This is it. This is the big one. Conservatives have fought hard for this. Stephen Harper and his team have fought hard for this.
What is happening right now is a drama based on the old question:
"Is the enemy of my enemy my friend?"
History tells us the answer to that question is no.
Conservatives, including Stephen Harper would do best to remember it.
posted by Nicol DuMoulin @ 9:53 PM
6 Comments:
I'm interested in your thoughts about the new study about polygamy. Do I hear a dossier?
I second the motion! I remember LAST YEAR when people scoffed at me for saying that SSM should naturally lead to polygamy...
Not to jinx it, but I think a majority is quite possible given the newest numbers. Even here in Atlantic Canada the Conservatives lead the Liberals.
Yes, let's hear your thoughts on the polygamy issue. I think it's horrifying. For those who don't believe in slippery slopes, look around you. All those advocates of "voluntary" euthanasia, don't think they won't start snuffing out patients in their sleep. I belive that in the Netherlands the number of patients killed against their will/without their consent is rather high. But of course, that would never happen here.
Small l liberals are delusional and terrified about Harper's impending victory. An acquaintance today said I hate women if I'm voting for the radical Christian Conservatives because they want to take away abortion rights and gender equality in the workplace.
With such shocking stupidity, the only thing Harper can do is prove them wrong.
Sharon, Straphanger and No fixed address,
Thank you. I will be giving my thoughts on polygamy soon. The Euthanasia battle gearing up frightens me more than polygamy but they are all linked in a 'laissez faire no-morals' sort of way.
Anonymous,
It's amazing how hysterical the left has become. They are really afraid. Which is why they should not be in power in the first place.
Thnaks for your comment.
It was interesting to me to hear one of the authors of the polygamy study speaking to Mike Duffy the other night. Her argument went right to the heart of the whole marriage issue that was ignored when the SSM debate was sort of going on. What she said was if the sex of the partners could be discounted in the marriage contract, then how can we limit the union by number? This was the very same thing I suspected when we were moving towards SSM. How can we pick and choose the criteria that we use to define marriage? Of course, the SSM advocates dismissed the polygamy danger but now that has come out into the open. But what about the other present restrictions on marriage? Namely, how do we enforce the aspect of biological relationship between the partners? The genetic danger to the possible offspring is perhaps still compelling to some as well as the natural revulsion most of us feel towards sexual activity between close blood relatives but how could we enforce marriage restrictions between, say, homosexual relatives or heterosexual relatives who could prove that they were surgically sterilised, thus eliminating the genetic danger? How do we argue that the incest taboo is more than just a social prejudice? Yes, I'm being extreme, perhaps, but to make a point. What was once extreme has become the norm in many areas of life. Besides, to mount a Charter challenge doesn't require that a large part of the population agree with you. Plus, as with the sex club issue, we've seen that community standards are of little importance.
Post a Comment
<< Home