ampage Tube Amps / Music Electronics	For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Re: What Is the War Going to Cost Us?

5/9/2003 10:36 PM
LFOscalator	Re: What Is the War Going to Cost Us? You're missing the point completely. Yes, both sides (in this case Republicans and Democrats) would agree with you. A true conservative would not. They simply don't exist these days. Republicans are just another form of liberal. LFO

5/10/2003 1:24 PM
Mark Hammer	Bear in mind I'm writing from a political context where there are 5 parties that make up the federal parliament, two and a half of them (I include the BQ because their origins were from within the Conservative party) attempting to appeal to the right/conservative element. On the one hand, with so many folks vying for the vote by trying to adapt appealing elements of their chief competitor it becomes hard to tell them apart. On the other hand, there is a bigger spectrum of "blended platforms", so there are some differences. In both instances (US and Canada), particularly with declining voter turnout, all parties have moved towards the centre. At the same time, as I suggested, the increasing influence of economists on politics seems to have eroded differences in political ideology. In other words, the "economy" and economic pragmatics are increasingly shaping domestic and foreign policy thinking everywhere. In my home province of Ontario, we had a provincial government 10 years back that was ostensibly from the left. The New Democratic Party has had a traditional alignment with labour, emerged from a farmer base in the prairies, and were the originators and champions of social medicine. Naturally, the expectations were that the provincial government (which was the first from that party ever elected here) would carry on in that traditional and be the champion of the little guy by being benevolent. Well, they get in during the late 80's and of course everything is grinding to a halt economically, and all the economic advice they receive says "downsize, baby, downsize", and instantly in the public's mind they seem to have turned into an "economically responsible juggernaut" instead of the do-gooders folks were expecting. The premier did what anyone in his place would have had to have done, and the public turned on him. Next election, the Conservative party wins by a landslide, largely by promising tax cuts (the "benevolent" element the public was expecting the last time). Of course, what the right hand giveth, the left takes away, and many of the social programs people had traditionally come to expect were undermined by the tax cuts. For example, hospital budget cutbacks meant that all our nurses moved to the US because they couldn't depend on employment here, and we suffered a major nursing shortage that took even MORE money to rectify than anything that might have been saved by the original measures. So guess what? It's swinging to the left again. Perhaps the "true conservative" you seem nostalgic for is disappearing from the landscape because it had originally emerged during an era when decisions were made based on ideological grounds, rather than what the economists told us. Certainly in our own context here, the Conservative party has generally faded off the radar in part because anyone can appeal to economic pragmatics, regardless of ideology, so they really have nothing uniquely appealing to voters. I guess the real question is whether the current political landscape in which the actions of parties seem inconsistent with their traditionally associated ideologies is simply a generational aberration or zeitgeist that will self-correct eventually, or whether it is in fact the new reality of politics and ideology is simply a relic of a bygone era. Can we realistically expect parties to be able to consistently differentiate themselves on the basis of an ideologically-driven platform, or does the emphasis on the economy now make the dividing line between them one of "What is your strategy for addressing this economic issue?"; in other words, do we treat parties as having different pragmatics rather than political ideologies? I suppose some would argue that the economic pragmatics have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere would be a political ideology. Whether that ideology survives after passing through the filter of economics is another matter. I understand your point, and I suspect that in sme manner we agree. It is important to remember though that there are few political parties whose approach and ideology have remained constant over the decades. They are all shaped by historical context. Much like the idea of the "traditional family" as a distillation of something that never really existed for the majority of people, perhaps the "traditional conservative" is something that is also a kind of conceptual distillation of something that has never really existed in a stable widespread form. I don't know. I'm merely asking the question that needs to be asked.

5/10/2003 1:24 PM

Mark Hammer

Bear in mind I'm writing from a political context where there are 5 parties that make up the federal parliament, two and a half of them (I include the BQ because their origins were from within the Conservative party) attempting to appeal to the right/conservative element. On the one hand, with so many folks vying for the vote by trying to adapt appealing elements of their chief competitor it becomes hard to tell them apart. On the other hand, there is a bigger spectrum of "blended platforms", so there *are* some differences.

In both instances (US and Canada), particularly with declining voter turnout, all parties have moved towards the centre. At the same time, as I suggested, the increasing influence of economists on politics seems to have eroded differences in political ideology. In other words, the "economy" and economic pragmatics are increasingly shaping domestic and foreign policy thinking everywhere.

In my home province of Ontario, we had a provincial government 10 years back that was ostensibly from the left. The New Democratic Party has had a traditional alignment with labour, emerged from a farmer base in the prairies, and were the originators and champions of social medicine. Naturally, the expectations were that the provincial government (which was the first from that party ever elected here) would carry on in that traditional and be the champion of the little guy by being benevolent. Well, they get in during the late 80's and of course everything is grinding to a halt economically, and all the economic advice they receive says "downsize, baby, downsize", and instantly in the public's mind they seem to have turned into an "economically responsible juggernaut" instead of the do-gooders folks were expecting. The premier did what anyone in his place would have had to have done, and the public turned on him. Next election, the *Conservative* party wins by a landslide, largely by promising tax cuts (the "benevolent" element the public was expecting the last time). Of course, what the right hand giveth, the left takes away, and many of the social programs people had traditionally come to expect were undermined by the tax cuts. For example, hospital budget cutbacks meant that all our nurses moved to the US because they couldn't depend on employment here, and we suffered a major nursing shortage that took even MORE money to rectify than anything that might have been saved by the original measures. So guess what? It's swinging to the left again.

Perhaps the "true conservative" you seem nostalgic for is disappearing from the landscape because it had originally emerged during an era when decisions were made based on ideological grounds, rather than what the economists told us. Certainly in our own context here, the Conservative party has generally faded off the radar in part because *anyone* can appeal to economic pragmatics, regardless of ideology, so they really have nothing uniquely appealing to voters.

I guess the real question is whether the current political landscape in which the actions of parties seem inconsistent with their traditionally associated ideologies is simply a generational aberration or zeitgeist that will self-correct eventually, or whether it is in fact the new reality of politics and ideology is simply a relic of a bygone era. Can we realistically expect parties to be able to consistently differentiate themselves on the basis of an ideologically-driven platform, or does the emphasis on the economy now make the dividing line between them one of "What is your strategy for addressing this economic issue?"; in other words, do we treat parties as having different pragmatics rather than political ideologies? I suppose some would argue that the economic pragmatics have to come from *somewhere*, and that somewhere would be a political ideology. Whether that ideology survives after passing through the filter of economics is another matter.

I understand your point, and I suspect that in sme manner we agree. It is important to remember though that there are few political parties whose approach and ideology have remained constant over the decades. They are all shaped by historical context. Much like the idea of the "traditional family" as a distillation of something that never really existed for the majority of people, perhaps the "traditional conservative" is something that is also a kind of conceptual distillation of something that has never really existed in a stable widespread form. I don't know. I'm merely asking the question that needs to be asked.

<<First Page

<Prev

Page 2 of 2