Who’s a conservative? The matter of Barack Obama vs. Stephen Harper

Before anyone north or south of the border (or to the northwest) knee-jerks, do read this, and the links. Can you respond substantively?

Key differences between Canada and the US
I cannot imagine any Canadian political leader saying this with reference to, say, Jim Balsillie…

62 Replies to “Who’s a conservative? The matter of Barack Obama vs. Stephen Harper”

  1. One had an unassailable majority the other had the longest minority government in the history of the country.

  2. I disagree. I have heard these points recounted before and I have even made some of them myself.
    However there are three main differences one must take into account.
    #1. You can walk like a conservative, but you aren’t expected to talk like one. Conservatism has a tough love approach and that doesn’t fly in the culture of “nice”. Around dinner tables and firepits family and close friends can say what they really think, but in the public sphere one is expected to use platitudes of the left in order to appear compassionate.
    It’s the national equivalent of an out-of-wedlock birth being announced and everyone congratulating with gritted teeth, only to talk about sluttiness once everyone is safely in the car.
    #2. Canada is not a unified country. Regionalism and language barriers and geography alone have created a climate in which “getting along” is the primary responsiblity in hopes of people not leaving the party. Everything is boiled down to the most basic, tasteless, banal, pablum in order to keep the boat unrocked. In countries like the UK and the US, a divorce is not constantly hanging over everyone’s head, so the marriage never gets beyond the impressionable, formal first date.
    #3. The head left socialism that was introduced in Canada in 1968 and stayed until 1984, irrevocably changed the culture in a way that other Western powers have never had to deal with.
    16 years of Trudeau and everything that went with it, has entrenched a generation of understanding.
    These three elements mean that Harper and co. aren’t necessarily “non-conservative”, it’s that the liberal frame they play in is going to take years to chip away at.
    #1. Appearances.
    #2. Lack of Unity.
    #3. Trudeau culture.
    Appearances are surface. This allows Harper to say that Climate Change is the biggest threat we face, but then use the Senate to kill a key bill. Say one thing and do another. Ace. Real change happens but the talk remains the same. This is why we don’t have Soviet-style daycare, a “green tax” and a higher GST.
    Lack of Unity. This is solved by applying Appearences to it. Does anyone care about unity or seriously think Quebec will separate? No. Just keep talking the talk and as the country changes with more people and power in the West and Quebec shrivelling into a giant old folks home, demographics will take care of itself.
    Entrenched Trudeau culture. It wasn’t just Trudeau’s fault, but that wild swing to the left really captured people’s imagination and 16 years of anything will do radical damage. Every year Harper is in power inches us closer to the right. We need at least another ten years of Tory rule and “boots on the ground” activism in order to effect transitional change.
    Read this – http://www.amazon.ca/Rescuing-Canadas-Right-Conservative-Revolution/dp/047083692X

  3. Obama is neither a conservative nor a liberal. He is, roughly, a blend of Tommy Douglas and Real Caouette.

  4. If I may quote this comment.
    “C’mon, Obama is playing the game of politics as it is required in the Right of Center USA.
    Harper is playing the game of politics as it is required in the Left of Center Canada.
    They are both being disingenuous.
    But then, we already know that don’t we?”

  5. If I may quote this comment.
    “C’mon, Obama is playing the game of politics as it is required in the Right of Center USA.
    Harper is playing the game of politics as it is required in the Left of Center Canada.
    They are both being disingenuous.
    But then, we already know that don’t we?”

  6. 1. CBC
    2. equalization payments
    3. liberal entrenchment in judiciary, in university/public education and in government bureaucracies.

  7. Of all things, the liberal/socialist/nanny state entrenchment in the education system is the most pernicious and difficult to fight.
    It’s the curse that keeps on cursing.

  8. While I am not particularly happy with Harper right now I think the test in this is a false one.
    The better one is has each leader helped make move the centre of gravity on each of these questions to the left or the right.

  9. Uh, not sure why you have to ask.
    Re: Social Conservatism, here’s a single key difference: Obama “struggles with” the issue of gay marriage, whereas Harper would not.
    Re: Fiscal Conservatism, Harper would not introduce a major new spending program in a recession. Compare that to what Obama has done.

  10. Harper is no conservative but you don’t spend this kind of money with conservative policies.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BK6WC20101221
    (Reuters) – The U.S. government fell deeper into the red in fiscal 2010 with net liabilities swelling more than $2 trillion as commitments on government debt and federal benefits rose, a U.S. Treasury report showed on Tuesday.
    They are both socialists. No sunrise. All politicians seem to be now.

  11. WRT Americans being lauded for trying to get ahead, ie, it’s the American way reminds of the joke:
    A guy was getting a tour of a high end hotel kitchen. When he walked by the seafood prep area he noticed that two lobster pots were on the boil, one with a US flag and one with a Canadian. The only difference was that the Canadian pot had no lid while the American one did.
    When the visitor asked why the there was no lid on the Canadian pot his host replied, “Oh that’ simple. We don’t have to worry about an escape. When a Canadian lobster tries to pull himself out of the pot, the rest just pull him back down.”

  12. The difference is that ONE is a conservative trying to pull an smuggly ambivalent nation out of the swamp of consequences thata resulted from socialist gevernance.
    The other is a dyed in the wool, race mongering opportunist bent on pushing a smuggly ambivalent nation INTO the swamp with socialist governance.

  13. When you govern a country you govern the left and the right. If you go to far in either direction, you lose the middle. That is the reality of the job. Neither has a credible foreign enemy to unite against to shift either way.
    I think we spent money to get along with our stand being the Bank Tax. We had reason to go with the majority and wreckage to not spend. The same money would have left the country in a Bank Tax.
    The same thing with pension reform. The thing is you should have something to retire on and we want another option. The other side wants it in CPP, expanding the program.
    Reality chooses the path, not wishes and dreams.

  14. WalterF, old Lori and Jeff make excellent points. Left liberalism is so entrenched in our institutions after the 16 Trudeau years that it will take just as long to give the country back some balance. Progressive Mulroney was no help in reversing the situation and the Chretien years just added to the layers of socialists in the system.
    Jeff, it would be nice to have at least a teensy wheensy major victory for once.
    old Lori is absolutely correct. All the educational unions are hard core socialists as are many of the teachers who are products of a very left wing university system.
    The KGB did an excellent job of infiltrating our core organizations.
    WalterF and old Lori remind me of two teacher fellows I know very well, now both retired, who while acquiring their education degrees circa 1960 had confessed communists in the their classes. Most likely these people became administrators at some point.

  15. Mark:
    You are totally off-base on this.
    First, Look at their actions not their words.
    And once you have done that even looking at their words note the following:
    While PMSH hasn’t come out praising Balsille he hasn’t come out damning him either.
    Obama has said that there is a point when you are making too much money. PMSH has never said anything like that.
    For every quote in favour of capitalism you can find Obama saying I would probably be able to find ten where he takes the opposite stance.
    But I won’t. This is a wrongheaded post by you and you should at least reconsider your opinion and reexamine your evidence.

  16. Jeff is entirely right. How many times have I said it before? Stop listening to what politicians say and start watching what they do. How many of you ranted on about Jim Prentice being a raving socialist when in fact he succeeded in torpedoing any actual action on the climate change hoax? And did it in such a way that no frenzy by the green slime was echoed in the MSM.
    Mark is making the same mistake. He’s too busy listening to the noise and not paying attention to the signal. I don’t care that Canadian politicians idolize, say, Jim Balsillie. What I care about is are they putting in place a structure to make it easier or more difficult for him and other entrepreneurs to build businesses.
    The MSM is useless at this; it doesn’t cover committee meetings, it doesn’t generally cover any of the standing commissions, it’s scientifically and technologically illiterate, and it certainly doesn’t go through the Canada Gazette. That’s why is blindingly ignorant of what government is actually doing. It doesn’t report on legislation details. It’s the Jane Taberization of the Ottawa Press Gallery; it only does celebrity.
    All that Mark has shown by this post is that he is as blinkered from what’s really going on as the MSM.
    Remember, all of this has to be done in the context of a minority government. Like diplomacy, politics is the art of the possible, and in a minority Parliament, what is possible is highly restricted.
    I would note that Harper really only made one serious economic mistake in handling the country’s finances, and that was the lowering of the GST. Done for purely political purposes, he should have lowered income taxes, personal and corporate instead.
    So, one more time for the slow learners in the back. Look for the signal and ignore the noise.
    No, Kevin, the government has put in place a major spending program, the purchase of the F-35. There’s really not much choice. With the CF-18s now more than 30 years old and starting to fall out of the sky the way the old CF-100s did, they have to be replaced. About two-thirds of the original fleet are now hangar queens, and the availability of Canada’s air force is now coming into serious question, just as it is with the navy.

  17. One speech by Obama, and you are referring to him as conservative?.C’mon Mark. Just how times have you heard Obama praise capitalism before this?
    Gord Tulk nails it.

  18. Everyday Harper is PM is one more day HE appoints judges to the bench, members of commissions and deputy ministers to departments. Every approriations cycle is one more cycle to trim the expansive spending plans of the bureaucrats. Can he turn it around on a dime? Don’t be silly! He must first battle the red tories absorbed from the PC party and then the opposition socialists and finally the (un)progressive mass media.
    Will Harper make tactical errors? No doubt about it, but I trust him with the long term strategy.

  19. I agree with KEN KULAK.
    I remember seeing and interview with uri brezmianov on here and i was shocked but it is true russia and all the rest know they cannot beat the u.s. with weapons and war fare so they have unleashed a virus with in called socialism/communism.
    As a side note .
    For all of you who seem to like to dump on PMSH
    Give the guy a break man .
    You have to remember he is in the middle of a bunch of socialist/communist/marxist, opposition,and people period i have seen in this room alot of hipocracy with so called conservatives in here.
    And that joke above applies to conservatives alot as well we don’t like to see anyone in this country succeed why i have no idea .
    I am young but i have alot of freinds who can’t stand nickleback..they say all there song’s sound the same…lol…well if you listen to any succesfull band THERE music sounds the same to led zepllin,metallica,ac/dc aerosmith, brooks and dunn, so on and so forth why ? because people like it . It is a recipie for success and yet here in canada we absolutley hate it.
    I am willing to bet dollars to doughnut’s
    Harper is pandering becasue he has to he has to give them a few crums here and there ….I would like to see him tell the lefties to get stuffed and i think that would get him a majority just for doing that ..but he is not like that he is tactful and intellegent.
    He talks about cap and trade and greenie weenie stuff but what has actually been done again besides a few crumbs here or there ?
    Stand by him and give him a chance folks as he is all we have and he may not be perfect but he is better than any other option so you figure it out if you decide not to vote in order to protest then you will assure another lefty retard majority we HAVE got to vote for the guy he has lowered the gst,he has increased family incomtaxe refunds ,small thing’s but they are little ray’s of light through the cloak of the left so give him a chance obama is a loser top to bottom.

  20. No right-thinking person should praise Balsillie. Everything I’ve seen that he’s done indicates he’s a big, big believer in government by insiders – he definitely considers himself ruling class material.
    Admirable of Harper, or anyone else calling themselves a conservative, for NOT singling out Balsillie for praise. Praise for him would be an endorsement of his hare-brained political views.

  21. cgh, as you say politics is the art of the possible. Technically it was a mistake to cut the GST instead of income taxes. Tactically, it was brilliant. Chretien defeated Mulroney on the promise to abolish the GST. That left an opening for Harper to exploit. Cutting income taxes, as we see in the US, is condemned as helping the rich.
    Btw,the AGW leftists are working hard at convincing Ontario to vote Conservative in the next election. Until the Liberals decide whether they are centrist or socialist, Harper can continue making progress against considerable headwinds.

  22. When comparing Harper to Obama, Harper comes across as an able conservative leader. Harper is such a leader in a country still wracked with Trudeau liberalism. Harper fouled the ball on a number of issues (Roxanne’s Law for example) but still helms a country not far into the economic hole as is the case of Obama.
    Just my quick thoughts.

  23. Obama is a communist.
    He claims he cares about the economy.
    He does.
    He cares about ruining it.
    Dithering on BP oil spill.
    Offshore drilling ban.
    Obamacare to bankrupt insurance companies.
    Obamacare to necessitate national goods and services tax.
    Fleecing bond owners who were first in line at the GM/Chrysler bankruptcy and giving half the company to the unions.
    Using EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
    To name a few.
    The only reason Obama signs the DADT amendment is to placate his base.
    I’ll bet that, privately, his ‘upbringing’ means he really has no sympathy for the pride people.
    The notion that Democrats are to the right of the Conservative party is a ridiculous myth. Democrats are statists.
    Conservatives aren’t.
    And the only reason we haven’t seen that on display is because he’s been handcuffed by a minority in both the Commons and the Senate.
    At least with a Senate majority he now has a veto over the opposition.
    Conservatives are consistent in that they don’t promise pie in the sky federal programs to cover areas of provincial responsibility, like national day care, and they try to roll back the state, like the gun registry, and oppose it’s expansion, like the ipod tax.
    They are the least likely to say, “I am from the government and I’m here to help.”

  24. The are some major differences between Harper and Obamba other than Obamba is black, probably gay, not a natural born citizen, and a liberal social engineer that climbed his way to the top through Affirmative Action (as stated by himself).
    If you ignore the likelihood that Obamba is a religiously affiliated Muslim as photo’s and early scholastic records document, clearly there is still not a lot of wiggle room to link Harper & Obamba as one in the same ideologically.
    That said, their economic track record for their respective countries speaks for itself. The Obamba legacy will tend to reflect that of Robert Mugabe more closely to be sure.

  25. Why no blog post about Obama bleating that at some point, you’ve made enough money? Because it would destroy your insipid assertion, Mark. Obama is a statist, a disciple of ever-expanding government. He only wants wealthy people so he can spread their wealth around.
    Name a government cutback Obama’s made, Mark, or any diminution of governmental intrusion that he’s pushing.
    I won’t hold my breath.

  26. sda July 2007
    [ Maybe I’ll wait for the iPhone instead of risking Blackberry sales money ending up in a Maurice Strong/United Nations ‘oil for food’, ‘Kyoto Kult’, ‘One World Government’ type “initiative”.
    The Globe & Mail’s Lawrence Martin thinks it is OK.
    [ Jim Balsillie: bringing Canada to the world and the world to Canada.]
    http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070702/COMARTIN02/Headlines/headdex/headdexEducation/1/1/1/
    [ The school is to be a breeding ground for ideas for our governments and other governments. It will fill a big gap at the student level, where the demand for foreign studies has been ramping up. “It’s an unprecedented initiative,” said Louise Fréchette, the Canadian who served as deputy secretary-general at the United Nations from 1998 to 2006. “I don’t think we’ve had this kind of endowment in Canada for international relations and diplomacy ever.” ]
    [ The Balsillie School of International Affairs will operate out of Waterloo, Ont., and will work in tandem with a think tank Mr. Balsillie created in 2002, the Centre for International Governance Innovation, where Ms. Fréchette does research and to which Mr. Balsillie gave another $17-million last week.]
    Louise Frechette, Maurice Strong, United Nations, One World Governance, —– where have I seen this story before ?? Something about a world-wide tax on CO2 ??
    Posted by: ron in kelowna at July 2, 2007 12:07 PM ]

  27. OMMAG @ 9:44
    nail on the head…bullseye….i would also add he must step slowly and softly until enough undecided or wavering voters are won over to his leadership and general policy…
    THEN the election and the majority which leads to unveiling the hidden agenda !
    MWAHAHAHA….i’m suffering acid reflux just thimking on it….REVANCHE!!

  28. Harper is playing the cards he was dealt.
    Obama is dealing from the bottom of the deck.
    I agree with Abe, Gord, and Osumashi.
    Harper is a leader, Obama, rice paper.

  29. Obama is forced politically to be centre left. He wants to be far left. Harper wants to be right but is forced politically to be centre right. I have no doubt that Harper is to the right of Obama. The Canadian electorate is to the left of the American electorate and this acts as a constraint on both their intentions.

  30. When comparing PM Harper to bambam the reality is obvious Mr Harper is a leader bambam is a wanna be ruler!Remember bambam says I and me at least once in EVERY sentence he utters while Mr Harper tends to say we.Nuf said.
    MERRY CHRISTMAS

  31. Oh come on folks this is a nonsense question by a man whose inner liberal is showing. By constantly trying to drive a wedge between the leader of the Conservative party and his base, Mark is hoping to re-elect the Liberals. Its an old ruse that has been so successful in past we’ve had, in my life time, liberal prime ministers St Laurent Pearson, Trudeau, Turner, Chretien and Martin. Please ignore the paleoliberal disguised as a Conservative advocate. He’s on the other side.

  32. BO talks a lot. His only deeds are reducing individual freedoms while advancing government freedoms. And he talks.
    SH is one of the few MPs who is not a hypocrite. His noble goals are defeated by the opposition for no other reason than to defeat them. He does what he can.
    The result of several years of minority govt: very little done; most acts just slightly left of centre to satisfy the opposition and annoy about 90% of the electorate.

  33. One thing is for sure – Both Obama and Harper consider themselves to be part of the Ruling Class. Politics is a matter of ‘the least of the evils’.
    Politicians and bureaucrats and media and the Elite will always close ranks to protect the centuries long reign of the Ruling Class.
    Witness how the Republican big-boys would rather a mild form of Democrats than give up power to an outsider like Sarah Palin.
    Political parties like to project a ‘mortal enemies’ theme to voters when in fact it is the Ruling Class against the people with much less animosity amongst the players. I think the annual light hearted Media roast of the politicians is a better indication of the the camaraderie than the show they put on in government houses.
    Am I wrong ??

  34. There are lots of good points here, but those who ask the author to consider actions instead of talk need to think a little more critically about the supposed fiscal conservatism of the governing CPC.
    Obama deserves to be chided for the rampant spending in the US, but so too the Harper neo-conservatives who have increased government spending, added to the debt and put us in deficit for another five years based on flawed and disproved Keynesian economics. The fiscal walk of the CPC has been anything but conservative.

  35. “Canadians, because of labels and their own ignorance, simply fail to recognize that President Obama and his actual policies are well to the right of our so-called Conservatives.”
    That (condescending) statement conveniently ignores the social context in which these political parties and leaders exist, and of which their policies are a product. Obama’s policies are well to the right of the Harper Conservatives for the simple reason that US society is well to the right of Canadian society.
    Rather than simply comparing a static snapshot of political positions, one should be asking: in which direction are these political leaders trying to shift the political culture in their respective countries? And the answer is: Obama is clearly moving left; Harper, clearly moving right.
    Were their roles reversed — Obama, the PM of Canada; Harper, President of the US — one suspects their official policy positions would be vastly different from present offerings, much more in line with their respective labels, and far more in harmony with their presumed personal leanings.

  36. Remember this, Mark. The stimulus spending was the result of a G-8 agreement. Everyone had to participate because no one was going to allow any free riders on everyone else’s stimulus spending. Canada was and is in no position to defy both US and EU policy. Trade sanctions would certainly have been the result.
    Remember too that these things in international affairs are a trade-off. Canada was also insisting on no international bank tax (and everything which comes with that). And it got its way on that one. So on the one hand you have one time fiscal deficits which are not structural in nature, unlike those of all the other industrial nations. On the other hand, you have the World Bank and the IMF placed in a position of actual permanent governance over Canada’s financial structure.
    Which evil do you dislike the least? Because we were going to get at least one of the two.

  37. HARDBOILED…WHERE ARE YOU?
    This is the perfect opportunity for Hardboiled to bloviate about how Harper isn’t a conservative.
    Anyways, I agree with the majority sentiment that PMSH is conservative using a long term strategy to pick away at the socialist infrastructure. One common thread I’ve noticed over the years with the “Harper is not a conservative” crowd is the apparent support for American politician Ron Paul. This, what I’ll call the ‘Ron Paul Effect’ seems to be a major bone of contention withing the conservative tent(both US and Canada). I’ve observed that the RP camp is bitter towards fellow ‘conservatives’ and the other camp thinks the RP camp is loony.
    Is it fair to say that those that think Harper isn’t a conservative would in a heartbeat vote RP for PM if given the chance?
    I would say that part of the issue today for us is defining a common definition for the word ‘conservative’ with respect to North American Political dialog.

  38. ron in kelowna @ 10:15, I respectively disagree with you regarding Harper considering himself part of the ruling class. His origins are similar to yours and mine. Obama, on the other hand, also has humble origins, but belongs to a political grouping, the progressives, that considers themselves the ruling class or at least attempting to consolidate their control.
    I would consider Justin Trudeau to be part of Canada’s ruling class, as he belongs to a political group that thinks they have the divine right to rule and anybody who disagrees with them is a bad Canadian (by their own words).

  39. cgh
    very true, and might I add this extra little tid bit:
    PMSH *didn’t have the votes* to pass the balanced budget that was initially proposed. The deficit spending argument is disingenuous, a flat-out misrepresentation of history. How pray tell do the so called ‘real conservatives’ suggest PMSH should have went about passing a balanced budget in 09′?

  40. Obama comes from a ‘we’re oppressed’ starting point and attempts to equalize outcomes.
    His rhetoric against big business suddenly shifted on Nov. 2, right after the mid-term elections.
    In his end-of-the-year news conference on Wednesday, he started out trying to be a man above the fray but ended with in the class warfare rhetoric he’s been weaned on.
    Harper has to be cautious in delivering Canada from the clutches of Trudeaupia.
    Chipping away at 5% of the budget every year, he is slowly shrinking the size of Big Government at a pace that still has not created any considerable whining about the cutting by the opposition.
    Harper fundamentally believes that power should lay with the individual, Obama believes that the state can be a force for good.
    Harper understands that the bottom line is always economic reality.
    Obama’s philosophy believes human nature can be changed through politics and a series of laws that attempt to control human behaviour.
    Greece, Portugal, Spain and ireland provide proof of which philosophy is sustainable in the long run.

  41. Davenport: “Obama’s policies are well to the right of the Harper Conservatives for the simple reason that US society is well to the right of Canadian society.” Exactly. That was the point of the post, read the title. It was not about what policies either might prefer to pursue in his ideal world.
    Mark
    Ottawa

  42. Interestingly enough beagle, a similar debate just finished up in the States regarding care for 9/11 survivors.
    In both cases the Left (people like you) raged that conservatives were hypocrites for not immediately passing expensive legislation yet claiming at every turn to support the troops. Okay, fair argument right? Wrong! Not one day later in the US, a compromise is reached costing 2 billion $$ less than the day before. What’s interesting, is that ALL of the liberal pundits I heard were touting ‘bi-partisanship’ and how the system worked and how everyone should be happy that the 2 billion was saved. Tell me B, what happened to the righteous indignation of the day before towards opponents of the 6 billion $$ bill (conservatives) from the Left now? Why will the Left pass absolutely anything REGARDLESS of the price simply for political gain? Obviously the 6 billion $$ bill was not good legislation; yet, the Left supported it with vehemency. I find it appalling that the Left would play politics with the livelihood of all Americans (the economy) by stiffling debate to make the fiscally responsible opposition (in this case, spare me the GWB deficit tangential argument) look bad. This is the very objection the TEA party and Americans have with the lame-duck government. Instead of negotiating health care, the Left goes for the whole enchilada, regardless of the price/value. Can you see why the Right believes that the Left’s true agenda is to cripple the West’s economy through reckless spending? Even if we agree at times generally (ie… most Americans want health care, immigration, vet assistance reform)?
    Now I do understand that I’ve wasted my proverbial breath because you likely don’t really want an open dialog; and thus is why you and your ilk (the Left) are always in denial of your true aspirations for our country.JMO
    Merry Fcuk’n Christmas
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltIAGZZYvUo&feature=related
    I guess beagle, I will ignore the cries of ‘hypocrisy’ and ‘big meanie’ from the Left as they clearly have no real position about any of this; their position is simply to oppose and impose. Thanks for the link though.
    BTW, I suspect that everyone here would support the appropriate funding be allocated to this particular issue. Thanks for dragging politics into an issue that should be anything but political since both the Left and the Right support the troops. Or do they?

Navigation