Paul Wells, channelling Andrew Coyne and Chantel Hebert at the same time (Bravo! remarkable achievement!), notes that “while many Canadian politicians claim to be socially progressive and fiscally conservative, [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper is turning out to be the opposite on both scales.”
In other words, as events this week have underlined, his government is socially conservative and fiscally ultra-liberal.
As I hate to develop a bias in one direction or the other, I'd be pleased if someone might disabuse of this notion if, in fact, I'm correct.
And, more importantly, will Canadians elect a government with record spending levels, a record deficit, who believes ministers ought to be sidelined for funding a parade celebrating gay culture that brings in millions in tax revenue?
Can we dispense with the fiction that creating a massive structural deficit through reckless, ill-advised tax cuts is somehow “fiscally ultra-liberal”? There would at least be some argument if Harper was talking about continuing to ramp to program spending, but the structural factors that have put the country into the red in the long term are entirely based on tax cuts (i.e. conservative ideology) rather than anything that can reasonably be described as “liberal”.
I agree entirely with your sentiments, Jurist, but here I (and perhaps all of us) suffer from the paucity of our political discourse. What is the opposite of a “fiscal conserative”? You're right to suggest that “fiscal liberal”, at least in the Canadian context is not exactly accurate or worse misleading. Perhaps, in this case, “fiscal wastrel”? I'm open to suggestions.
How about fiscally irresponsible? fiscally excessive? fiscally intemperate? fiscally undisciplined? Take your pick…
I can only speak for myself, but I'd rather have a government that is fiscally über-conservative. That's the one constant I'd like to see.
Society, on the other hand, always evolve, so sticking up for socially conservative principles, whatever they may be, is rather useless.
David,
I believe Canadians have – on several occassions. Depending on how you define “social conservative” of course. Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were both adamantly opposed to same sex marriage (until they weren't). Paul Martin, when he first ran for leader, promised to ban abortions. Chretien insisted he was pro-life.
Trudeau, certainly fiscally “ultra-Liberal” promised the Cardinal of Toronto that he would use the notwithstandinig clause to strike down any court ruling that allowed abortion.
So what's your litmus test for being “sociallly conservative”?
If it's based on who funds Pride festivals, then the current government isn't – as your own previous post showed, what with all the funding that has gone to various events. In fact, didn't the head of the Montreal Pride festival come out and say the current government has been a better partner than the previous Liberal government?
In fact, didn't Liberal Senator Art Eggleton, as mayor of Toronto, block Toronto from having any Pride events for six years?
So, just like you're having difficulty stating what you mean by “fiscally ultra-liberal” I think you probably need to figure out what you mean by “socially conservative”, because it seems like the current government you're criticizing is no more nor less “socially conservative” than previous Liberal and Conservative governments
“Fiscally irresponsible” sounds good to me, and indeed a separate “responsible/irresponsible” continuum alongside a liberal-to-conservative spectrum would probably work wonders in providing a more accurate picture of how a particular party actually manages public finances.
There's nothing wrong with the terms “fiscally conservative” and “fiscally liberal”. The problem is with the reversal of their meaning.