A tale of two Conservative parties
Canada’s Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Photo: Embassy of Canada (U.S), Creative Commons, some rights reserved
Last week was a study in contrasts for North America’s two powerful right-tilting parties.
The irony is that the success stories are all on the side of the border where one would least expect to find them.
In Washington, the Republican Party is in full circular-firing-squad mode, with far-right fundamentalists demanding government shutdowns, debt defaults, and eagerly launching internal purges to root out and destroy moderates within their ranks.
The GOP hasn’t won a presidential election since 2004 and hasn’t controlled the US Senate since 2007. The party has been forced to lean on hardball electoral tactics — gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts — just to maintain control of the US House.
Speaking last week, during the bitter depths of the messy Republican retreat on Obamacare, former Florida governor Jeb Bush made the startling suggestion that his party might want to develop an actual agenda for governing the country.
“We just can’t be against what’s in front of Washington, D.C,” Bush pointed out, in an interview with MSNBC. He, like others in his party, have lamented the wholesale collapse of the GOP’s popularity among Hispanics, the young, and women.
The party of No has begun to look like the party of No Future.
In Ottawa, meanwhile, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has led his nation since 2006. His party has racked up so many center-right legislative victories, that it’s left many observers wondering if there’s much left of his original agenda worth doing.
Canada is arguably the most stable, prosperous and (gasp) well-managed western democracy, with a rapidly shrinking national deficit, lower corporate taxes, and a booming energy sector. The Great Recession that hobbled America barely registered north of the border.
Mr. Harper has also just inked a major new trade agreement with Europe that could push Canada ahead of the US in the global free-trade movement.
All this has been accomplished while boosting the Conservative Party’s electoral support, including strong growth among the nation’s immigrants and moderate suburban voters.
Along the way, Mr. Harper has angered and alienated some of his more hard-core supporters. Social conservatives, hard-line free-marketeers, and anti-environment factions want a tea-party like revolution in Canada.
Instead, the Conservative Party has chosen to build an actual governing movement. This from the Globe and Mail.
Mr. Harper has tempered his firebrand past in the interests of putting together the broadest possible coalition of conservative supporters, from New Brunswick Red Tories to 905 Sikhs to Prairie farmers.
That means he can only move the dial a bit to the right each time; sometimes he even has to dial it back. It also means, if breaches are not to be publicly exposed, imposing a smothering discipline on the caucus and the party machinery.
Mr. Harper has begun to face some of the discontents and challenges of a party that has been, for a very long time, comfortably in power. There are signs of drift and increased in-fighting.
But those are problems his counterparts in the US — Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell — would very much like to experience.
The irony is that many American conservatives still view Canada with horror. They point to its government-run healthcare programs and lingering reputation as a more liberal society as the very future they are fighting to avoid.
The truth, meanwhile, is that Canadian conservatives probably have a great deal to teach their counterparts, not just in Washington but also in places like Texas and Georgia and Kansas.
However, you will likely enjoy this news from the Onion:
New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks
http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-improved-obamacare-program-released-on-35-flop,34294/
Cool aid? I really hate that term.
“Remember the giant losses virtually everyone with any money in the markets suffered a few years ago?”
Yes, and the huge gains prior to that, as well as the huge market gains since then. Ordinary hard working folk. No cool aid, those are the facts.
“Many people won’t recover their losses in their lifetime, and that is on top of all the fees they have paid to have their funds managed.”
Most have already recovered most of that loss already. Look at the numbers.
Knuck, I have already said that I hope that we all benefit from the ACA.
Paul, those aren’t Democrats, their Dixiecrats, an entirely different kind of critter. I’d be more impressed if they gave some examples about the kind of info people thought they shouldn’t have to supply in order to sign up for health insurance.
And for the record, KHL, I don’t think it’s true that the vast majority of ordinary people should stay clear of the market. They just need to avoid trying to chase outsized returns and slick market timing. If they had put their money into low cost index funds and left it alone, their retirement funds would be doing OK. The trouble comes when you listen to stock brokers and their ilk.
“Most have already recovered most of that loss already. Look at the numbers.”
Not the ones who got out at the bottom– they’ll never get it back. That’s the problem.
Kool Aid happens to be a trademarked product. Please give it the respect it deserves.
Just because the Dow is up above levels that it was 6 or so years ago doesn’t mean that everybody has recovered all of their money. In that time many people have gone bankrupt, or had their house foreclosed on, used part of their investments for living expenses, or died. Maybe Harvard’s endowment is doing just fine but I pass several houses on my way to work that have been foreclosed on in the last few years. Those are ordinary people who have paid the price for the scandalous game played by big banks and investment firms.
Walker, they are working on it. They want to stay with the company we already have. I think most folks were hoping that would be possible. I get my insurance through my wife’s employer, a much larger entity than where I work and the increases seem normal so maybe they are more insulated.
The fact that a company like Walgreens is dumping 120,000 employees onto private exchanges seems like a hint that something is up based on ACA.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/walgreen-shifting-120-000-employees-private-health-exchange-4B11187909
Hopefully this will be better for these folks in the end, but to say things will stay as they are for people like this with insurance they already have based on this new law isn’t lying it is true.
Personally I would like to see my employer do this for us all since I get insurance elsewhere, then I can just pocket the money they will give the employees (I would assume including me that doesn’t buy insurance through my work). But that just lines my pocket and I am not ready to thank the ACA yet.
Knuck, no doubt some folks have taken a serious wallop. Many endowments run on a 12 quarter rolling average so they are still looking back at the bad returns. That spreads their gains but also their losses. So they are still planning budgets and endowment draws on low numbers.
Walker, if the SEC and other regulating agencies (thank god for government regulators when they do their job) have sent many more people to jail and have collected much more money from crooked bankers and investment firms, and Congress puts stronger regulations back into effect, then I will agree with you.
Unfortunately for most ordinary people there are few good options because the laws have been written by the money guys. If it were up to me people would be allowed to take their investments out of Wall Street without penalty to start a business.
Paul, as I read that article, it doesn’t seem like the move is likely to be bad for the employees– it looks like it will give them more choices. In many cases, that may save them money. You are right though that it looks like the administration’s claim that people would be able to keep the plan they have if they like it will turn out not to be true for many. The question is, will the changes be good or bad. Time will tell…
“If it were up to me people would be allowed to take their investments out of Wall Street without penalty to start a business. ”
Knuck, what penalty are you talking about?
Re: Lies about Obamacare, here’s a link to a fact-check on some claims of rising premiums, etc: Inside the Fox News lie machine
Here is a link to a story in today’s NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/business/health-law-fails-to-keep-prices-low-in-rural-areas.html?_r=0
I guess it depends where you are. It did lower prices for some here in this discussion and I think they are in a rural area.
Right, but “fails to keep prices low” does not mean “causes prices to soar.” It’s not a very well-written article, but I don’t see it saying that the ACA made coverage more expensive, except in states where they are actively trying to make it fail:
It’s also clear from the article that competition hasn’t had time to take effect– insurers don’t yet know what they’re up against from other insurers. Given time, and not too much intentional obstruction, I think it’s pretty likely to work. If not, there’s always single-payer.
Paul, I was talking specifically about IRA’s/401k’s, though I failed to be specific.