The Republicanization of Canadian political culture
Robert Peffers
Republicanization?. Its most certainly not in socially liberal,
economically progressive, and environmentally aware Ontario and
Quebec; who tend to vote Liberal or Bloc Quebecois respectively. Its
not in Atlantic Canada, which usually goes for the Liberals in
elections and its Conservatives tend to be the rosy Red Tory ilk. Even
most Ontario and Quebec Conservatives tend to be Red Tories, or at
least Brian Mulroney and Jean Charest Blue Tories. No, this maligant
American Republicanization comes from Western Canadian Redneck WHITE
TRASH. All more the reason why
a Quebec Red Tory such as Lawrence Cannon or Jean-Pierre Blackburn
needs to take control of the
Conservative Party of Canada.
FUCK WESTERN CANADA AND ITS REDNECK WHITE ANGLO SAXON PROTESTANT MALE
COWBOY AMERICAN WANNA BE BULLSHIT. WESTERN CANADIAN REDNECK TRAILER
TRASH
WILL HAVE TO LEARN TO LIVE WITH QUEBEC, BILINGUALISM, IMMIGRATION, AND
MULTICULTURALISM WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT!.
-Robert James (Auld Bob) Peffers
The Republicanization of Canadian political culture
By Murray Dobbin | November 26, 2009
Watching the sickening performances of the Harperites in the House of
Commons this week -- out right lying, bullying, slander, contempt for
the public and parliament, and a stunning disregard for the public
good -- brings home a hard reality: we are witnessing the
Republicanization of our political culture. And it's not just the
torture issue -- it's the Conservative labeling of Liberals as anti-
Semitic -- a kind of shit-house rat politics virtually unknown in
Canadian political history. It wouldn't surprise me to find that Karl
Rove is on the PMO's payroll; his disciples certainly are.
This is storm trooper politics and the most alarming and depressing
part of it is that it actually works. In a poll done by the CBC
(though on Afghanistan the CBC and its polls can't be entirely
trusted) only 50% of Canadians believed the testimony of Richard
Colvin. The rest, presumably, believed a politician, Peter Mackay, who
has repeatedly demonstrated a total lack of character -- most notably
his self-serving lie to David Orchard about handing the Progressive
Conservative Party to the barbarians of the Reform/Alliance. Colvin --
a man of extraordinary courage, knowing that his testimony would
effectively end his career - told the truth simply because it was the
right thing to do
But in the new Republican world of Canadian politics viciousness can
win out -- just as it did in the U.S. with the Swift Boat attack ads
going after decorated soldier/politician John Kerry. In a political
universe where there are no rules of civilized behaviour, the most
ruthless can win because the side that plays by the rules just isn't
mean enough.
There is no obvious way to deal with overt and unapologetic political
thuggery. Fighting back in the same manner actually plays into the
thugs' hands because part of their broader objective is to poison the
well of public discourse. The ferocious partisanship of the Harper
Conservatives -- who should really be called the Libertarian Party as
there is nothing conservative about them -- is designed to drive
ordinary citizens away from politics. I can barely stand to watch and
listen to the vitriol and lies and I have spent my whole life
observing and analyzing politics. I try to imagine what people who
have very limited for it must think when they see this performance.
But there is no question that it partly explains the fact that 42% of
Canadians didn't vote in 2008 -- a huge advantage for the
Libertarians.
Part of the explanation for the weakness of Obama's administration is
the simple fact that the Republicans, even though they are out of
power, have so damaged the political culture, so scorched the
political landscape, that rational discourse is simply no longer
possible in the US. Eight years of George Bush (building on eight
years of Ronald Reagan) lives on and will do so for many years to
come. Compassion was simply beaten out of U.S. democracy -- day after
day, week after week, year after year reason was degraded, community
destroyed, truth and genuine discourse ridiculed and crushed.
It is impossible to predict whether or not these things are actually
dead in the U.S. -- or whether the hints of fascism will grow into the
real thing before reason and compassion can be rebuilt. The election
of Obama suggests that the fight isn't over -- there are millions of
progressive Americans who share the best of civic values. But so far
they are losing.
We are not there yet in Canada but we are naïve if we think the same
destruction can't happen here. After four years of sociopathic
governance by a man full of hate and contempt, Canada is already
becoming unrecognizable.
We must stop this man before he literally destroys the country -- that
is, destroys the core of who and what we are and how we see ourselves.
The first step is recognizing that we are in grave danger.
Murray has been a journalist, broadcaster, author and social activist
for 40 years. A board member and researcher with the Canadian Centre
for Policy Alternatives, he has written five studies for the centre
including examinations of charter schools, and "Ten Tax Myths." Murray
has been a columnist for the Financial Post and Winnipeg Free Press
and contributes guest editorials to the Globe and Mail, the Toronto
Star and other Canadian dailies.
Charlie Yankee
> The ferocious partisanship of the Harper
> Conservatives -- who should really be called the Libertarian Party as
> there is nothing conservative about them -- is designed to drive
> ordinary citizens away from politics.
Dobbin obviously consider being "Liberatarian" to be a bad thing. Not
suprisingly, given his statist/authoritarian bent. Personally, I wish
the Conversatives were more libertarian, particularly when it came to
their social policies, which are too "religious right" based.
But if Dobbin were being fair, he'd observe that the Conservatives are
only emulating (successfully) the dirty politics and aggressive
partisanship of the Liberals during the Chretien/Kinsella era.
Dobbin's outrage is as out of proportion as it is predictable.
Stephen Harper isn't George Bush, no matter how many times the left in
Canada try to assert otherwise.
> We are not there yet in Canada but we are naïve if we think the same
> destruction can't happen here. After four years of sociopathic
> governance by a man full of hate and contempt, Canada is already
> becoming unrecognizable.
What Dobbin means is that Canada is looking less and less like it did
when Trudeau was in power. And for that, I am glad. Call the
Conservatives "Republicans", "Reformers", "Libertarians", "sociopaths"
or even "shape-shifting space lizards" if you like. I don't care. I
call them the governing party. Dobbin may hate them because they're
not authoritarian statists and Peffers may hate them because they have
a Western Canadian base. But these things only endear the
Conservatives and Harper to me. We've had Red Tories, Liberals,
Central Canadians and authoritarian statists of various stripes
dominating the political agenda and shutting out alternative views for
far too long.
> We must stop this man before he literally destroys the country -- that
> is, destroys the core of who and what we are and how we see ourselves.
> The first step is recognizing that we are in grave danger.
Once again, this shows the arrogance of the political left in Canada,
who believe that they alone get to define our national character.
USENET
> And who are where are the nucleoli of this American
> Republicanization?. Its most certainly not in socially liberal,
> economically progressive, and environmentally aware Ontario and
> Quebec; who tend to vote Liberal or Bloc Quebecois respectively. Its
> not in Atlantic Canada, which usually goes for the Liberals in
> elections and its Conservatives tend to be the rosy Red Tory ilk. Even
> most Ontario and Quebec Conservatives tend to be Red Tories, or at
> least Brian Mulroney and Jean Charest Blue Tories. No, this maligant
> American Republicanization comes from Western Canadian Redneck WHITE
> TRASH. All more the reason why
> a Quebec Red Tory such as Lawrence Cannon or Jean-Pierre Blackburn
> needs to take control of the
> Conservative Party of Canada.
>
> FUCK WESTERN CANADA AND ITS REDNECK WHITE ANGLO SAXON PROTESTANT MALE
> COWBOY AMERICAN WANNA BE BULLSHIT. WESTERN CANADIAN REDNECK TRAILER
> TRASH
> WILL HAVE TO LEARN TO LIVE WITH QUEBEC, BILINGUALISM, IMMIGRATION, AND
> MULTICULTURALISM WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT!.
Quebec as shown by its support for the BQ has no desire to live with
western Canada not the other way around.
frederick
"Robert Peffers" <auldbobp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:69006e29-6344-4748...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
And who are where are the nucleoli of this American
Republicanization?. Its most certainly not in socially liberal,
economically progressive, and environmentally aware Ontario and
Quebec; who tend to vote Liberal or Bloc Quebecois respectively. Its
not in Atlantic Canada, which usually goes for the Liberals in
elections and its Conservatives tend to be the rosy Red Tory ilk. Even
most Ontario and Quebec Conservatives tend to be Red Tories, or at
least Brian Mulroney and Jean Charest Blue Tories. No, this maligant
American Republicanization comes from Western Canadian Redneck WHITE
TRASH. All more the reason why
a Quebec Red Tory such as Lawrence Cannon or Jean-Pierre Blackburn
needs to take control of the
Conservative Party of Canada.
If you quietly contemplate your surroundings you will see a group of Pied
Pipers leading the sheeple down the rocky road.
Butteye_Jest
<8de42ce3-959e-4558...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Charlie Yankee <charli...@live.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 5:56�pm, Robert Peffers <auldbobpeffer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The ferocious partisanship of the Harper
> > Conservatives -- who should really be called the Libertarian Party as
> > there is nothing conservative about them -- is designed to drive
> > ordinary citizens away from politics.
>
> Dobbin obviously consider being "Liberatarian" to be a bad thing. Not
> suprisingly, given his statist/authoritarian bent. Personally, I wish
> the Conversatives were more libertarian, particularly when it came to
> their social policies, which are too "religious right" based.
>
> But if Dobbin were being fair, he'd observe that the Conservatives are
> only emulating (successfully) the dirty politics and aggressive
> partisanship of the Liberals during the Chretien/Kinsella era.
> Dobbin's outrage is as out of proportion as it is predictable.
> Stephen Harper isn't George Bush, no matter how many times the left in
> Canada try to assert otherwise.
>
> > We are not there yet in Canada but we are na�ve if we think the same
> > destruction can't happen here. After four years of sociopathic
> > governance by a man full of hate and contempt, Canada is already
> > becoming unrecognizable.
>
> What Dobbin means is that Canada is looking less and less like it did
> when Trudeau was in power. And for that, I am glad. Call the
> Conservatives "Republicans", "Reformers", "Libertarians", "sociopaths"
> or even "shape-shifting space lizards" if you like. I don't care. I
> call them the governing party. Dobbin may hate them because they're
> not authoritarian statists and Peffers may hate them because they have
> a Western Canadian base. But these things only endear the
> Conservatives and Harper to me. We've had Red Tories, Liberals,
> Central Canadians and authoritarian statists of various stripes
> dominating the political agenda and shutting out alternative views for
> far too long.
>
> > We must stop this man before he literally destroys the country -- that
> > is, destroys the core of who and what we are and how we see ourselves.
> > The first step is recognizing that we are in grave danger.
>
> Once again, this shows the arrogance of the political left in Canada,
> who believe that they alone get to define our national character.
Yeah well, the right always turn things to shit and take no
responsibility. It's like they've failed to mature in exchange for
worshipping some ignorant asshole that has managed to fool enough people
to get elected.
Of course when things are messed up sufficiently, you neophyte neocons
can run more of your little scams successfully -simple lies -->
unnecessary wars -so your immature motivation is of no secret.
--
Ole Butteye
frederick
> We must stop this man before he literally destroys the country -- that
> is, destroys the core of who and what we are and how we see ourselves.
> The first step is recognizing that we are in grave danger.
Once again, this shows the arrogance of the political left in Canada,
who believe that they alone get to define our national character.
==================
I have seen them all over the past half century and I have come to believe
that the "Left" leaning people are much more broad minded than the "Right"
leaning people. Most of them have well thought out and independent
views. They Stand firm against the loud
voiced and selfish minded people who think that they have the god given
right to control the destiny of the country.
The view from the "Left" , though it be honorable and social minded is
too meek and too weak to ever make inroads governing
a solid , profit minded people. However they should be accomodated and their
philosophy well considered.
frederick
"E. Barry Bruyea" <terml...@democracy.com> wrote in message
news:lgvvg5psdja51puvt...@4ax.com...
> Encouraging more Hate Crime legislation is broad minded? Control
> seems to be the real objective of the left. More for the 'masses' and
> screw the individual.
>=================
Just give your post a second look and you will find that it
proves my statements to be true. I think they call that being
"self evident". It reads as if you are trying to deny me the right to
hold an opinion.
SaPeIsMa
"frederick" <harv...@sasktel.net> wrote in message
news:RtOdnQEM1JX9no3W...@posted.sasktel...
What is "self-evident" is that the left likes to reduce people to sheeple,
and denigrates anyone who dares to stand up against them and their
intentions
Jist because the left wraps itself into claims of doing it for the common
good does not change the fact that their "good intentions" have caused more
harm and suffering in the past century than ANY other form of control of
people
frederick
>>>>too meek and too weak to ever make inroads governing
>>>>a solid , profit minded people. However they should be accomodated and
>>>>their
>>>>philosophy well considered.
>>>
>>> The 'left' broad minded? Political Correctness is broad minded?
>>> Encouraging more Hate Crime legislation is broad minded? Control
>>> seems to be the real objective of the left. More for the 'masses' and
>>> screw the individual.
>>>=================
>> Just give your post a second look and you will find that it
>> proves my statements to be true. I think they call that being
>> "self evident". It reads as if you are trying to deny me the right
>> to hold an opinion.
>>
>
> What is "self-evident" is that the left likes to reduce people to sheeple,
> and denigrates anyone who dares to stand up against them and their
> intentions
> Jist because the left wraps itself into claims of doing it for the common
> good does not change the fact that their "good intentions" have caused
> more harm and suffering in the past century than ANY other form of control
> of people
>
>===================
Seems that some people look away beyond the evident truths in an effort to
justify their own lack of understanding. It is not in the "Social, ism,
ist, domain to denigrate the human spirit.
In the last century at least 90% of governments in the western world have
been on the "right" side politically so "lefties" have had little
opportunity to put its platforms before the public. Especially when they
have so much Radical Right rhetoric to overcome.. I see plenty of
propaganda emanating from both sides but I try to understand the whole
spectrum of political philosophy while following the center road.
SaPeIsMa
>
>
>>>>>too meek and too weak to ever make inroads governing
>>>>>a solid , profit minded people. However they should be accomodated and
>>>>>their
>>>>>philosophy well considered.
>>>>
>>>> The 'left' broad minded? Political Correctness is broad minded?
>>>> Encouraging more Hate Crime legislation is broad minded? Control
>>>> seems to be the real objective of the left. More for the 'masses' and
>>>> screw the individual.
>>>>=================
>>> Just give your post a second look and you will find that it
>>> proves my statements to be true. I think they call that being
>>> "self evident". It reads as if you are trying to deny me the right
>>> to hold an opinion.
>>>
>>
>> What is "self-evident" is that the left likes to reduce people to
>> sheeple, and denigrates anyone who dares to stand up against them and
>> their intentions
>> Jist because the left wraps itself into claims of doing it for the common
>> good does not change the fact that their "good intentions" have caused
>> more harm and suffering in the past century than ANY other form of
>> control of people
>>
>>===================
> Seems that some people look away beyond the evident truths in an effort
> to justify their own lack of understanding. It is not in the "Social,
> ism, ist, domain to denigrate the human spirit.
So explain to us why "social, ism" has denigrated the human spirit to the
point of killing off more than 140,000,000 people in the last century ?
> In the last century at least 90% of governments in the western world
> have been on the "right" side politically so "lefties" have had little
> opportunity to put its platforms before the public. Especially when they
> have so much Radical Right rhetoric to overcome..
But where they have done so, the human, social and even environmental costs
have been beyond the pale
> I see plenty of propaganda emanating from both sides but I try to
> understand the whole spectrum of political philosophy while following
> the center road.
It's difficult to follow anything when you are ignorant
>
frederick
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:I6ydndeDZ5npyo3W...@posted.cpinternet...
Good example of radical right side rhetoric ---Not worthy of a serious
reply
>
SaPeIsMa
<snicker>
And you imagine yourself to be in the center
That reply alone proves you wrong
lol_internet
"Robert Peffers" <auldbobp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:69006e29-6344-4748...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
FUCK WESTERN CANADA AND ITS REDNECK WHITE ANGLO SAXON PROTESTANT MALE
Pete
I've beem coast to coast, I've been North of 60 several times.
I've met people from the East who have been to the West,
But I've met far more people from the West who haven't been west of Manitoba.
Of course, Harper is from Leaside, after 19 spent his time in Alberta.
But before he became PM, he had never left Canada, save for a vacation in
Mexico.
That's just wacky.
Pete
>
> But I've met far more people from the West who haven't been west of Manitoba.
>
East of Manitoba.
frederick
>>>
>>>
>>>> In the last century at least 90% of governments in the western world
>>>> have been on the "right" side politically so "lefties" have had
>>>> little opportunity to put its platforms before the public. Especially
>>>> when they have so much Radical Right rhetoric to overcome..
>>>
>>> But where they have done so, the human, social and even environmental
>>> costs have been beyond the pale
>>>
>>>
>>>> I see plenty of propaganda emanating from both sides but I try to
>>>> understand the whole spectrum of political philosophy while
>>>> following the center road.
>>>
>>> It's difficult to follow anything when you are ignorant
>>>
>>>>=================
>> Good example of radical right side rhetoric ---Not worthy of a serious
>> reply
>
>
> <snicker>
> And you imagine yourself to be in the center
> That reply alone proves you wrong
>====================
Look at it this way ! There are many political views out there and most
people do not really know why they hold the political philosophy that
they espouse.. If you ask a Lefty what his views are you may find that he
holds many beliefs that are endemic to Conservatism. Conversely if you
ask a Conservative about his views. he may well hold many beliefs that
fall in line with the N.D.P. A large percentage of people hold fast to one
political Party, solely because that was the preference of his father or
some other mentor. In speaking to friends I find that at least 30 % are in
the closet politically and do not vote the way their view points indicate.
I consider anyone who reacts differently toward his neighbor than the
actions of his political preference to be "In the Closet"