and that government is not always the proper place to put all of our hopes and aspirations
Excellent way to put it.
Great piece NWW! To concur with Canadiana, if you rely on government to provide for you, save you, or otherwise act as a benevolent force you are certain to be disappointed. For me Toryism has self-reliance at it's core and that is why it universally appeals to the "doers" in society.
Wonderfully put, NWW.
I like this Tory Party you've identified. Where do I sign up? Seriously, this is a great post, and I hope I don't sound self-serving in saying that (thanks for our kind words about my forthcoming book). This is precisely the kind of sane, decent conservative politics I'd love to see take root in the States. Cheers to you, Curt!
Thanks for the kind words everyone. And thanks to Rod for giving voice to conservative vein that is too much overlooked in our time. I've mulled over that article more than once since I first read it.
That's a wonderful, eloquent exposition of what I hope the Tories can come closer and closer to.
My only issue is that, as a strict federalist, I'd imagine that most of the policy issues to which Crunchy Conservatism applies fall within provincial responsibilities. Crunchyism to the max, but I don't know that within the proper constitutional bounds there's that far to go.
ps. I regret I missed meeting you and Rebecca at the Kreeft talk.
Enjoyed most of what you wrote, but its vapid at some points.
"It's principles are healthy people and communities. It is built on nurturing harmonious human relations."
As if liberalism does not strive for these very things itself, but you do clarify somewhat on HOW conservativism seeks these goals in the next sentence.
"A Tory government ought to be viewed as a safe steward and servant of those things, offering a mature and even hand to all."
the question is then, when does maintaining these values become merely reinforcing values from a past that not longer reflects reality and suddenly your conservatism becomes needlessly forcing people to lead lives they have no desire to live. I'm thinking of course of gay rights, abortions rights, etc.
this fudamental problem has always worried me about conservatism. if conservatism is about maintaining the present set of traditions, values, how does progress fit in? how do we advance. always been bit of a mystery to me.
I concur a gem of a post.
Illuminating, sharp, solid, beautiful to read.
I enjoyed your post, but what I don't see how is how the libertarian wing of the CPC fits into the Toryism that you've articulated. Indeed, I'd argue that those who are largely not concerned with "healthy people and communities" or "built on nurturing harmonious human relations." That may be uncharitable, but I've had many an encounter with CPC supporters who are simply libertarian zealots enamoured with "Austrian" economics.
Would that this Toryism was still the defining factor of Canadian Conservatives, but my memory of, say, the Harris PCs in Ontario was of nothing less than ideological zealotry.
I'm glad to see a discussion emerging here. Cameron has asked some q's I want to address.
Re: Communities. As I see it, our NDP focuses on groups a bit too much, and our Liberals are atomizing individualists - despite the feel good rhetoric, they don't care what you do. You're only meat, anyway. Toryism as I see it ought to focus on the relationship BETWEEN the community and the individual. It's too easy to see the effort to stike a balance as purely negative. We're critical of too much self and also of too much government. The concept of balance to too easily lost in debate and rhetoric.
Re: the dead hand of the past. The distinctive idea of Toryism isn't so much any ONE set of traditions as it is picking from the with a great deal of agnosticism towards the ideologies they sprang from.
Josh, the Libertarians are but one group. They have ideas worth listening to, but they should no more define the party than so-cons or anybody else. We need to keep putting people before ideas. A wiser man than me once said that anyone who's a purist about anything is a huge nerd. Ok, it was a call-in show but I liked it.
hehehe meat eh? i'd always thought it was out of respect and toleration i was left along, not just people just don't care.
anyways, i like your anti-ideology (or moderated ideology) stand. the liberals have undoubtedly done this and its no doubt worked for them. could be harder for harper with his traditional base though.
be interesting reading more of your posts to see just how you define your sense of balance between individual and community.
Okay, perhaps I'm not understanding what the place of Toryism is in general. That is, is it simply a value system relevant and desirable for society as a whole, or a specific trait best identified with a single party (i.e., the Conservatives)? What I wonder is whether the natural opposition to Toryism should rather be the more strident variants of individualism and communitarianism, that is, libertarianism and socialism.
Now, the latter is at this point fairly marginal in Canada, but I would argue that libertarian arguments receive far more credence both in the media and within our two largest parties. I am not saying that their arguments are all or inherently bad, but I do think they are in many cases very much inimical to individuals as members of communities - and to communities as aggregates of individuals.
My own political story led me to the NDP, not because I believe in socialism or the necessity of nationalizing the "commanding heights of the economy", but because I saw the effects of the cynical wedge politics and ideological zeal of the so-called Common Sense Revolution in Ontario. So, not surprisingly, I don't much trust the libertarian or "hard right" elements of the CPC, not least with the likes of Jim Flaherty having been elected. They may pay lip service to the Toryism you espouse, but their actions undermine it completely.
Of course, I know that you recognize this, but if I were to interpret your concept of Toryism in terms of what it opposes, it would be any type of ideologically-motivated revolutionary change desired by many so-called conservatives and the worst excesses of populism. I don't know whether this is a correct interpretation.
I should just add that I am probably the type of NDP supporter who could conceivably vote Conservative under the right circumstances. But Harper's fairly radical ideas about federalism (whether he plans to implement them or not) do not reassure me.
I think you've got it, Josh.
Here in BC, outside of the cities like Vancouver and Victoria, our votes are always between the NDP and the Conservatives (our provincial Liberals are more conservative than the Federal party). You vote NDP if your worried about big business and you vote Conservative if you're worried about the government.
I can't vote NDP because the party as it stands today is very opposed to issues important to me, as when they do not allow members to vote their conscience on sensitive issues. That's being in thrall to an ideology, when no dissent is permitted. I also think governments are inherently more dangerous than big business given their scope and power.
I have issues from time to time with some of the ideas that float about in the conservatives, but they are simply not of the same scale. Austrian economics are fine, but they might not apply to all situations. Banking is not farming, and neither is raising a family. You can say that in the CPC.
Rod Dreher:
You owe Curt a commission. I just preordered your book based on this post.
A great post!! Strides have been made these last few years, now we have an opporunity to make some leaps!!
Commenting by HaloScan
