Crisis of Conscience

The contradictions of conservatism

Andres Barker

The Conservative movement invariably attracts two segments of the population: those who are fiscally conservative and believe in the ideals of the free market, and those who are socially conservative, generally representing various church groups.

This division was less apparent among the last Progressive Conservative party who, under the divine watch of King Mulroney, aggressively pushed the emergent neo-conservative agenda by signing onto the controversial NAFTA agreement, aggressively slashing taxes (often beyond the means of the government to balance the budget) and of course introducing the G.S.T. by moving the burden of the manufacturer’s tax off of businesses and onto consumers. This was a move that reduced the purchasing power of consumers domestically but greatly benefited the margin when it came to exports.

The Conservatives in power now are of a different breed entirely. Having emerged from the belly of the Canadian Bible belt, sometimes broadly referred to as Alberta, they bring with them the style of ecclesiastical Conservatism seen in many mid-western and southern states. This brand of ideology is a perverse blend of Christian altruism with individualist neo-conservative ideology that promotes the doctrine of “only the strong survive” as a basic tenet of social organization.

It seems almost surreal that the two could survive side by side, and most Canadians agree. They seem to be able to stomach one or the other, embracing “secular” Conservative governments at least occasionally in every province, and acknowledging Tommy Douglas as the greatest Canadian of all time in the CBC contest of the same name.

They don’t seem to like to mix the two, though, which was apparent by the way the two Conservative parties fared after the Liberals came to power, unable to win an election amid one of the greatest political scandals on record and even allowing the separatist Bloc Quebecois to be the Official Opposition after the 1993 election.

Every campaign seemed to highlight this apparently undesirable spiritual element to the Reform/Canadian Alliance/New Conservatives. Part of Stockwell Day’s humiliating resignation from his leadership included the revelation that he was a Biblical creationist after his public admission that he believes the Earth and universe to be less than 10,000 years old.

The problem with the mix of these two ideologies is that invariably they lead to policy decisions that seem to contradict each other. As two examples, take the commitment of Harper to Afghanistan. Harper has honoured the Liberal commitments to Afghanistan, and we can probably expect him to step them up. This is not an unexpected or controversial decision for a Conservative government; intuitively, we expect some degree of militarization to be consistent with an ideology that greatly values stability in the world and hence all of its markets, free or not.

But what of the decision to renounce the National Child Care Program? One common comment on the value of Steven Harper’s $100 a month child credit is that it allows mothers to stay at home and rear their children, a family-friendly ideal common among Christian groups. Focus on the Family, a religious lobby group strongly connected to many Conservative candidates in the last election, even delivered a petition to Parliament through former MP Ted White encouraging the government to promote stay-at-home moms as a matter of federal policy.

This contrasts sharply with the objective of the Liberal’s child care plan that is specifically designed to have someone else take care of young children, thereby freeing up parents (and to be truthful, mostly women) to work during the day. This latter objective seems to be much more in agreement with the economic conservative ideas of today.

It’s a reality of the new economy that in most families both parents have to work in order to sustain the family and pay the basic bills, and any plan that encourages people to leave the labour force will necessarily be deleterious to the economy. Ironically, the religious values that promote the single-earner family scheme are strongest is Alberta, where the demand for labour is currently the highest and by some estimates nearing crisis proportions.

In the United States, the ability of religious agendas to make their appearance in legislation is often closely tied to the influence of commerce and industry on the government. Laws to outlaw abortion or publicly display the Ten Commandments are probably more likely to show up in more rural and hence poorer states than they are in oil-rich Texas, for example, or at the federal level where money and industry run the capital.

So the question that arises is, what kind of balance are we going to see in Canada? The fact that the majority of cabinet appointments came from Ontario and Quebec, away from the more religious support basis in the west, is probably a good indication that the values of commerce are going to trump those of a different kind of social order. The ability of this new Conservative government to resist imploding in infighting will likely depend on Harper’s ability to appease the aggressive business interest both within and outside the country, while not biting the hand that feeds him by forgetting his party’s support base in the west.

Andres Barker is a first-year law student.