January 20th, 2006

Filed under:
Politics
5 Comments »

Last Time I Checked, Diversity was a Good Thing

I’ve enjoyed reading Stephen Taylor’s blog through the campaign. He’s a Conservative supporter, but generally provides thoughtful, well-researched analysis of his party and their competitors. I am flummoxed as to why he hasn’t addressed the Sam Bulte controversy, since it’s yet another Liberal misstep and has been covered in the national press.

Today, however, Stephen’s grasping at straws. He suggests that the Liberals are hypocrites because some candidates are pro-life. He provides supporting quotes from Liberals (though he ought to provide links as well) such as Joe McGuire or Joe Volpe.

I’m a little baffled. Since when is diversity of opinion a bad thing? Is Stephen’s expectation that every candidate for a given party should have the same personal beliefs on every issue?

Regardless, I’m pretty sure I could get a gamut of opinions from any group of candidates from any party on any moral issue. Heck, on any campaign issue. That diversity of views is pretty valuable for a democracy, isn’t it?

In fact, one of my central complaints about this election is that the politicians of every party have been absurdly message-centric. They rarely answer a direct question. Instead, they spit out the thirty second sound byte their spin doctor provided. I’ll vote for anybody willing to voice a little forthright dissent.

I’m not speaking in support of Liberals here (though Lord knows they need it). I’m just a little confused by Stephen’s point. Are all Conservatives cut from exactly the same moral cloth?

Comments: 5 Responses so far

Stephen Taylor
January 20th, 2006
7:27 pm

Hi Darren,

I was merely responding to Paul Martin’s personal attacks against the “diversity of thought” in the Conservative Party.

There are pro-life Conservatives and there are pro-choice Conservatives.

This dichotomy exists in every party.

Paul Martin brings up the issue of abortion out of nowhere (when the Conservatives have an explicit policy saying that they will not initiate or support any legislation on the topic).

Martin claims that he is pro-choice and that in stark comparison with the CPC, the Liberals win hands-down on “progressive values”. This is not the case as I point out.

I remember when Stephen Harper was criticized by Martin and by the media for “bringing up SSM” on the first day of the campaign, when in truth a reporter asked him a question on it.

Now we see an issue that has been put to bed and clearly not on the agenda of Stephen Harper being brought up (yes, brought up) by Paul Martin as a straw man during the last days of the campaign.

As for “diversity of thought”, I would be uncomfortable being in a party where such diversity was not allowed.

Consider that Stephen Harper is the only federal leader that will not “whip” his cabinet or caucus on any moral issue.

[Reply]

Darren
January 20th, 2006
8:41 pm

Stephen: We could have used a lot more of that context in the original post.

While you’re at it, how about including some links or references for those quotes?

[Reply]

ScottInCgy
January 20th, 2006
11:44 pm

I completely agree with you point that diversity is a good thing. However, Paul Martin is implying something completely contrary to what you state. He would have us believe that the CPC is full of neanderthal, religous wackos, while his progressive Liberal party would never accept anyone that was not pro-choice.
He can’t have it both ways. He is an ass

[Reply]

Darren
January 21st, 2006
12:42 am

ScottinCgy: You’ve exemplified why I hate 99% of political blogs. Everyone’s convinced of the correctness of their position, they’re rendered inarticulate by their loathing of the other side, and fail to support their posistions with actual evidence or rationale argument.

[Reply]

Ryan C
January 23rd, 2006
1:11 am

Darren: what quotes, exactly, are you looking for cites on?

PMPM’s been mau-mauing the Conservatives for nigh unto two years on abortion, despite the presence of a fair number of pro-life Grits.

Perhaps the clearest discussion on this issue comes from the Campaign Life Coalition, which is pretty clearly peeved at the present state of Conservative policy.

What grinds the grits of both Mr. Taylor and myself is that Paul Martin routinely makes a stump issue of abortion, when the Liberal and Conservative party platforms differ hardly a whit on abortion: the Liberals have no formal position, the Conservatives have formally asserted they will not introduce any abortion legislation. Both parties have sitting MPs on both sides of the abortion issue.

No links for any of that, because it’s in the party platforms, it’s in the CLC link above, and seriously, I (and probably Taylor) thought the gist of these points was common knowledge among those who cared enough about abortion for it to be a voting issue either way.

Also, I’m really lazy, otherwise I’d be out stumping for my favourite candidate, eh?

[Reply]

Add a comment