 |
||||||||
|
Why The Cynicism? Actions Speak Louder Than Ideological Purity
Thursday, October 12, 2006
In my last column I called for socons to rally behind Harper. I made this point not because I believe Harper deserves a blank cheque or blind loyalty, or because he is beyond legitimate criticism. In my book, actions - not words, or good intentions or ideological purity - have far more currency - and that is why Harper deserves our support. But instead of acknowledging the advances under Harper, some so-called socons have instead chosen to either lambaste me personally or trivialize Harper's deeds. One argued that I was Harper's "useful idiot" - I have sold out for something as trivial as the appointment of David Brown. Another couldn't take my column seriously because, well with a "name like Tristan Emmanuel," who can? Others simply dismissed my point by saying that what Harper has done is "no big deal" - he still hasn't addressed the number one problem: abortion. And still others simply argued that it was "too easy to jump on the Harper bandwagon." Some of the arguments are so juvenile they don't merit a response. But all of the arguments are fallacious on several other levels. On the surface these arguments reveal a cycle of cynicism that is so deeply entrenched among social conservatives that it threatens to paralyze the movement. In my latest book, Warned: Canada's Revolution Against Faith, Family and Freedom Threatens America, I warn Canadian socons about the dangers of institutional cynicism. Cynicism among socons in my estimation eats away at our prospects for future victory because it stops us from accepting that change doesn't happen all at once, but incrementally. Cynicism also expects the worst from all conservative politicians because the party has to be corrupt since it is not theologically or ideologically "pure enough." And worst of all, cynicism causes us to war among ourselves because we believe everyone is only out for themselves. That's why we don't effectively network with each other; we don't want to be seen as building anyone's empire. Cynicism also blinds us from a proper interpretation of our recent gains. And I find that very interesting: our opponents understand the unique shift that is taking place in Ottawa, but many of us don't - this despite the completely unexpected demonstration of backbone within a supposedly precarious minority government. Harper could have played it safe and not bothered to cut the CCP or appoint David Brown. But he didn't - and that is not insignificant. As I stated in my last column, and it bears repeating again, Harper's actions are unprecedented in terms of our Canadian context. Unlike all previous conservative governments, or all small-"c" conservative parties of the last two decades, or even all fringe parties with pure ideological platforms, it is Harper and his minority government that is cutting down the liberal juggernaut so ensconced in Ottawa. He, not the others, has cut into the steady stream of money that finances our opponents. He, not they, addressed the judicial deficit by finally appointing a genuine social conservative in David Brown - as well as perhaps the first conservative human rights commissioner in the history of this country. And it is he, not they, who is currently leading the fight in Ottawa to protect our religious rights against militant homosexuals - none of these actions constitute cheap paltry concessions. All of these are important foundational issues being championed by a bold minority government. What about abortion? Of course it is a scourge, and of course Harper should show leadership. I don't give him a passing grade on that issue. But being an armchair quarterback is too easy, and it is far too cynical. In fact, if there is any "bandwagon" to speak of it is that for too long, socons have been playing a cynical strategy - and what have we got to show for it? Is Harper playing us, simply to get our votes? Well of course he is, but so what. What about playing him? Have any of you stopped to think about that? In the end, if a socon agenda is being advanced even if only incrementally, who really cares about who is playing who? Look, if you can't see yourself supporting Harper at the ballot box - for conscience sake - I respect that. In fact, I may even join you if Harper were to betray what he has accomplished thus far. But socons need to be more resolute and dedicated to a strategy of results rather then posturing about who is the more theoretically pure. We need to be willing to help those who are helping us. And in my books that means, at least for the present, helping Harper. Until someone can show me a legitimate alternative - a person or party that is more pure - while also instituting tangible results in Ottawa - I am no longer interested in being a cynical purist. In my books, it is actions that prove your salt (and light).
|
||||||||
