Some Reasons Why I Reject "Liberalism"

Some have asked over recent months why I react so strongly when talking about "liberals" or "lefties" as I sometimes refer to them. (sorry to those who have taken offence) I thought it best to try and define what it is that I am rejecting, and why I use those terms as I do. It is, for the most part, a rejection of ideology, not individuals. (though there are some individuals who are so narrow minded that I do sometimes refer to an individual, in which case, I usually name them)

I reject "liberalism" as being the best political solution to our problems as a nation, or in this world. Of that, I'm sure you're already quite aware. However, you might not have realized why, so I thought it best to define a few things.

Why I reject "liberalism"

1) I reject "statism"
Most, not all, liberals tend to support a reliance on government programs to solve various problems. Though I support strong government programs to support the truly needy, I have seen ample evidence that such programs only encourage waste, bad citizenship, drug and alcohol abuse, and laziness.

My mother worked for years for the Ontario WSIB, and saw first hand how people try to milk the system for all it's worth. She encountered one family who literally "took turns" making WSIB claims.

Working in the healthcare industry, I've seen a number of people "on the system" who do nothing all day, and spend large portions of their monthly cheques on drugs and cigarettes, instead of the medicines they need, while complaining that they can't afford them because the government won't pay for the medication prescribed to them!

The "left", in general, from what I have seen, supports expanding existing programs, while at the same time rejects any efforts to reform the system to cut off funding from abusers. (ie - "Workfare" in the 1990's) If we're going to have programs, then let's ensure they are actually supporting the people they are supposed to.

As for more "programs", I think we're spending way to much money on overhead for the programs we have, and not enough of those funds reach the target people. THAT's one of the many reasons I support the $1200 a year per child program of the Harper government… it gets the money direct to those who need it, with a much lower overhead. It's not perfect, but it's a good start. An institutional daycare system would cost way to much to administer, and would invariably end up under control of the various unions out there, thus costing us even more. (and when they go on strike? Then what?) Some will say that "$1200 a year won't fund a space for a single mother who has to work!" True, but there are OTHER PROGRAMS out there to assist with spaces and funding for many of those who need it, so that, to me, is a poor argument.

Our various programs, Federal and Provincial, need a little shake-up, and some trimming of the "dead weight". We need to streamline our existing systems, put the people on the front line where they are needed, and get rid of the people who are sitting around waiting for their pensions to kick in. (don't get me started on some of those stories...)


2) I really dislike most unions and their methods
My mother, while at the WSIB, was told a story by her colleague about the local General Motors plant. Every summer, they would hire a student, who, for the entire summer, their job was to locate the beds that workers had built so they could sleep instead of working! When such a worker is caught, they get "a warning". Company can't fire them until their file is thick enough, and these workers know it. In cases like that, UNIONS SUCK. If the unions stopped protecting lazy and worthless employees, then I wouldn't bash them so much. (NOTE: I am NOT talking about cases where employees are fired without cause… I support unions doing that. I'm talking about Unions protecting worthless workers who know how to milk the system)

Unions have also caused problems for my family, and was one of the reasons my folks chose to move from Britian... my dad was offered his dream job in England, and then the Union stepped in... "Sorry, he's not part of the right union… he can't have the job." Wasn't his first run in with the unions... we moved to Canada TO GET AWAY FROM THAT KIND OF GARBAGE. Here in Canada, my dad still had problems with them… lazy workers, guys who wouldn't lift a finger because of "that's not part of my contract" attitudes, etc. All of the "draconian" cuts made in the Harris years didn't affect me one little bit... only the protests of various unions during those years did!

3) Pierre Elliot Trudeau - nuff said!
Back to "statism" - he supported it, I don't. He bloated our Federal government, overspent, didn't have an understanding of how the economy really works, NEP, etc. (just finished reading "Grits" by Christina McCall-Newman… enlightening)

4) The "Culture of Entitlement"
Many members of the Liberal Party of Canada truly believe that they, and only they, have a right to run this country. Pure arrogance. (again, read "Grits") I accept that there are differing views, and changing the government every few years is healthy. But I've been shouted down many a time when I try to show them there can indeed be a different and legitimate point of view. I love this story given me by a former Tory staffer to a senator, of his conversation in Ottawa with a Liberal staffer...

"The discussion, up to that point, had gone well. I was making progress. But I could not shut my mouth. The final point I made was that there is no more ideologically fragmented party in Canada, and arguably, in North America, than the Liberal Party of Canada. Scott Brison, the fiscally conservative East Coaster, sits near Ujjal Dosanjh, the former socialist Premier of British Columbia. And also in the mix is Paul Martin’s chief lieutenant in Quebec, Jean Lapierre, one of the founder’s of the Bloc Quebecois. Once a separatist, always a separatist.

But I offended my good Liberal friend. The fact that I, as a Conservative, and therefore someone who is obviously un-Canadian, dared to challenge the Liberals on their own internal divisions, seemed sacrilegious. She quickly admonished me that I was wrong. Her party was the Party of Canada, in tune with Canadians. I was supposed to accept it, and not question it. After all, this party has most often been in power throughout the history of the country, and my claims were silly. As for the divisions in the party – they were not divisions. They were the "lifeblood of the party" and resulted in consensus around common goals. But my Liberal friend could not answer what those goals were.

The goals, of course, are winning. Seeking power, attaining power, and maintaining power at all costs. It is easy to see why Liberals have fewer arguments over policy, since after all, never let ideas get in the way of holding power.

Hearing this tirade only reinforced my faith in Canadian Conservatism. A principled, united, and effective alternative to a Party that believes governing is the birthright of silver-spooned Liberals."

Original here.

5) Moral Issues
Liberals, in general, are pro-murder and pro-SSM. I reject both of these views.

I love the accusation that keeps coming up… "Conservatives want to control and dictate what goes on in the bedrooms of our nation". OH COME ON. That's SOOO not true. Truth be told, I feel that what goes on in the bedrooms of our nation IS BETWEEN THEM AND GOD, as it should be. I have no plans to legislate morality. But I want is NOT to be forced to accept what goes on in the bedrooms of our nation! I don't think that homosexuality is right... SO WHAT!?!?!? I don't force my opinion on anyone, they can choose to live how they please... it's not my business. When it comes to the issue of marriage, WHY AREN'T CIVIL UNIONS GOOD ENOUGH? Because the motivation is to change how people view their relationship, and force a level of acceptance upon society. Not going to happen. Sure, grant them the legal rights and privileges, as is required in a secular nation, but a civil union could just as easily do that.

My problem is that people are trying to tell me what is acceptable or not. That, trying to enforce your views on me, is in and of itself, immoral.

For the record, I have an issue with HETEROSEXUAL SEX being discussed or displayed in public, so don't try and accuse me of being a homophobe or something! Sex is a private matter, and should be relegated to the bedrooms of our nation, not displayed for all to see!

(NOTE: I do expect some debate on that last point... but do so in a reasoned fashion. Jumping up and down screaming "bloody murder" or "YOU'RE INTOLERANT" or "BIGOT!" will only prove and re-enforce my point that I believe there is little or no room for reasoned debate with most liberals...)


6) Economic Issues
For the most part, the Liberals (as a party) are getting better at this, so I don't actually have to many complaints here. Paul Martin was a fairly good Minister of Finance, and did get the books balanced, but it was at the expense of the Provinces. (which damaged Health Care across this country, but that's another story) I don't like their standard response to problems, however, which is typically to throw more money at it. I support lower taxes, and reduction in spending on programs that have not produced the intended results. (ie - Gun Registry)

7) Crime and Punishment Issues
Liberals (the ideology, not party) say that taking away guns will prevent gun crime. That kind of thinking, to quote Mr. Layton, "is just wrongheaded". I once heard "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". True indeed. Most gun owners are responsible, and use them as tools, not weapons. Deal with the offenders, and stiffen the penalties… don't attack law abiding citizens.

I DO NOT support decriminalizing marijuana. But, for the record, I support changing how we deal with marijuana… I just don't support decriminalizing it. I support it's use for medial purposes, but ensuring it is strictly controlled through the medical industry. However, since I know it's going to happen, I support STRONG ENFORCEMENT against doctors who abuse the privilege of prescribing it, such as revoking their medical license. Treat it like any other regulated drug.

I support strong enforcement of existing laws, and the judicial system DOING THEIR JOB of punishing offenders. I also support trying to deal with the roots of crime, though I don't support throwing millions of dollars into more wasteful programs. (again, I have issues with the statist overhead of most programs) Let's develop some trim, solid programs that get the money where it's needed, to address immediate needs (ie - food and shelter) and long term needs (employment to break the cycle of poverty).


That's it for now. Maybe I'll write more, if I get time between working, sleeping, and replying to the dozens of flaming comments I'm sure to get. ;-)