Since I have come to Canada, and even before that due to vast contacts with people from both sides of the western political spectrum, I managed to learn more about the structures and principles of both Right (Conservative) and Left (Liberal) ideas.
Time and time again, it was proven to me, that what each party or political affiliations wants for people or what values each does stand for.
Obviously we have two major ruling parties in most western societies, like Democrats and Republicans in the States, Liberals and Conservatives in Australia, UK and Canada....etc.
The fact that Conservative style of ruling the country, the very first idea North America (i.e New Nations/Lands) was founded upon, wants people to work and that the Liberals want people to be dependent on them through welfare money and social assistance cash money is obvious.
A country like Canada or the US could not stand where it does today if the founding men of these nations were not hard working men and women.
One of the things that made me seriously think about the above statement, was the Hurricane Katrina disaster in September 05, where thousands of African-Americans were left homeless, the incompetent democratic governor couldn't come up with any emergency plans and the party loving mayor of the city didn't have any plans in the first place either. The state of Louisiana was run, at the time of the disaster and long before that, by people claiming to be Liberal Democrats (read leftist) and actually come from that party, the party of Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy that would be.
For Canadians, we better take a look at the disasterous condition of our poor in Ontario and the fact that it is a Liberal powerhouse and has always been a place for Liberals to collect votes.
It raises the question as: why do Liberals want people NOT to work and get the government's money and raise the ordinary working citizens' taxes?
Is it not all about votes? If not, then what is it?
Is it not true that this sort of mindset is going to destroy the foundations of the societies they were once built upon? As I know, and correct me if I am wrong, the western societies are built upon very conservatives values. And it is likely that the hatred the left carries for these values may put an end to the style of life as we know it today in North America.
Maybe it sounds harsh, but Leftists and Liberals alike are definitely inflicting awful damages to the Western societies by their incoherent social policies.
The Democrats/Liberals both have always shown that they want people to be poor so they can hand them "social assistance money" (read welfare) and make them loyal to the party that is giving them this sort of aid and look good in the eyes of the poor part of the society.
The fact that most poor parts of our societies have either a Liberal Governor, mayor or premier is tale telling.
The essence of western (i.e North American) style of life is based on "working" to build a prosperous and advanced society, that is what I have come to know in the past few years by traveling, reading and living in the western society.
Also posted at The Shotgun
16 comments:
Good post, Winston. I lack your experience outside Canada, but your thoughts neatly summarize what I have observed growing up in rural Alberta. Conservative values built this country and brought us to a level of prosperity where we could afford to experiment with unsustainable social programs. I only hope that we can scale back the resulting welfare state so it will not ultimately destroy us.
Hi Winston jun,
thanks for the link it was very interesting.
"why do Liberals want people NOT to work and get the government's money and raise the ordinary working citizens' taxes?"
Do you really think that the Liberals were in power for 12 years because people on EI voted for them?
Are the Conservatives trying to get rid of EI?
What about all the prosperity that the last 12 years of Liberal rule has brought us? Wouldn't that be against their plan?
The further to the left you go, the more vested is the interest in keeping people poor. Big shot lefties depend on poverty and oppression to fuel their careers. The Indian Industry in Canada (Indian being the North American variety, not the Asian sub-contintent version) is a prime example.
All the academics, lawyers, politicians, civil servants in that industry would see their life's work just go POOF!! if the poverty of their charges was ever eliminated. This game is played to the hilt here in Saskatchewan.
I don't know if the welfare state can ever be scaled back. Liberals/Socialists/Feminists, have bamboozeled so much of the population into the dependency mind set. Look at Ontario and Mike Harris, he made some relativley minor changes but the left whipped up such a frenzy that if you beleived them we were living in nazi germany.
"The fact that most poor parts of our societies have either a Liberal Governor, mayor or premier is tale telling."
Care to back up this "fact" with some data? The party affiliation of the lieutenant-governor of a province is irrelevant as the post holds no power. And most mayors do not get elected based on their party affiliation, though there are exceptions.
As for the "condition of our poor in Ontario", the province has had 80 years of Conservative rule. Federally, the Liberals dominated in Ontario from 1993-2000. Hardly an historic Liberal powerhouse.
David,
I grew up Ontario and still go there every year. I can tell you that with the exception of Mike Harris, (from my home town) all other conservative governments in Ontario and most notably, Bill Davis, were not conservatives at all. They were Liberal just as the current Liberal Party in British Columbia is not Liberal at all, but rather, conservative.
By any other name a rose is still a rose.
This post we are commenting on broaches the most important topic in the free world today ... to Continue with the freedom and prosperity (which includes innovation that can only come from a free prosperous society) or descend into a world of poverty and slavery just like we see in most of the non free enterprise countries on this planet.
The promoter of the Nannny state are the biggest enemies of freedom possible, because they do it in a slo-mo clandestine fashion. Weak people buy into it right away they others follow because it's only fair eh?
David, he said "societies". Plural. He is not referring to the office Lieutenant Governor in Canada. The US of A has Governors in each and every state. He even refers to the US and to North America as a whole elsewhere in his posting. His only error was to capitalize the word liberal when he refers to governors.
Here's a good read for anyone who thinks the nanny state mentality is only liberal. Have fun.
http://www.conservativenannystate.org/
Hear hear, Winston
Louise wrote:
"David, he said "societies". Plural.
He is not referring to the office Lieutenant Governor in Canada. The US of A has Governors in each and every state."
Thank you Louise for pointing out the painfully obvious. I was trying to go easy on him, but you have pointed out the painful and tortured syntax he employs. Bully for you! There are no Liberal Governors in the U.S., but there are Democrats who are Governors. The distinction is obvious and important.
In the end his, and your, argument fails, as the prosperous states in the U.S. have Democratic Governors. The welfare states in the U.S.A. vote Republican. Could it be that the GOP is trading values for votes?
That was a rhetorical question.
Dear Winston,
Very nicely said. Good observations as well. Before and during WWII, we have been fighting a war (the Cold War, you might remember) against Communists. Many of them even found their way into public office or the beaurocracies.
Before the Great Depression and WWII, there was no such thing as a welfare state. When it came about, people were ashamed to be on welfare. It took away a person's dignaty. We had a national pride, as a people.
That included all political stripes. When Social Security was invented, the Supreme Court told FDR it was unconstitutional. FDR threatened to 'pack the courts' by adding numbers to the Supreme Court. (That's where that term comes from.)
So one of the Justices changed his vote, and voila. We now have an unconstitutional social securtiy. The funny thing is, people didn't live as long as 65 years, so the age of eligability was set at 65 in the hopes that not many people would ever collect.
Anyway, between the commies and the good hearted people who are easily fooled because they do not understand the constitution, we now have these slavery programs.
You disagree that they are slavery programs, David? Allow me to explain.
In order to be on any program, the government has to know everything about you, tells you what you can/cannot do, you have to report to them when they tell you, where you can live, who can live with, and you cannot be married.
Tell me, does that sound much like freedom to you?
They also use race against the very people they claim to help. How does it help to separate families? How does help to make children stays in failing schools?
I do not use scare tactics. I care about everyone. I just wish the democrats would come up with some policies rather than using character assassination and false charges. I would love a good debate, but they are unwilling. We do not need to put each other down to discuss policies. Don't you agree, David? If not, that is what is wrong with the politics of today...
Thanks every one for the feedback
Left leaning people want the power to tell others what to do and how to do it. They would only 'grant' freedoms that don't infringe on their power - if they had the kinds of power they keep saying they want.
Free peoples seem to gravitate towards true liberalism which is now represented by the 'conservative' parties. They want the freedom to make their lives better without being told what to do by government.
David: "Thank you Louise for pointing out the painfully obvious. I was trying to go easy on him, but you have pointed out the painful and tortured syntax he employs."
No David. That is not what I was pointing out. I was pointing out that you were being a jerk. Thanks for illustrating it once again.
Louise,
If pointing out Winston's lack of factual evidence makes me jerk, then so be it. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, but good for you for pointing out his lack of skill in proof-reading.
Rosemary, your contention that there was no welfare state pre-WWII is correct, but there was welfare. And it existed on a large scale through the numerous fraternal organisations. The Slave Programs you hate so much enabled those who weren't white males to also be protected in times of need. If your opinion is that you are a slave of the state, then you are welcome to it. I am not going to debate your feelings. But the basic premises made by Winston are not correct. Canada was not founded by Conservatives or Liberals in their modern sense. And I doubt any of us would like a return to the old-timey was of doing things. Unless you are a white, land-owning male. Then all is good.
And Winston's contention that Liberals want everyone on welfare in order to get their votes is specious in the extreme. It ignores common sense and facts. In Canada and the U.S., the voting rates among those on welfare are abysmal.
And where is his proof backing up his statement that "The fact that most poor parts of our societies have either a Liberal [sic] Governor, mayor or premier is tale telling."? Or is he going to move the goal posts like McGoo and claim that "all other conservative governments in Ontario and most notably, Bill Davis, were not conservatives at all." How convenient.
Post a Comment