Writing about politics suggests reciting acts of government incompetence and malice, slandering personalities and generally arguing for the beheadings of those currently inflicting (mostly financial) misery on our lives.
And so, let’s say we did and move on.
The reason for that on-the-surface tolerance is simple: those who already hate the Conservative Party as much as I do, already know of their collective absurdity from climate denial to election-fixing, from cut-backs in essential services to bigotry instead of justice. We know of their wanton spending on submarines that don’t work, helicopters that don’t fly and fighter jets that come without engines. Their sense of entitlement and elitism is also well-known as is their complete disregard of citizens and their accelerated descent into ignorance rather than science. And then there is the constant but simple-minded propaganda and the equally as constant assault on our freedoms and wallets….just to name a few.
There are way too many more.
So, none of that really needs repeating for us, the enlightened know-it-alls. We already know it all.
One might write all that stuff to convince the swing-voters, tho, the ones who voted Conservative a time or two but are now having doubts. This is the audience for political writing but, let’s face it – not for me. No one of the Conservative Party persuasion would be reading me and, if they were, it would not be for my political acumen. Maybe ravens. Not politics. Those people who might read me and also might possibly vote Conservative can be counted on one hand without using the thumb.
“So, what’s the point, then?”
There are two points: I have to do what I can. And I may have a point that you can use to sway a swinger or two.
“Do you?”
Only one, really. And it is a simple one. It works. It resonates even with card-carrying Conservatives. Please try it. Here goes: Conservative is a brand name, not their philosophy. CONSERVATIVE is a name. A N-A-M-E. It means nothing. It is no different than Mighty Ducks or Moose or Oddfellows. It is just marketing – pure and simple. Those voters who consider themselves conservative people are NOT necessarily CONSERVATIVE PARTY think-alikes. In fact, most small-c conservative people wouldn’t act like Stephen Harper, Mike Duffy or Pamela Wallin even once in their lifetime.
We have to tell people that the name is just a name. ALL names are just names – just branding – just marketing – just image. We have to make them understand that Conservative Party has no relationship whatsoever to being a conservative-minded person. That is the only message someone who votes differently from you can accept. That news-flash has a chance of changing some votes. Even better: it is not too offensive.
If you get on a roll, you can include the Liberals but don’t push your luck.
Our Off the Grid Home 
I agree with you. My tendency has been to play the ironist card and critique the flawed logic on display. Okay, I understand the need to take a different tack. It seems to me that the usual tools of debate are made void by effective attack ads.
LikeLike
I like to think I am interesting and well-spoken. But too many listeners have walked out in the middle of my speechifying for me to continue with that delusion so I have to make one point and make it quickly. I am hoping this is the one.
LikeLike
I remember 30 years ago when Brian Mulroney was running for office and a European friend of mine who’s 1st language was NOT english, asked me in a very innocent, confused tone.
Why do they call themselves “Progressive Conservatives? Isnt that a complete contradiction? If your progressive you embrace change but if you’re conservative you dont want change….”
An epiphany of sorts
Well at least Harper has dropped the “Progressive” part of the name.
LikeLike
He had to drop the ‘progressive’. The Cro-magnons in the party insisted on it. The Neanderthals went with them….and made it unanimous.
Just for the record: I do not think that progressive is the opposite of conservative. In fact, I think one can be a progressive conservative simply by advancing their thinking with a solid precautionary principle at play. SLOW evolution, as it were. Why? Because we are still hard-wired to hunt and forge even at a time when we are ‘soft-wired’ into the internet. Things just MIGHT be moving a bit too fast. Future Crimes’ Marc Goodman thinks so and, if you read his book, you likely will, too.
LikeLike
You want a name? It’s called a kleptocracy. And, if you vote, you’re part of it.
LikeLike
You are right. Theft by any other name is still theft. But this ‘tocracity’ has the power to persist in their thieving ways UNLESS we vote the incumbents out. Admittedly, it always feels as if we are just releasing the Pirates and getting the Thieves with, perhaps, the Barbarians and the Bandits as the official opposition but NOT voting is the epitome of ‘for evil to be done, good men only have to do nothing’.
I gotta do what I can even if I believe the system stinks.
LikeLike
Do we need a leader like Lee Kuan Yew?
LikeLike
Well, if you mean dead, then I suppose it is a viable option – certainly for our current politicians. If all in the house were dead and mummified, would anything bad result? Probably not.
But, if you mean, confident in the extreme, moral, totalitarian, undemocratic and intelligent if not just a smidge intolerant, then maybe yes for a decade or so. Such a strong person could, conceivably, get everything back on track, I suppose. All the drug dealers would be killed at the very least. The streets would be clean. No one would spit their gum out.
Frankly, I prefer a newer form of non-leadership government that is democratic but not strong. Like proportional representation. That would likely result in a perpetual minority government that would be vulnerable on every vote. Who needs a PRIME minister? I think I prefer luke-warm, weak governments to strong ones because they would do less harm. If we have to send a rep to the UN or the BIG 8 or something, just draw straws from amongst the loudest and most obnoxious. Or they could contract that out to me.
LikeLike