CentreRight

The differences between Conservatives and Liberals

The interesting part of  this article is not the topic (a dispute on drug policy in British Columbia), but the insights into the different moral systems of conservatives and liberals (in the Canadian or American sense). Proffessor Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia social psychologist, has developed a system to explain the different moral systems of conservatives and liberals.

In his view there are five foundations people use to define morality:

• Harm: whether someone is harmed or harm is reduced.
• Reciprocity: whether something is fair and treats people fairly and justly.
• In-group: whether something betrays the group.
• Hierarchy: whether something is respectful of authority and superiors.
• Purity: whether or not something is disgusting.

Haidt says that Liberals only use the first two - and don't respond to arguments based on the other three, while conservatives use all five, and therefore will find arguments based solely on the first two unconvincing. There could be a real lesson for political communications here.

I always suspected it...

Turns out that Conservatives are just all round better people than lefties. Not that we should be too smug, that would be selfish.

Reports from the show trial

I've never been to a show trial before. Before lunch today I decided to drop in on the BC Human Rights Tribunal's hearings into Mark Steyn's book excerpt published in Maclean's magazine. The whole story is dreadfully complicated but basically the Canadian Islamic Congress has filed a Human Rights complaint against Mark Steyn for discussing demographics. It is an interesting case of how islamists are using the left-wing human rights apparatus for their own ends. Illiberal ends from very liberal means. If you want all the details have a look at what Andrew Coyne and Ezra Levant have been blogging.

Now, I don't have much experience in these things, but to be fair it wasn't much of a show trial. It was in a tiny courtroom in the basement of the Provincial Courthouse in Vancouver. Everyone, spectators, barristers and even the commissioners were typing non-stop on laptops, and the only clock was stuck at 8:01. It was presided over by three commissioners, all terribly bored and looking like the sort of people you would avoid at cocktail parties. It was very bizarre. This is how unelected bureaucrats erode our freedom. If Steyn is found at fault everyone in Canada will see some of their right to freedom of speech vanish.

The Queen's Picture

When I saw that Boris had found no pictures of Her Majesty displayed at City Hall over on Conservative Home's ToryDiary, I was reminded of the situation when the Conservatives took power in Canada in 2006. When we arrived in the Prime Minister's Office there was not one single picture of the Queen anywhere. Not one.

When we asked to get a few for prominent display we were met with incredulous looks and weeks of stonewalling from civil servants. It tooks dozens of requests for a few pictures of her Majesty to be installed in our offices, frankly we had an easier time passing our first budget. The left has a deep seated antipathy to our Head of State and we have a duty to emphasise the royal family as a vital, modern and relevant part of our government.

Thoughts on Crewe and Nantwich

I had a look at the local election results that overlap the parliamentary borough of Crewe and Nantwich, for each year since 2005. The results are encouraging ahead of the by-election.

In 2005 the Tories lost by 7,000 votes with 32.6% to Labour's 48.4%. In the Cheshire County Council elections held at the same time Conservatives got nearly exactly the same number of votes as in the Westminster election, but Labour did not. In fact, in those County Council elections Labour got only 35.1% or 5600 votes less, with most of those people voting for local independents.

Fast forward to the new unitary authority elections held on May 1st of this year. In the wards that are in the parliamentary constituency (more or less) Conservatives got 39.3% to Labour's 26.2%. This is obviously encouraging, but we should add back in many of those Labour voters who voted an independent in the local elections. Assuming the difference is the same as it was in 2005, about 13% should be added back onto Labour's May 1st result - which is 39.2% - a dead tie with this year's Tory vote. That's how a 7000 majority can vanish very quickly.

International media bias?

The Associated Press story below is a pretty remarkable take on Boris's victory. It only touches on his time as MP for Henley, as a noted columnist, commentator and the editor of the Spectator, but spends line after line detailing his gaffes and controversial statements. Even the choice of quotes from Boris is telling, that the party has changed (presumably from unspecific bad old ways), and nothing else from his victory speech except about having a drink. I particularly like the speculation about how he will handle China based on some vague statement from the past.

This is the AP so the story will be picked up by papers across North America. Seems the anti-Conservative media bias is alive and well on the western side of the Atlantic as well.

Re: Would we have allowed Nazi Germany to host the Olympics?

While Tim's post was mostly about pointing out some pretty shocking historical ignorance, it does raise an interesting question. Will we look back in twenty or thirty years and put Beijing 2008 and Berlin 1936 in the same category? I don't know, but random protesters aren't the only ones making the comparison.

Last week Rob Anders, a Canadian Conservative MP, said "These Olympics that are going on are very similar to the Berlin 1936 Olympics. They're absolutely 100 per cent a propaganda exercise by Communist China. The fact they've got torch goons going from country to country, intimidating athletes and others as they run, is an example of that."

He went on to say "If people could see the forced labour camps (in China), they would understand. This regime has not fallen to a foreign power and not had people go in to expose their camps for what they are. They exist: I mean, there's goods that are being purchased in Canada today that are made in forced slave labour, in Chinese labour camps."

Everything you wanted to know about American politics...

If you ever have a need to keep track of every poll in the US presidential race, there is no better resource than fivethirtyeight.com. It calculates the percentage chance of who will win every state, based on public polling. Despite the author supporting Obama currently McCain is predicted to have a 57.7% chance of defeating Obama and 58.6% of winning over Clinton.

The other Iraq

Amusing piece about Kurdistan. Worth the read. The world is a lot more complex and faceted than  newspaper headlines let on.

Canada's Conservatives are also doing well...

Encouraging news from Canada. Four by-elections were held on Monday, all in constituencies won by the opposition Liberal party in the last election. The amazing thing was that they were seen, nearly universally, in the media, as a referendum on the weak Liberal leader Stephane Dion and not on the Conservative minority government, which has been getting weeks of bad press. First there was "NAFTAgate" where a Canadian leak may have influenced the Democratic primary in Ohio, and then allegations of dodgy financial dealings by the party.

Red States for Obama, Purple for Clinton?

There has been lots of talk about how Clinton is winning big states and Obama more states. Another pattern is emerging however. Obama is winning mostly in states where Bush did very well in 2004, such as extremely red states like Utah and Idaho where more than two-thirds of the people voted Republican. In fact of the 17 contests held in red states that Bush won by more than 7% Obama has won 12 and Clinton only 5. Clinton on the other hand has been winning more swing states. Of the 11 races in states which were decided by less than 7% Clinton has won 7 to Obama's 4.

One theory for this is that Democrats in many red states are more likely to be ideological purists, knowing they have no chance of winning their home state, they therefore want a candidate who makes them feel better about being the minority party. This is Obama, one of the most left-wing US Senators with his message of hope and unity. Clinton's strength in the swing states on the other hand may be attributed to them looking for a candidate who can win the general election. Could this be geographic evidence that pragmatics vote for Clinton and idealists for Obama?

No Canadian Election... probably

Today Canada's Conservative government survived another vote of confidence. A few weeks ago the government laid out three possible election triggers: extending the mission in Afghanistan, passing the Tackling Violent Crime Act though the Liberal controlled Senate by March 1st, and accepting the federal budget. Well, the Liberals have backed down on all three measures, resulting in their mocking even by the state-funded CBC. So despite being 30 MPs short of a majority (in a House of only 308) the Conservative government looks like it might make it until the fixed election date in October 2009.

What is really amazing is the way that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has put the Liberal opposition on the defensive continually for two years. The Liberals don't want an election right now, as their leader is unpopular and they are organisationally unprepared. So the Conservative government just keeps on pushing and the opposition keeps on backing down. Canada is getting good Conservative government all thanks to an opposition too scared to face the people, for now anyway. Who knows though, they may change their minds, grow a spine and take us down.

Inside the McCain Campaign

Check out McCain Blogette. John McCain's daughter, Meghan, is blogging from the campaign. There are lots of cool candid pictures. Unlike some campaign blogs that play it safe, this one is fun and interesting.

The Disneyland Candidate

Barack Obama often points out that his detractors call him a "hopemonger", and that he is happy to accept that label. His campaign is based on pure emotion, selling neither policies nor real solutions but hope and dreams. Of course this has a long and profitable history in the United States and nowhere has it been more profitable than in Disneyland for the last 53 years. The language and imagery that Obama uses is eerily similar to Disneyland's. Disneyland's founding dedication includes the phrase "here youth may savor the challenge and promise of the future... ...the ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have created America... with the hope that it will be a source of joy and inspiration to all the world," which sounds an awful lot like something from an Obama speech.

Disneyland's motto for 2008 is "Year of a Million Dreams." I am considering taking bets on by which date Obama will use that phrase (or reasonable variation of it) in his campaign. Any takers?

Doing politics differently?

The Democratic nomination will come down to the 800 so-called super-delegates. This is an excellent New York Times article which explains something about who these people are and how they will make up their mind.

The most interesting takeaway from the article is that both Clinton and Obama have Political Action Committees (PAC) which actually give cash to the super-delegates. Now to be fair the money is for the super-delegates' re-election campaigns and not their household expenses. But to me this looks like old-style influence peddling. Certainly not the new way of doing things that Obama has promised. But who is the champion donor to super-delegates? None other than Obama himself. His PAC, the syrupy named Hopefund, has given $694,000 since 2005, to Hillpac's $195,000. Now who is doing politics differently?

Offence is the best defence

With Canada rolling toward a possible election there has been a lot of focus on our contribution to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. The status of the mission is one of the possible election triggers. Stephane Dion's Liberals want Canadians to stay in Afghanistan (maybe), but in a "non-combat" role. This brilliant column by Rosie DiManno in the usually awful Toronto Star (Canada's answer to the Guardian) makes the case that Dion's plan could result in more Canadian deaths, not fewer. She ends it with the devastating line that "what the Liberals are doing out of sophistry and political self-absorption will get your sons and daughters killed."

Government benefits for polygamy

Many are taking the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments on Sharia law as a sign that accommodation of Muslim values and laws have gone to far in Britain. Not, however, to some Canadian Muslims, who decry the British government for being too strict on polygamous marriages. In secular Ontario provincial law allows all foreign religious marriages to be recognized, and it seems to collect welfare benefits for each wife. The province denies this is happening, but the President of the Canadian Society of Muslims claims otherwise. So while Sharia law is not on the books, some of its tenets appear to be creeping in through unrelated social policy.

Canadian election looming

Not to be outdone by the electoral excitement of our cousins to the south, Canada may very well be having a general election in the weeks to come. Yesterday was the second anniversary of Stephen Harper's Conservative government being sworn into office. The Conservatives have a thirty seat deficit in the house and this parliament has only lasted as long as it has due to the Liberals being terrified of an election. Now, however, there are no shortage of triggers for an election: Afghanistan, the upcoming federal budget, or the passage of our omnibus crime bill through the Senate. Of course we could be crying wolf, this is the third serious election scare in less than a year. If the government does fall on the motion to extend Canada's commitment to the NATO mission in Afghanistan, it will be the first non-trade related foreign policy election in more than forty years.

Will they never learn?

Congratulations to my old friend Dan Hannan for being tossed out of the euro-federalist EPP. His protests against the EU Constitution were getting no press. The filibustering (such as it was) wasn't making a difference. Now the autocrats, dismayed by any criticism, have done what they always do - they have made a martyr of Dan. This has gotten more attention to his efforts than anything he could have done himself. If the eurocratic complex in Brussels and Strasbourg had simply ignored him, the press most likely would have as well. This is always the un-doing of people who don't tolerate dissent, they go to far and expose just how thin-skinned they are and end up attracting even more attention to their critics. Well done Dan and keeping fighting the good fight!

Saying no to international racism

Last week Canada announced it was pulling out of the Durban II UN Conference on Racism in 2009. You may remember Durban I in 2001, which was overshadowed by the terrible events of September 11th. Durban I was a farce, from which both the US and Israel pulled out, where African and Arab nations used the cover of racism to criticize and demand compensation from western countries. With Libya and Cuba as the chair and vice-chair of Durban II, and Iran on the organising committee (three countries which sponsored the original infamous "Zionism is Racism" resolution 3379 at the UN) it promises to be much the same.

These sort of conferences allow the intolerable situation where autocratic human-rights abusing governments lecture and admonish the west for ancient crimes real and imagined (but not give credit for positive action like the Royal Navy's ending of the slave trade). Having western governments attend only gives them credibility and someone to shout at. This is why I am so proud of Canada's Conservative government, which is motivated to actually end real racism and not attend conferences for the sole purpose of being lecture on dubious interpretations of our past by hypocrites. I hope Britain and other western countries will follow suit.

American electoral geography

If you are as interested in political maps and how politics and geography intersect as I am, you ought to have a look at some of the amazing maps the New York Times has online for the American Presidential primaries. Not only have they got the standard county by county results mapped out in an easy to understand fashion (see here for the primaries in South Carolina for example), but they map both candidate events and more impressively money.

Liberals and Pakistan

What is it with Liberals and Pakistan? First, Obama announces that he wants to bomb Pakistan, in a transparent attempt to gain some credibility with anti-terror voters. Now the Leader of Canada's opposition Liberal party, Stéphane Dion, says we should help Pakistan by "intervening" with NATO troops. How he squares that with his policy of withdrawing Canada's troops from their combat role in southern Afghanistan in a year is not clear. I guess he wants to free up our troops to invade Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province. The last thing the region needs is more instability and conflict, but that seems to be Dion's plan. As Canada's National Post points out both Canada and the rest of the world should worry if Dion ends up as PM. Further proof that Dion is not a leader.

Defending the right to offend in Canada

It's not just Britain that has been afflicted with political correctness enforced by self-righteous government-appointed commissars. In Canada the power of Human Rights Commissions has been brought to national attention by my old friend Ezra Levant.

Levant, who used to be the publisher of the sadly now defunct Western Standard, got himself in trouble with radical Muslims in Canada by reprinting the famous Danish cartoons, which purportedly mocked the Prophet. They complained to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, which interrogated him to last Friday. Ezra videotaped the whole thing, and posted it on YouTube (where it has been viewed tens of thousands of times). If you want to see how our freedoms in the West are being chipped away by government busybodies have a look at his blog.  If this is Canada, how different can it be in Britain?