Tomorrow Canadians go to the polls. Our election was called six weeks ago, so we haven't lived through two and a half years of an election circus like most of you readers; we have only lived through six weeks of it, and that's enough for me.
Currently we have a Conservative minority government, which means that the Conservatives have the most seats in our Parliament, but they don't have enough to guarantee that anything they want passes. So they've had a hard time getting their agenda across. The called the election hoping for a majority; at the time, the polls seemed to support it. Today it looks much more bleak.
One of my favourite columnists, Michael Coren, wrote this about our election, and I think it applies to the American one, too (just insert "America" rather than "Canada"). So I give this to you to muse over today:
It's about people who bemoan the lack of public childcare as opposed to those who know we already had the best childcare and it's called parenting.
It's about those who feel Canada as a home and a heart as opposed to those who think of Canada as a concept and a social experiment.
About those who view taxation as a necessary evil to be used to help the most unfortunate as opposed to those who want to use taxes to change the very nature of Canadian society.
About those who believe that Canada is public broadcasting, state education and the Charter of Human Rights as opposed to those who see it as pioneers, personal initiative, sacrifice and courage.
About those who want a clean environment for the sake of their children as opposed to those who want a clean environment because they prefer the planet to its inhabitants.
About moms and dads rather than caregivers and nannies, about real communities as opposed to artificial communes, about having a thick skin and a sense of humour as opposed to being constantly oversensitive and complaining about and demanding an apology for any remark that offends your politically correct sensibilities.
About a Canada based firmly on our traditions and values as opposed to a Canada destroyed and then rebuilt on notions that are entirely foreign to our way of life.
I'm always amazed by people who switch back and forth between parties at each election. I suppose if you're truly in the middle it doesn't matter. But most of us have a concept of how life should be; we either want more government to take care of the problems, or less government so that fewer problems are caused in the first place. You must fall on one end of the spectrum or the other! I think it's just that people don't always realize which side of the spectrum the political parties fall on, because they don't always articulate it easily. But it is simple: Republicans (and Conservatives) in general want less government and more personal responsibility; Democrats (and Liberals and the NDP) want more government to solve our problems. So which are you?
I know that's an overgeneralization, and that Republicans have done little to curb spending, but that is the ideological framework the parties fall under.
And I think of it like this: the main way that people learn is through consequences. There's a reason for that, too: God set up the principle "you reap what you sow". It's present in nature; and it's present in human nature, too. We are supposed to reap what we sow, and that is how we learn.
That's also how we turn to God. The Prodigal Son returned to the Father after he had reaped what he had sown. When he had completely hit rock bottom he realized how much he needed the Father. He repented. And he returned.
When we interfere with the whole reap-sow continuum, I think we interfere with a very important part of human nature. If we try to seal people off from the consequences of their actions, it's highly unlikely they will learn from them. And it's even more likely that they will develop a victim mentality, where everybody is supposed to fix my life for me. If things go badly for me, people should pick up the pieces. And that's not right.
But there's another philosophical problem that divides the two parties, and it's this one: which is the basic social unit, the family or the government? Does it take a village, or does it take a family to raise a child? I believe it takes families. In fact, I believe that without families, villages will fail. The basic social unit must be the family. It is how we were created, it is where our allegiance lies, and it is family that keeps us rooted.
Not all families are great, of course, but we have the ability to form new families as adults, and to escape dysfunctional ones. But who should we rely on in times of trouble: the family or the government?
Right now the government is getting so large and failing so miserably because it is attempting to do things that the family should be doing on its own. So many family functions have been offloaded onto the schools. Many health issues have been taken up by the government. And so on and so on. And it's no wonder that families are now very fragile.
If the family is the basic social unit, then people's outlook towards government and society is one of responsibility. I am responsible for myself, and I am responsible to act appropriately. If the government is the basic social unit, on the other hand, and it solves all problems, then people's basic outlook towards society and culture is one of rights: you owe me, you can't criticize me, I have the right to do whatever I want.
Now rights, of course, have their good sides, just as government has its good side. I realize that I have painted a very black and white picture here, and I know it's not as simple as that, but this is a blog, not a treatise on government.
That, however, is what informs my political views, and it's why I'm voting Conservative tomorrow in Canada's election. I hope more Canadians join me, but I know that ultimately every election is in God's hands, and He knows the outcome. He sets up kings and deposes them. I have to keep telling myself that right now as I look at both elections.
I feel so privileged to be able to vote. And as much as I disagree with the other parties, all the parties we have to choose from are infinitely better than the governments that run many of the world's repressed countries. We are truly blessed.
And since today is Canadian Thanksgiving, that's one of the thing I'm saying Thanks for. Thank you for the freedom to vote; and thank you for our good, though imperfect, political system. We are blessed indeed.
There's an interesting thread going on in The Corner right now about the liberal political tradition and childhood.
Now before your eyes glaze over and you snooze off, hear me out for a second.
This, essentially, is the problem with modern liberalism. Liberalism says that there are no moral absolutes; that everybody should have a chance to decide for themselves what they want to do and determine their own destiny. If that decision offends you, so be it, because we must be tolerant of one another.
Because of this, modern liberalism also asserts that there is no absolute right and wrong (that's one of the problems I had with Obama's speech, but that's another story). It's not a far stretch from that to assuming that people are basically good, and when we make poor choices it's because somehow we have been on the short end of the stick. We had bad parents; we were poor; we were raised in a fundamentalist household, etc.
That's why, to liberalism, the solution for most problems is a bigger state. We wouldn't have crime if we didn't have poverty and better schools. So to make crime disappear, we need to pump billions of dollars into schools. Etc. Etc. (This is a complex matter which I may address at another time, but I hope you see where I'm going).
Anyway, this is where the guys in The Corner come in. That's just the background.
If modern liberalism is about the state having a more active role while individuals choose to do whatever they want, then what happens to the kids? How do you reconcile that with the fact that children do best when they grow up in a stable, two parent home with parents who sacrifice for them and love them?
Here's Stanley Kurtz explaining a recent book by Tubbs, called Freedom’s Orphans: Contemporary Liberalism and the Fate of American Children:
...in recent decades liberal political theorists and jurists have gone about their work as though the personal freedom of adults is a political value that outweighs all competing interests, including some closely associated with the welfare of children. This viewpoint has been taken as an article of faith, or as if the current course of action is self-evident. The result is a number of large gaps in liberal thought....
Tubbs probes those gaps and challenges liberal thinkers to explain, as they often have not, "why the personal freedom of adults should routinely outweigh the competing interests of children." That strikes me as opening up a fascinating debate.
That is interesting. And it's also why I think modern liberalism fails. It never talks about responsibilities. We have them. There are no escaping them. And there you go.
About Me: I'm a Christian author of a bunch of books, and a frequent speaker to women's groups and marriage conferences. Best of all, I love homeschooling my daughters, Rebecca and Katie. And I love to knit. Preferably simultaneously.
Stumble It!
