Conservatives and liberals: The differences

It is with a little sadness and a great deal of sincere well-wishing that I congratulate Glen Motz and his team for their success in the recent byelection. I am convinced, having talked with Glen and his supporters, that he will serve our area well, most likely, even more effectively than previous post-markers have done.

And, with no hint of sour grapes, I can say that while victory for our chosen champion, Stan Sakamoto, was not within reach this time, his campaign revealed that a significant and increasing number of people in our area are proud to declare themselves Liberals. This bodes well for an actual democratic contest in future elections. Be aware, Glen, that we’ll be watching and taking note of your performance as our MP. And again, sincerely, best wishes.

I want to put aside the question of ‘the best man for the job’ and focus instead on the choices made by voters on the basis of party philosophies and platforms. I happily welcome any critiques readers may have regarding the highly generalized and personal interpretations and opinions in the following paragraphs. (Seriously, flood the News with your erudite remonstrations. Engender a debate.)

In very broad terms, one major distinction between conservative parties and more liberal parties is their responses to the question of the role of government in society. Conservatives generally favour a limited degree of involvement in the lives of citizens, believing that individuals know best what is best for themselves.

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to favour a more proactive approach, well aware that some individuals will be better placed because of natural talents, connections, drive, or inheritance than others, and who will therefore benefit more greatly from opportunities as they arise. Over time society will therefore become divided into those who have influence and those who have not.

Liberals, historically, set out to carefully address the resulting systemic injustices in society. Intergenerational poverty, the unequal battle between employers and employees, the various forms of discrimination, and other examples of social ills, were seen as the proper purview of governments by liberals.

The incremental improvement of society, allowing greater “liberty” for more people, is a general goal of liberal governments. This led to efforts at promoting freedom from poverty, gender and racial discrimination, environmental dangers, and so on. It also meant working towards granting more people the freedom to, for example, participate in political matters (women’s rights, aboriginal self-government) and the freedom to better their chances at success (public education, grants for higher education).

Interestingly, much of what Canadians value, and what separates us from the more conservative U.S., are the results of liberal actions (the Liberal Party having governed for 70 per cent of Canada’s history). Health care, greater gun regulations, greater progress in gender equality, in worker safety and compensation programs, minimum wage laws and labour laws, significantly lower cost of higher education, the regulation of banking, environmental protection laws, and many other measures resulted from the actions of liberal governments. Of course all of these initiatives come at a price: More regulation, more costs to taxpayers, less incentive for risk takers, for example. And critics will scold liberals for being “social engineers,” a charge that is hard for liberals to deny since they are generally driven by a vision of a better society. Personally, of course, I plead guilty to this charge, as witness my disclaimer at the bottom of my columns.

In contrast I see the conservative fixation on “the economy” as focusing far too narrowly on the interests of business and assuming that any improvements in competitiveness will ‘trickle down’ to the rest of society in the form of jobs and cheaper products. Nothing wrong with this if it works. But in recent conservative governments like Thatcher’s and Reagan’s it didn’t. In response to economic downturns, austerity programs, clearly aimed at protecting producers, brought great pain to those who could least afford it. The only thing that trickled down to ordinary people were buckets of pain, years of hardship, and the resulting creation of a massive “wealth gap” between haves and have nots still in effect today.

It’s interesting that for years the conservative party in Canada called itself the Progressive Conservative Party, thereby claiming a stake in the liberal tradition. And then along came Stephen Harper who, driven feverishly to cleanse Canada of its liberal qualities, dropped the “Progressive,” and proceeded to make Canada as American as possible.

I await the rebirth of the battered Conservative Party which Mr. Motz is joining. What will be your vision for Canada, Mr. Motz?

Peter Mueller is a long-time resident of Medicine Hat who, in spite of all the evidence, continues to believe we can build a better world.