It was once a principled Conservative Party
To: Randy Kamp MP cc: Prime Minister Stephen Harper
With great sorrow I write of my disillusionment with respect to what I once believed to be a principled Conservative Party.
I think of recent issues
1. Long gun registry. I will use this as the classic example and present my detailed views later.
2. Long form census form.
3. Inhibiting open disclosure and discussion of research findings.
In themselves decisions on these matters are not significant in the grand scheme of things. They are extremely significant as examples of a mode of governing that chooses narrow ideology and/or weak unprincipled populism rather than principled leadership. Two characteristics are prominent; dismissing the advice of experts, and paucity of principled rationale.
Some details on the long gun registry.
Responsibility for public safety is acknowledged by those of all political persuasions except perhaps anarchists. I look to our police chiefs, the RCMP, the paramedics, the emergency room physicians for informed views on the long gun registry and find them unanimously in support. In contrast this is what I find in The National Post of September 18, 2010:
Mr. Harper predicted the “registry will someday be abolished” because it will continually be opposed by the people who understand it — who he identified as “rural Canadians, hunters, outdoors men and women [and] police officers.
“These people will never accept this registry because they know it is ineffective and wasteful. And the party I lead will not rest until the day it is abolished.”
So Mr. Harper believes that those most in the know do not understand it. Simply not plausible. I place my belief in the chiefs of police.
The bill to abolish the long gun registry is a private member’s bill. Traditionally MP’s are allowed a free vote on such bills and are not whipped, what an appropriate word, into submission by their political bosses. Neither Stephen Harper or Michael Ignatieff are allowing a free vote while Jack Layton distinguishes himself with a principled approach.
Politicians are repeatedly faced with the dilemma of leadership vs. popularism. How does Mr. Harper deal with this?
Mr. Harper said it will be “an important vote.”
“We encourage all members of Parliament to, obviously, vote on the right side of this issue, but particularly when members of Parliament have made commitments to their constituents.”
Reasonably clear if the member feels his constituents are against the registry and firmly believe the registry is a bad thing. But what if his constituents are for the registry and the member believes the chiefs of police. Both are irrelevant for Harper whips them into voting “his way or the highway”.
I like to believe that politicians have a degree of rationality. Consider the 3 main arguments against the registry.
1. High cost. The outrageous high cost of development, while factual are now irrelevant. Those are sunk costs as any graduate of economics 101 knows. The only relevant costs are the future net costs. Harper has already assured the civil service that there will be no reduction in head count. An efficient operation would levy a fee high enough to cover the operating cost.
2. Harper and others say that they “know it is ineffective”. They seldom identify what they regard as ineffective although sometimes “preventing crime” is cited as the objective of the registry, which is a straw man. The chiefs of police say it assists them in being more effective and operating with a higher degree of safety for the police. That is good enough for me but apparently not sufficient to overcome narrow doctrinaire viewpoints.
3. I am not competent to personally conduct research into complex matters and usually must rely on others who are more expert. The same applies to politicians. For the long gun registry I consider the chiefs of police more competent than politicians to evaluate what contributes to effective and efficient law enforcement. For the long form census form I consider the views of professional statisticians more relevant than my views. For the value of public dissemination of research findings I consider the views of researchers more valid than mine.
Now observe carefully that in all 3 examples the Conservative leadership and my MP consider their own doctrinaire position to be more valid than those who are more competent in the subject matter.
4. Most serious is that in all 3 examples I find no references to underlying principles. Since my Conservative politicians either have no principles or choose not disclose them, I reveal mine. I lean strongly in the direction of maximizing personal freedom and personal economic choice. Yes the long gun registry and the long form census report impinge on personal freedom but in my view do so in a minor way that is more than offset by my personal benefit and/or the benefit to society. To muzzle researchers is a clear violation of their personal freedom without any plausible rationale.
I close with a challenge.
Present the clear rationale for your position on all 3 issues.
If I do not find rationality in my politicians then they will not find any confidence or support from me.
As usual, I post on my blog and will post any replies there as well.
http://dlmblogmissn.blogspot.com/
