Conservative blunders causing much dissent - This from Disqus.

S'funny, Karl, I was thinking the same thing, only I came to a completely different conclusion. It's time to excise the cancer of CHP/Reform from the Body Conservative. I think they've just about had long enough in the wilderness to realize that it's not serving them to retain anybody with even a whiff of brimstone and scripture about them. The Night of the Long Knives and all that, you know; re-enactments of the Crucifixion in about 150 ridings across the country.

Regardless of the accidental alignment of parts of Conservative policy platforms with the theocratic maunderings of Presto's Reform party, there is a little-to-no symbiosis between the thinking of either group.

Old-style conservativism valued heritage and tradition certainly but tempered that with an organic symbiosis of every individual in society, one with the other; that valued the contributions of each, while acknowledging the interdependence of each on the other so as to create a more perfect society. This is the root of conservative thinking that rejects the "nanny-state" so often (wrongly) assigned to liberals and Liberals. It's a valuable concept and one that bears serious debate in all our major national policy disagreements. Conservatism also highly respected and valued authority, both of people and institutions, which makes puzzling the call of the last couple of decades to reject the authority of Parliament as well as that of the judiciary, perhaps the key-value differentiating us from both "lower animals" and other less evolved nations on the planet. Yes, I'm kidding, but only partly.

CHP/Reform.... nay, call it what it is: Theocracy - is a poorly-organized and inconsistent set of beliefs about the way the world works based on texts from a number of ancient religions, most of which conflict with each other, especially around how society should be organized, resources apportioned, and justice performed. While claiming heritage as a value, in truth the only heritage claimed is a recent Judeo-Christian interpretation arising some 250 years ago that empowered the evangelical church to engage in civil rule, mandate conformity, and establish justice based on masculine notions of tribal pride. This interpretation carries no weight among those who own a red-letter Bible as its various precepts conflict with every single one of the quotations of Jesus.

Yet somehow this set of beliefs has come to be the dominant consensus among those who claim the theocratic authority to be supreme in the land. The organic symbiosis valued by Conservatives is entirely missing in such a society - conformity of thought word and deed is expected in every respect, and "interdependence" is pretty much restricted to depending on the sky god instead of your neighbour. That's not to negate the many acts of charity performed by evangelicals - in many ways, they strive to live out personal examples of selfless sacrifice, but these are not mostly sponsored by their churches, which remain country clubs for them and their kids, to hide away from impure society. More to the point, evangelicals also promote an unhealthy disrespect for authority, in particular, Parliament and the judiciary, and their foul utterances have unleashed venomous disrespect among ordinary Canadians who do not even share their beliefs, but see their rejection of authority as one without personal cost and emotionally satisfying to boot.

I'd love to do an essay on this, but I'm must here to respond to your article, Karl - a good one - as it's incomplete. Social conservatism, as you've defined it, includes the theocratic as well as the conservative. Let social conservatives be free to choose to march in pride parades or not as they feel led, and let the theocratic conservatives be free to rail against those who march in them.... but for God's sake, let them do it from separate bedrooms in the house of our nation!

John Clark zalm •
I had still, another re-read of your essay and, again find it excellent. I'm going to repost on https://albertathedetails.b... The US Republicans moved into Canada under the name of the UFA in 1909. Charters etc. from the US have simply renamed from American to Canadian or Canada. Recently, Kenny tried to justify some of his moves as being in Convention with Conservative standards set down in 1909.