Wildrose wilts: a cautionary tale for conservatives - Part II

In "Wildrose wilts: a cautionary tale for conservatives - Part I" we saw how Alison Redford's GOP (Great Oxymoronical Party) -- otherwise known as Progressive Conservatives -- defeated the Even More Conservatives -- otherwise known as the Wildrose Party -- in spite of its leader's obvious charms. Now Walt will tell you why.

As nearly as I could see from my vantage point up the road from Robert E. Lee's boyhood home, two factors led to the defeat of Wildrose and the perpetuation of the Alberta Tory dynasty. The inevitable Mitt will have to keep both in mind if he is to have any hope at all of defeating Hussein come November.

First, the bozo factor. 130 years ago, W.S. Gilbert wrote:
When in that House [of Commons] MPs divide,
If they've a brain and cerebellum, too,
They've got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell `em to.

Canadian politicians, when they accept a party's nomination, are expected to free themselves entirely of independent thought, toe the party line and stay totally "on message", lest their personal beliefs, if made public, scare the citizenry. Gilbert, again:
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull MPs in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.

Unfortunately, as Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee have found out at various times, it's hard to get an assortment of libertarians, gun nuts, conspiracy theorists and gold standard-bearers to march in close order. So it was with the Wildrose Party, whose candidates included more than one who could be described as teetering on the brink of extremism.

One Wildrose MLA wannabe said he had no doubt that since Indians and other minorities tend to vote for their own, he had an advantage, being Caucasian. That would be true only if white folks voted en bloc, but they don't. Anyway, it's not the kind of thing you say in public.

Another Wildroser, an evangelical Protestant pastor, said homosexuals were going to hell -- all of them -- for violating God's law if not the state's. Again, everyone is entitled to his opinion, but speaking your mind doesn't help you get elected. A Wildrose insider called that little remark "a Bozo moment".

The other factor to be kept in sight at all times is the economic factor. It may be OK to have social Bozos in office [When are you going to run? Ed.] but in uncertain economic times, it won't do to have your province or state or country governed by economic and financial Bozos.

The Wildrose party suffered from a serious deficit of governmental experience. What with the ongoing oil sands and Keystone XL pipeline controversies, and serious negotiations with the federal government on the horizon, Albertans found themselves unable to hand the reins of power over to a bunch of right-wing loonies who just fell off the turnip truck. Wildrose may have had support amongst the "real people", but it didn't have big business -- particularly oil and the banks -- on its side.

What lessons do we learn from this? First, economic issues trump social issues every time. This is true for Canadians, at least, and Walt believes that Americans too will vote with their pocketbooks in November. If Romney can maintain his image as a sound and successful business manager who can turn the economy around, he may yet have a shot. Picking a running mate cut from the same cloth -- perhaps Senator Rob Portman -- would help.

Secondly, while people with strong views may be noisy and visible, they are outnumbered by a large majority of quiet voters who tend to congregate in the middle of the political spectrum, even on social issues. For every vocal pro-lifer and pro-abortionist, there are three or four people who think abortion might be OK, in some circumstances. And there are another two who simply don't care, either way. Do the math.

Let me put this one another way. Extreme views, publicly expressed, don't get you votes. This is the lesson Ron Paul -- God love him -- can't learn because his principles won't let him. If you speak out strongly on something you believe in -- like isolationism or abolishing the Fed -- which the majority finds outlandish or extreme -- you will lose.

Which brings us back to Canada and its Prime Minister, "Call me Steve" Harper, the arch-control freak. Mr. Harper is an evangelical Protestant, but he keeps quiet about it. He is accused by the Gliberals and Kneedippers of having a "hidden agenda", but they can never make the charge stick precisely because Harper is so close-mouthed about his intentions.

So, if Romney can continue to talk as little as possible about policy and his precise plans for the future of America, he won't get boxed into an extreme position or (even) accused of flip-flopping. Let him learn from Mr. Harpoon, who, when asked yesterday if Canada would commit to keeping troops in Afghanistan past 2014 (yes, they're still there!) said, "We will examine all options and we will take the decision that is in the best interests of this country...and not an ideological knee-jerk response." Hey, it worked for Reagan!

But... if any prominent Republicans go off the deep end, or if Romney chooses a loose cannon for a running mate, he's doomed. The HBO docudrama "Game Change" features a line from a member of John McCain's campaign team, as the reality of Sarah Palin dawns on them: "Oh my god, what have we done?"

Wildrose wilts: a cautionary tale for conservatives - Part I

The Canadian province of North Texas [Alberta, surely! Ed.] elected a new legislature on Monday. The result contains a lesson for American Republicans and Canadian Conservatives (big-C and small-c alike), the lesson being: don't go to extremes.

All you need to know about AB is that it's about as conservative a place as you can find north of the 49th parallel. Like TX, it's cattle country, and under the cattle is oil -- lots of it -- when enterprising multinational oilcos will sell to China if Obama holds up construction of the pipeline which should be shipping it south. The province is awash in oil money which it shares only reluctantly with poorer places like Ontario.

As Walt explained in "Campaign bust raises eyebrows in Alberta", Alberta is staunchly conservative, politically and socially. As of this spring, it had been ruled for 41 years, by a centre-right party oxymoronically called the Progressive Conservatives. This time they chose a new leader, Allison Redford, to front for the usual gang of old white men in conservative suits and white stetsons.

But the PCs were a tired lot, bereft of any ideas except to keep the oil flowing out (see above) and never ever have a provincial sales tax. There was a perceived need for change. Unfortunately the other two traditional parties, the Somewhat Liberal Party and the Not-so-new Democrats, didn't have a Chinaman's chance of electing a handful of MLA's, let alone forming a government.

So was born the Wildrose Party, a gang of even older white men in even more conservative suits and white stetsons -- cowboy boots too. They chose as their frontperson a slightly younger and more attractive white woman, Danielle Smith, whose campaign bus wrap drew attention to her assets until lamestream media cries of sexism forced a redesign.

The Wildrose Party's policies were a mixture of populism and conservatism, well to the right of the governing PCs. They promised to share the oil wealth, at least with the common people of Alberta. ("Prosperity certificates" had been tried during the Great Depression by the Social Government -- read "conservative" -- government of Bible Bill Aberhart, and found unconstitutional, but never mind.) There were also hints of a social conservative agenda on such matters as health care, abortion, "gay rights" etc etc.

In the run-up to the election, the pollsters, pundits and national media were loud in their predictions of a Wildrose landslide, followed by the return of Alberta to the dark ages of Social Credit and the Ku Klux Klan. The liberal Globe and Mail went so far as to endorse the PCs, which should have been the kiss of death since no one outside of Toronto and Ottawa pays any attention to the Glob.

True conservatives and libertarians in Alberta and the rest of Canada were peeing in their pants with excitement at the prospect of being freed from the tyranny of "red Tories" -- liberals in conservative suits. The Wildrosers themselves were starting to plan the "On to Ottawa!" campaign to get rid of the faux conservative Steve Harper and put a real right-winger in 24 Sussex Drive.

But... surprise, surprise... the pollsters and other "experts" got it wrong! The Regressive Convertibles (thank you, Allan Fotheringham) won, in a veritable landslide. Later today Walt will tell you why, and what this means for politics in Canada and the USA.

Liberals keep polishing the turd, says Big Bad Jim

"What liberals can learn from conservatives" -- Margaret Wente's review of Jonathan Heidt's The Righteous Mind (see previous post) drew a lot of comment, both pro and con. [Geddit? Ed.] Walt liked a screed by a poster calling himself Big Bad Jim.

I don't know if liberals are capable of learning in the accepted sense. So many of their policies have clearly failed, but they keep polishing the turd, pushing self-destructive polices, and seperating actions and consequences in a way that goes from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Here is my scholarly theory. Liberals live in a bubble. Most of them live in concrete urban jungles where friendly policemen guard them from harm the way a sheep dog guards his flock. They don't grow their own food, most of them don't make anything of value, most work and live in artificial markets and workplaces, and the sum effect of all these influences is 'devolution'. These people are reverting back to savage, tool-using super-apes.

Consider your affluent rich Tranna Libs. [Those are the ones I call "Volvo liberals". Walt] They would be dead meat in any rural or productive society. They are unpopular, socially incompetent, and divisive. They are not the kind of people you want to make friends with or help out because they will not do the same for you. In any society that does not nanny stupid people -- as ours does -- Darwin would take them out.

In the liberal slums, drugs and gang activity are going through the roof. The only people that do well in those environments are the fittest and strongest. As drugs and illegitimacy and illiteracy ravage their families and communities, they become ever more dehumanized by crime and violence and start to resemble our feral ape-like evolutionary predecessors.

It is pretty much apparent to anyone that doesn't live in a leftist stupidity chamber that the great Liberal Social Experiment has failed. And now -- it's time to clean up the mess.

Is your mind righteous?

Regular readers of WW's World will know that Walt is a regular reader of Margaret Wente's column in the Globe and Mail. Ms Wente was born in Chicago, but now makes her home in "an affluent downtown Toronto postal code". She looks with a jaundiced eye [perhaps TWO such eyes. Ed.] on her neighbours, whom she regards as what I call "Volvo liberals".

Today, Ms Wente has another "label for these people. They are WEIRD. That is, they belong to a tiny subculture of the human population that is Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic. They are the secular liberal baby boomers who dominate the opinion elite."

She says this in the context of a review of The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt. According to the author's website, the book is about one of the hottest topics in the sciences — morality. It’s about how we evolved to live in moral “matrices,” which bind us together around sacred values and then blind us to the truth. It’s about righteousness, moral diversity, politics and religion.

According to Margaret Wente's review, Mr Haidt is talking about the WEIRD culture of which he is an admitted member. She sees The Righteous Mind as a must-read for anyone who’s dumbfounded that Steve Harpoon got elected prime minister of Canada. Or that anyone could oppose the re-election of Al O'Bama.

Or that the voters of Alberta are about to elect a party "full of bigots and climate-change deniers". (More on this, and why it should matter to Americans, next week. For now... lifetime pct .983.)

Mr. Haidt argues that conservatives and liberals operate with two quite different moral systems. Liberals are almost exclusively concerned with harm and fairness. They see society as composed of autonomous individuals who should be free to satisfy their wants and needs as they see fit.

Conservatives have a wider moral palate. They are also concerned with loyalty, authority and sanctity – values that are deeply rooted in human nature and all societies throughout history. They see society as composed of people in relation to community, who have a set of roles, responsibilities and obligations to God and their neighbours. They believe there is much more to the moral domain than harm and fairness.

Haidt's thesis is that conservative politicians on the right have a built-in advantage, because they understand human nature better than liberals do. Most people’s moral frameworks are far broader – and far less rational and systematic – than liberals believe, says Ms Wente. Nonetheless, liberal psychologists (and politicians) have spent most of the past 40 years trying to explain why conservatives are so misguided. Why don’t they embrace equality, diversity and change, like normal people? Obviously, they’re repressed and afraid of difference.

Mr. Haidt believes that as long as liberals continue to pathologize conservatism, they’re doomed. Instead, they need to understand why the reaction of many ordinary people to the issues in the news is so different from their own. The simple answer is that these people are less concerned with individual rights and universal justice than they are with things such as loyalty, authority and people getting what they deserve, not what their ethnicity or sexual orientation "entitle" them to.

Ms Wente uses the example of the Harper government’s tough crime-and-punishment agenda -- the policies that drive Canadian liberals craziest.

To liberals, [the government's] law-and-order agenda is nothing more than base pandering to an ignorant electorate. But many Canadians have a sharply different view. They don’t care that crime stats are at record lows, or that mandatory minimum sentences don’t work.

What they care about is the Vancouver bus driver who was off work for more than a year after a young thug bashed his face in. The thug got 18 months to be served at a rehab residence. They care about the stupidly light sentence imposed on Graham James for sexually abusing teenage hockey players and about shopkeepers who get charged by the police for trying to protect themselves from thieves.

They think these things are profoundly wrong. And despite the enlightened views of liberals, an alarming number of them continue to support the death penalty.

Perhaps if these Canadians were better educated they wouldn’t think this way. Or perhaps, if liberals were better educated in moral psychology, they’d be able to understand why conservative policies are so appealing. My advice is to begin by listening to Jonathan Haidt.

Walt can hardly wait to read The Righteous Mind, and will pick up a copy at the Library of Congress next week*, if the librarian isn't looking.

* Indeed, Walt will be in the capital city of the Excited States of America from now until Wednesday. Why??? Visit WW's World on Thursday and all will be revealed. Or maybe not.

US bishop rips Obama, calls for "heroic Catholicism"

Daniel Jenky, Bishop of the Diocese of Peoria IL, told 500 men who attended the diocese’s annual men’s march and Mass that "the days in which we live now require heroic Catholicism, not casual Catholicism."

Noting that "the world, the flesh, and the devil will always love their own, and will always hate us," Bishop Jenky went on to say: "We can no longer be Catholics by accident, but instead [must] be Catholics by conviction. In our own families, in our parishes, where we live and where we work ... we must be bold witnesses to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. We must be a fearless army of Catholic men, ready to give everything we have for the Lord, who gave everything for our salvation."

You can read the full text of Bishop Jenky's homily here. He mentioned President Obama three times. "In clear violation of our First Amendment rights," said the bishop, "Barack Obama with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda now seems intent on following a similar path" as other governments throughout history who "have tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches."

Will the anti-Christian president -- and the cafeteria Catholics like Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi who only follow the Faith if it doesn't cost them votes -- prevail against the Church of God? Bishop Jenky thinks not.

The Church survived and even flourished during centuries of terrible persecution, during the days of the Roman Empire. The Church survived barbarian invasions. The Church survived wave after wave of Jihads. The Church survived the age of revolution. The Church survived Nazism and Communism. And in the power of the Resurrection, the Church will survive the hatred of Hollywood, the malice of the media, and the mendacious wickedness of the abortion industry.

The Church will survive the entrenched corruption and sheer incompetence of our Illinois state government, and even the calculated disdain of the President of the United States, his appointed bureaucrats in HHS, and of the current majority of the federal Senate. May God have mercy on the souls of those politicians who pretend to be Catholic in church, but in their public lives, rather like Judas Iscariot, betray Jesus Christ by how they vote and how they willingly cooperate with intrinsic evil.

As Christians we must love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, but as Christians we must also stand up for what we believe and always be ready to fight for the Faith.

To which Walt can only add "Amen."

SSPX reply to Rome -- start of a sell-out?

The number of people who know what's really going on at the highest levels of the Roman Catholic Church is very small. One such is Andrea Tornielli, a "Vaticanista" whose conclusions and predictions are accurate almost as often as Walt's. (Lifetime pct .983)

In yesterday's Vatican Insider, Signor Tornielli opines that the "positive response" of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to the "doctrinal preamble" presented to them by the Holy See last September could form the basis for reconciliation between the traditionalist group and the mainstream Church.

The response, which Tornielli says has only a few minor alterations to the most recent version of the document, will be reviewed by the Ecclesia Dei commission, which is responsible for relations between the Vatican and traditional Catholics, as well as by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If they find no fault in it, the document will be forwarded to Pope Benedict XVI for a final decision which would presumably result in the lifting of the purported suspensions of the Society's bishops.

But here's the problem. Of the four SSPX bishops, only one -- Bishop Bernard Fellay -- appears fully committed to the reconciliation. The other three -- Tissier de Mallerais, Galarreta, and Williamson -- are opposed to what they see as a sell-out. So are at least 25% of their faithful followers, according to the Italian daily La Stampa.

Both the Vatican and the SSPX are on record as saying Bishop Fellay’s response does not resolve all remaining disagreements between the two sides. Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office, warned reported that "we cannot conclude that a positive outcome has been reached quite yet."

The SSPX issued a statement saying that the latest development in a 3-year series of negotiations must be seen as "a stage and not a conclusion". However, Tornielli and others sympathetic to the SSPX are optimistic about the prospects for resolving the split between the Society and the Holy See.

Signor Tornielli sees it as likely that the Society will be awarded the status of "personal prelature" a new juridical role added to the Canon Law in 1983 and so far adopted only by Opus Dei. Bishop Fellay doubtless sees himself as the first prelate, answerable only to the Holy See.

Will the other three, especially Bishop Williamson, kiss Fellay's ring? Don't be surprised if some or all of them separate from the separated! (Lifetime .pct still .983.)

See also "The Lefebvrians' answer to the Vatican". "Vatican, SSPX reported ready to reconcile", from Catholic World News, has a useful summary of the history and background to the conflict.

"Fucking good name", say Austrians

Sorry to spoil the fun, but the proper German pronunciation of "Fucking" -- a village in Austria -- rhymes with "booking". Today, Franz Meindl, the Fucking mayor, has again denied reports that the good burgers (look it up) of his village were agitating for a name change.

Despite having a population of only 104, the village has become famous for its name in the English-speaking world. Its road signs are a popular visitor attraction, and were often stolen by souvenir-hunting tourists until 2005, when they were modified to be theft-resistant. If you want to have a try anyway, go north from Salzburg for about 21 miles, and you'll find the Fucking sign about 2.5 miles east of the German boarder. ["Border", surely! Ed.]

Burgermeister Franz Meindl dismissed news reports that residents were pushing to change the name to something less controversial. "I don't know where you're getting the idea that we want to change the Fucking name," the annoyed-sounding mayor told Reuters today. "A couple of years ago some people suggested alternate spellings like 'Fuking' or 'Fugging'. An Irishman suggested 'Fooking', the way it should be said. But nothing came of it."

It is believed that the settlement was founded in the 6th century by a Bavarian nobleman named Focko. The existence of the village was documented for the first time in 1070 and historical records show that some twenty years later the lord was Adalpert von Vukkingen. The spelling of the name has evolved over the years, having been spelled Fukching in 1303 and Fugkhing in 1532. The modern Fucking spelling dates from the 18th century.