Rambling about Progressivism

It pays to have conversations with the elderly. To see a lifetime of change through their eyes is enlightening and great food for reflection.

“The greatest tragedy is that the West brought this on itself because of parasitic "progressive" follies.  The most dangerous weapon in nature is a human mind infected by ideological parasites.” - Gad Saad

Last night, after walking the dogs, I had my customary conversation with Dorothy, my 91 yo mother-in-law who lives in her granny flat downstairs. We spoke about the different historic roles between men and women. 

Dorothy Remembers

In her youth, men were the wage-earners, family protectors, and were expected to solve the “big problems” that arose outside of the home. Women were mothers and home-makers first, caring and feeding children, nurturing relationships within the greater family, etc. The consciousness of each man and woman was focused on entirely different spheres of life while sharing a commitment to raise their children in the best way possible under their existential beliefs. Remnants of these role expectation still remain in modern life even though the “feminist” movement during Dorothy’s lifetime has blurred those roles and expectations.

Politically, the life lens of a man and a woman predict different choices. As Dorothy said, she favoured the “progressive” policies that promised “safety and security” to her, the family caregiver and mother of three daughters. Women of her generation wanted the “free” things that politicians offered but never gave a second thought to who would pay for them or how massive the government institutions would become to fulfill those political promises. 

Today, for example, out “universal” Health Care system takes up nearly half of Ontario’s annual provincial budget. Dorothy’s lady friends celebrated it when first announced and forewarned the inevitable costs of this major “safety net”. Virtually all of them reflective voted for it. When I suggested that their voting choices revealed and underlying “sugar daddy syndrome”, she said that was an appropriate description. She and her friends knew what they wanted, voted for it and never considered the cost or consequences.

Public Debt is never considered.

When I told Dorothy last night that the unfunded liabilities of the federal and provincial governments amounted to $2.6 Trillion, she was aghast. She was embarrassed to say why she had voted for NDP leader Jack Layton years ago.  “He seemed like a nice man, and was handsome”, she confessed. 

Dorothy then admitted that she never seriously considered Layton’s policies and suspects that this may be true today for many women who voted for Justin Trudeau in 2015 for similar reasons.

Some men are also taken in by “sugar daddy” policies.

If a national pharmacare program is passed in the next year, it will take some pressure off the “man of the house” to provide something that his loved ones want and expect. 

Life today is very expensive. If a man is the main provider of his home and is struggling to make ends meet, he may be thankful when “Big Daddy Government” lends a hand. He will worry about “the tax bill” later.

Unfortunately, national and provincial “sugar daddy” policies come with a hefty price in more ways than one. The demands on the Honey Pot increase. More laws and regulations are needed to establish the authority to deliver, and more “money has to come from somewhere” to made the payments to the service providers and additional administrators. Since 1961, the earnings remissions of the average Canadian family to all levels of government have risen from 38% to nearly 55% today. 

How much more are Canadians willing to pay for an even larger Sugar Daddy Economy? That depends on your demographic and who is trying to “buy your vote”, doesn’t it? The NDP, for example, solicit support from “the working class” and their politicians promise to “make the rich pay”. The Greens asset that “the climate criminals” must be punished with higher taxes and penalties. The Conservatives tout “law and order” policies that do nothing to reduce the size, cost, and scope of authority of public institutions. The Liberals love to find society’s “victim” communities and cater to the NGOs, charities, and government workers who have drunk way too much of the “woke Koolaid”. These “progressives” are blind to the Liberal “divide and conquer” political strategies and easily swayed by nice-sounding political rhetoric.

Apathy or Cynicism?

In the recent provincial Kitchen Centre by-election, only 27% of eligible voters went to the polls. What does this tell you about modern politics and the confidence of “the majority” in the value of their vote?

As my regular readers know, I have been a candidate in 10 elections. My platform theme is simple: The #1 Problem in Canada today is Too Much Government. This problems has been the growing consequence of our national expectations that Big Government will play the role of “King Kong sugar daddy” = the biggest and baddest of them all!

I partially blame our current social and economic mess on those voters who have thoughtlessly elected our “progressive” governments over decades.  They are guilty of being intellectually lazy and totally naive about the consequences of their ballot choices. Now, everyone must pay the price for their irresponsible naïveté.

Did they really expect that government services are “free” or that everyone else would enthusiastically “pay the price” of their electoral decisions? Oddly, they are usually the first ones on the picket line or at the public rally to carry placards and complain about the cost of house, food and energy. They have no one to blame but themselves.

A Beauty Contest with ugly contestants.

All of the major political parties compete in the Big Daddy “beauty” contest every 4 years. (No, I am NOT suggesting that you envision Doug Ford in high heels and a bikini strutting down a fashion runway! Sheesh! What a thought!

Until the majority of voters begins to understand that their loss of earnings and freedoms are the direct consequence of asking politicians and regulators to do too much for us, then the current autocratic regimes will continue to wield the Political Power contained in the Honey Pot.

The ethic of Personal Responsibility must be re-established in every Canadian. Each person would be wise live according to the Four Principles of a Civil Society first introduced by Maxime Bernier.

The words of John F Kennedy, spoken in his US presidential inaugural address, are also worth contemplating: “Ask not for what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. ”

Words are easier than actions.

How can a minority of concerned Canadian patriots take control of the Honey Pot to systemically reduce governments to “sustainable”, affordable and effective levels. This is my ultimate goal. I wonder how many others share it?

Some members of “freedom groups” I have encountered want to create an alternative society to co-exist with the current one. I don’t see how they will be able to avoid the jaws of “the state.”

Other groups do not want to be directly involved in politics, but still be politically influential. They create NGOs or decentralized communities of like-minded individuals who are expected to meet informally and volunteer to lobby their local elected representatives for preferred policies. Unfortunately, unless their members win an elected seat in the legislature body, they will likely be just one more lobby group that tries to influence the Custodians of the Honey Pot.

In my view, to become just one of hundreds of groups who seek the ear of elected representatives is not good enough in the current state of our “electoral democracy”. During my 72 year lifetime, I have witnessed too many elected representatives accomplish little more than to tinker around the edges of the Honey Pot to make constituents FEEL LIKE they are represented and act like they did something significant. Then these politicians expect to be re-elected in return.

If you detect a little cynicism in my message today, you aren’t wrong.