Mr. Preston Manning, beloved non-Prime Minister of Canada and born-again green Tory, continues to push the boundaries of what it means to be a Canadian “conservative.” He writes in today’s Globe and Mail, that “public policy should recognize our green collar workers“:
As Canada and the world become more environmentally conscious, a vitally important role is emerging for those who occupy rural Canada - that of environmental stewards who are recognized and compensated for their work in protecting and conserving soil, plant life (including forests), watersheds, and wildlife. How to compensate those involved in conserving and providing ecological goods and services and to penalize (perhaps by taxing) those whose practices damage the environment is a policy challenge that urgently needs to be addressed - a challenge made even more onerous by growing concern over the rising price of food in the global marketplace.
As industrial agriculture, characterized by massive capital investment and the extensive use of pesticides and fertilizers, is increasingly challenged, the future looks increasingly bright for persons engaged in environmentally friendly agriculture, including a new generation of organic producers. Public policy will have to be adjusted to recognize their needs and potential as well as those of the growing number of green collar workers who will inhabit rural Canada.
At some point during the dark and forgettable 20th century conservatism came to mean believing in the fantastical — economic fantasy, moral fantasy, ecological fantasy, social fantasy. And to do so, of course, while tossing accusations of idealism at its opponents. But what could be more idealistic and naive than believing the planet’s natural resource will never run out and should never be counted in the marketplace? Or that only by taking rights away can we secure our rights? Or that only through massive government wealth transfers to big corporations can the free market be kept free?
Preston Manning, in his semi-retired public statesman years — though imperfectly — challenges the status quo of Canadian and North American conservatism.
It’s always struck me as strange that so-called conservatives never worried about “conserving” our standard of living or economic performance over more than a few years. Or “conserving” our economy’s ecological resources. For most, it seems, starving to death in 2013 is okay, as long as “the gays” can’t marry and we say the Lord’s Prayer in primary school.
It’s refreshing to see that Mr. Manning is broadening the definition of “conservatism.”
Canadians of ‘the land’ need to find their voice [Globe and Mail]
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Saskboy 07.30.08 at 10:05 pm
Manning is a traitor to Canada. He an Mike Harris penned a report that recommended giving most of the country’s power to Washington.
Ryan 07.31.08 at 10:33 am
@Saskboy - When was that, Saskboy? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that his political thought has evolved over time. While I am suspicious as to whether or not he has abandoned his continentalist so-con corporatism, I’m willing to give him the benefit of a doubt for the time being.
And traitor to Canada? Come on.
Saskboy 07.31.08 at 3:00 pm
@Ryan - See, and judge for yourself then
http://scottdiatribe.gluemeat.com/2007/05/09/why-do-conservatives-hate-canada/
http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2007/05/09/fraser-institute-report-a-traitors-document/
(I found it difficult to find the comment page on your blog, I think it just was a # sign where I had to click when there were no comments.)
Mike Soron 07.31.08 at 3:29 pm
@Saskboy - Thanks for posting them, but the links to the original report are broken. I’d be interested in reading it if someone has access to a digital copy somewhere.
Nonetheless, an irresponsible or poor position on bilateral trade and security relations (which many Harris-Manning type conservatives have) doesn’t forbid a person from having a strong or valuable position in other areas — like support for local, organic agriculture or transitioning towards a green collar workforce.
We should be encouraging and recognizing conservatives and old-line partisan politicians who take responsible positions (and yes, even semi-responsible positions) to speak up and continuing evolving. It’s unfair to do otherwise and I’d expect the same to be done of someone who disagreed with positions I held. No one is ALL bad or ALL good and everyone has the right to change one’s position as the facts and their experience change.
Still, I’d like to read that Fraser Institute report and judge him critically on that as well. De-facto deference to US business interests should be seen as “treason-lite” or at least an unelectable stance and the ground Manning and his co-ideologues laid have entrenched a permissive attitude towards it. Let me know if you’re able to find the report.
As to the HASH/# symbol for comments, it’s pretty standard in permalink formatting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permalink#Presentation). But I may need to look at how easy it is to find. Thanks, again!
Saskboy 07.31.08 at 4:58 pm
@Mike Soron - Permalink yes, but I think it took me to /response instead.
My commenter info also isn’t being remembered.
Ryan 07.31.08 at 10:20 pm
Hehe… fair enough. As I said, still highly suspicious of Manning. It appears as if Manning views “inherently conservative” agrarian “values” as code for so-conservativism. I also thought the part about “forced equality” was poorly veiled code for “socialism.”
Toby 08.06.08 at 9:57 am
I have a lot of problems with Manning but also a huge deal of respect for him. He refuses to be boxed in by ideology and is much more of a “real” conservative.