Big Conservation And Little Conservation Collaboration In: Fill & Download for Free

Sure,Parties in Parliament:The Liberal Party of Canada is a centrist, big tent party somewhat akin to the Fianna Fail of Ireland, the US Democratic Party, post-1994 African National Congress or the Partido Revolucionario Institucional of Mexico (without the authoritarianism). Often labelled Canada’s “Natural Governing Party,” the federal Liberals have governed more often than not since the time of Laurier.They started off as a classical liberal party supportive of free trade with the USA and laissez-faire economics, but gradually accepted a Tory-lite ideology of moderate protectionism and fiscal conservatism during the Laurier and Mackenzie King years. Their ideological malleability, or ability to shift with the wind, has made them a durable force in Canadian politics. Under Lester B Pearson and Pierre Elliot Trudeau they moved leftwards, embracing many social democratic policies and often collaborating with the left-leaning NDP in minority parliaments, while during the Jean Chretien and Paul Martin years they moved to the centre-right embracing austerity, low corporate taxes and globalisation.Under Justin Trudeau they’ve sort of married a centrist pro-globalisation liberalism with social progressivism (in terms of economic policy, Justin has little in common with his dad Pierre). The ideological constants of the Liberal Party of Canada have been their commitment to asymmetrical federalism (a dominant role for Ottawa, subordinate for the provinces), sensitivity to sentiments in Quebec (they’ve proven less likely to piss the province off than the Tories), and a middling foreign policy approach that tries to balance maximising independence with pursuing close-ish collaboration with our closest ally (Britain before 1945, the USA since).Geographically their support tends to rely on Ontario (particularly Toronto and the 905 Suburban Belt), Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. They can sometimes be competitive in pockets of Western Canada (Calgary, Winnipeg, Vancouver), albeit they face stiffer competition from the NDP west of Lake Superior. They were founded in 1867 by Clear Grits and Reformers, colonial-era factions who supported greater democracy and autonomy from the British Empire.The newest of Canada’s main parties, the Conservative Party of Canada was founded via the merger of the Progressive Conservative (PC) Party and Canadian Alliance (Reform Party) in 2004. Both parties disbanded themselves formally. The former PC Party was originally Canada’s oldest political party, having been formed in 1854.The Conservative Party is right of centre, modern conservative (economic liberalism + social conservatism), and very focused on Western Canada. A bit like one of their predecessors, the Reform Party, the new Tories have become strongly associated with the grievances of the Alberta Right (greater autonomy and the idea that Alberta gets a raw deal). Canada is more secular than the United States, ergo the Tories are wary of reopening abortion or equal marriage debates but broadly speaking they take a more traditionalist view of morality and are home to a small-ish Christian Right wing.On the economic front they tend to support a more radical form of trickle-down economics than the Liberals, are somewhat more sceptical of government intervention (except for oil sands subsidies), tend to support stronger economic integration with the United States, and on the foreign policy front are more hawkish (pro-military intervention), supportive of everything Israel does, sceptical of climate change initiatives (Kyoto, Paris). On law and order they tend to support stiff sentences, are sceptical of prisoner rehabilitation and drug decriminalisation, oppose additional gun control, etc, etc. (what you’d expect from conservative parties in many countries).Their other predecessor, the Progressive Conservative Party was more of a moderate, big tent party with a tradition of anti-American civic nationalism and a minority progressive populist wing (the Red Tories) - traits that the new Conservative Party has not inherited.The PC Party virtually collapsed in 1993 (157 seats down to 2), being replaced on the Right by the more regionalistic and socially conservative Reform Party. Prior to that, the old Tories occasionally governed after Canadians got sick of extended periods of Liberal rule (1911–1921, 1930–1935, 1957–1963, 1979–1980 and 1984–1993). Historically Tory support was centred around Ontario, but after the rise of Diefenbaker in 1957 Western Canada became an increasingly important part of their voter coalition (in 2019 the new Tories received 70% of the vote in Alberta).Stephen Harper, from the Reform/Alliance side of the merger, led the new Tories to power in 2006 following a Liberal corruption scandal. He successfully managed two minority parliaments before winning a majority government in 2011. Today the new Tories are firmly the alternative to the Liberals, but they’re struggling to expand outside of their Prairie (Alberta/Saskatchewan) base.Canada’s third party, the New Democratic Party (NDP) was formed in 1961 as an effort to reboot an older party, the CCF (Cooperative Commonwealth Federation). The CCF was formed in 1933 at the height of the Great Depression, as an agrarian socialist party. The NDP is a social democratic labour party, akin to Britain’s Labour Party, the social democratic parties of Scandinavian countries, New Zealand Labour, the French Parti Socialiste, etc, etc.They support public ownership over more things (a mixed market economy), are more sceptical of globalisation than the Liberals, are firmly committed to universal social programmes, progressive taxation (higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations), and foreign policy-wise they accept NATO, NORAD and Canada’s other defence commitments but are wary of signing onto new US-led projects (regime change wars, defence integration, etc.). On the social policy front, the NDP is consistently progressive (having supported equal marriage rights before it became mainstream, for example).The Party officially has ties to organised labour (the Canadian Labour Congress) and has affiliated provincial parties in every province, minus Quebec (where there’s an unaffiliated NPDQ, it’s a long story).Federally they have yet to form government, although they were the official opposition from 2011–2015 and have arguably been considered to have had a shot at winning in several elections (1988, 2011 and 2015). Provincially, their affiliates have governed in a majority of provinces (6), forming lengthy dynasties in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Canada’s much loved system of public health insurance got its start in Saskatchewan under Premier Tommy Douglas. Today the NDP governs in British Columbia and is the official opposition in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.Federally, Saskatchewan used to be a bastion of NDP support but that came to an end in 1993. Quebec was briefly a federal NDP fortress from 2011–2015, but isn’t anymore (in 2019 they retained 1 seat and came within a hair of keeping several others). Federal NDP support is the strongest along British Columbia’s “Left Coast” (Vancouver, Vancouver Island and coastal northern BC) and Northern Ontario, but there are other smaller pockets where the federal Party is typically competitive (Hamilton, Windsor, Regina, Edmonton, Halifax, St Johns, northern Manitoba, etc.).Although they haven’t formed government yet at the federal level, they have been extremely influential over several Liberal minority governments (pushing the centrist Liberals leftwards). Canada’s federal healthcare system, student loans, federal subsidised housing, the national flag and equal marriage rights have come out of Liberal-NDP cooperation.Canada’s most annoying party, imho.The Bloc Quebecois was formed in 1991 by renegade members of the Progressive Conservative and Liberal parties who were disenchanted with federalism. It was supposed to disband after the 1995 independence referendum, but Quebec voted Non so they just sorta stuck around. Officially they are social democrats, similar to the NDP, but since they oppose any and all federal social programmes they play more of an obstructionist role than anything else.The Bloc is first and foremost a separatist (sovereigntist) party dedicated to the break-up of Canada, a goal they cannot pursue in the federal Parliament. They are also nationalists who often play on identity politics (religious symbols bans, fear-mongering asylum seekers, that sort of thing). They’ve cobbled together a curious coalition of progressive and conservative voters. They dominated Quebec at the federal level from 1993 until 2011, benefiting from regional concentration, but in 2011 they virtually collapsed (49 seats down to 4) at the hands of the NDP’s Orange Crush (but then Jack Layton died and the NDP lost Quebec). They went through several incompetent and unpopular leaders between 2011 and 2019 and at one point had only two members left in their caucus.However, alas they gained a decent spokesperson in the form of Yves-Francois Blanchet (a former news personality) and were able to align themselves with the popularity of conservative Premier Francois Legault and his religious symbols ban. They also benefited from Conservative and NDP difficulties in Quebec, becoming the main alternative to the Liberals. With 32 seats they are now the 3rd largest party in the House (although the NDP got nearly twice as many votes). Will this comeback last or fizzle? Who knows…They could almost call themselves the Elizabeth May party, which doesn’t bode well as she won’t be leading them into the next election.As the name would suggest, they’re environmentalists who care about climate change. The Canadian Greens aren’t as left-leaning as green parties in many European countries, Australia, NZ or even the United States. They could best be placed in the Centre, sometimes a bit right-leaning, sometimes left-leaning (a bit like the Liberals).Formed in 1982 by environmental activists, they were more or less a fringe party with zero support until the early 2000s. Under former Progressive Conservative staffer Jim Harris they began attracting a somewhat noticeable share of the vote and registered in opinion polling (4.3% of the vote in 2004). He moved the Greens to the centre-right, advocating a Green Tax Shift of lower corporate and income taxes with higher consumption taxes.Harris was replaced by Elizabeth May after the 2006 election, who more or less maintained the same ideological position until tacking somewhat leftwards during the early 2010s (probably hoping to scoop up NDP votes in BC). Green platforms are sometimes a grab bag of Left and Right (they claim to be beyond the spectrum, which nobody really is). They had an opening at the beginning of the 2019 campaign as the NDP was faltering, but Elizabeth May blew it by giving muffled and confusing stances on abortion and national unity. This shouldn’t be surprising for a Party with only 3 seats, but a lack of professionalism seems to be their greatest enemy at times.Provincially green parties tend to be more right-leaning, for example in BC where the NDP governs via agreement with the Greens, the BC Greens have opposed NDP proposals to combat housing speculation and expand labour rights. Provincial green parties have representation in British Columbia (3 seats), Ontario (1 seat), New Brunswick (3 seats) and Prince Edward Island (where they catapulted to 8 seats and official opposition status in 2019). Federally, they’re mostly a BC party albeit they picked up a surprise win in New Brunswick during the 2019 election.Fringe parties:Wexit Canada - “Western Canadian,” Albertan separatists with ties to the Far Right and white supremacyThe People’s Party of Canada - a right-wing, “populist,” nationalist, economic libertarian party formed via the temper-tantrum of failed leadership candidate Maxime Bernier.Communist Party of Canada - Canada’s second oldest party, formed in a Guelph barn in 1921. They had one federal MP from 1945–1948 (Fred Rose) and several provincial representatives in Ontario and Manitoba. They called themselves the Labour-Progressive Party during the period they were banned (1939–1959). Basically a secular cult.Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) - Maoists who really hate the revisionist, pro-USSR Communist Party of Canada. The CPC-ML has to call themselves the “Marxist-Leninist Party” on the ballot to avoid confusing voters.Christian Heritage Party - ever read or watch The Handmaid’s Tale? They did too and for them it was utopia rather than dystopia.Libertarian Party - they really hate seatbelt laws and smoking bans, and think our healthcare system and taxes are “oppression”. Some blather about wanting married gay couples to protect their pot fields with assault rifles..Animal Protection Party of Canada - “meat is murder,” etc, etc.Canadian Nationalist Party - Nazi scumMarijuana Party - vaguely left-leaning, or maybe libertarian, who cares? They supported cannabis legalisation and for some reason still exist now that it’s legal.National Citizens Alliance - Nazi scumParti Patriote - Écume nazieDead parties -Social Credit Party of Canada - conservative evangelicals who wanted the government to mail everyone special money and were against public healthcare. They governed in Alberta and BC for decades without introducing their weird fiscal policies.Ralliement de Creditistes - Quebec Social Credit, similar to above but French Canadian and Catholic - they broke from federal Social Credit after their preferred leader (Réal Caouette) failed to win that party’s leadership (after the federal Socreds collapsed in Western Canada, the Quebec wing simply swallowed the remnants).Progressive Party of Canada/United Farmers - progressive farmer populists who wanted free trade, nationalised mines, to break up monopolies and create social programmes. Governed in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario. Could never really figure out what they were about, part of them (Ginger Group) precursor to the CCF/NDP.Bloc populaire - Quebec nationalists who opposed conscription during WWII, precursor to the Bloc Quebecois in some ways.Reform Party of Canada/Canadian Alliance - Alberta-centric, hard Right conservativesCooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) - Precursor to the NDP, governed Saskatchewan from 1944–1961, party of MedicareProgressive Conservative Party (also called the Liberal-Conservative Party, Conservative Party, National Liberal and Conservative Party and Unionist Party at different points) - party of Sir John A Macdonald, primary alternative to Liberals until 1993, eaten by the Canadian Alliance in 2004.

I did.I was raised religiously and conservative and made the philosophical change early in the freedom of adult life. On my first election, as a high school senior, I voted for George W. Bush over Al Gore, and I’m from Florida… so sorry.By the next election I was volunteering for the Kerry campaign and voted democrat in Presidential and most congressional elections ever since. Then I swore the oath and joined the Army under Bush Jr’s second tenure. I’d stay in for about a decade, leaving during Obama’s second tenure. I voted for him twice and consider that administration possibly the political highlight of our lifetime.The military, and specifically the Army is a largely conservative culture. While it’s true that patriotism takes precedence over partisanship, it’s still often vocally and apparently conservative. Additionally, I had a job that put me with some of the most vocally conservative types and introduced me to some of the worst case scenarios that some conservatives use as motivations for their agenda… here’s how I lasted:I ran informants into very serious situations, interrogated terrorists and insurgents and mercenaries, built targeting packages and helped plan missions for very dangerous men to capture/kill enemy HVTs. My team’s slogan when I was TL in Afghanistan was “Don’t run… you’ll only die tired.”I’ve been disrespected, threatened, spit upon, shot at, exploded, rushed at, had two knives and a hand axe pulled on me (I was not armed the first time and deescalated non-violently, I had a gun and extendable baton the last two times and deescalated via other means.) I’ve experienced and recovered from two contagious diseases somewhat rare to first-world countries because of my close collaboration with others from other places.I’ve been betrayed and conspired against by assets for money, been lied to by despicable men for very good reasons; somebody even tried to kill me in my sleep. I’ve watched and re-watched countless execution videos for intelligence value, investigated bombings and executions -including an inter-sibling honor killing and a disembodied head, have been tasked with questioning conscious victims of violent crimes and accidents during surgery and then followed up by questioning their shocked and grieving family. I have experienced death imposed on my comrades and the carnage I’ve imposed on the enemy… mostly indirectly through collection and planning kill/capture missions, but on very few occasions, directly.These aren’t stories that belong to me, as the stories of the dead belong to the dead, yet many assume I’d be en-cultured back to the right… that the disappointments of experiencing humanity in the world of real-politic would have hardened my heart, reinforcing the dog-eat-dog toughness of modern conservatism. Despite, or possibly because of this, I’m a social liberal who believes everything I tried to do or did was right in the context of who and what I was fighting…I’m a cynical, skeptical, scientifically-minded, philosophically absurdist, economically conservative, sociopolitical liberal with a libertarian streak.I identify more strongly as a liberal because of the social aspect. I believe equality must be THE starting point of any dialog, that it requires us all to actively self-audit our biases and ignorance when considering others. I believe the U.S. Constitution -as a rule of thumb- allows me to say and do anything as long as I don’t infringe on your rights to do the same.I believe in science, because science is skeptical of itself by nature and because we’ve built great big, fantastical things (hello, internet) that work for all of us.I know that competition over resources in a world of scarcity is the primal state of the human condition, but I also believe that we’ve been able to build systems by which collaboration are more and more important, successful, and efficient than our feudal birthright. Our collective goal should be sustainable equality over maximum economic efficiency. If not that, why civilize at all?I believe that the world would be better without some people because of what they plan to do to others, I also believe that we aren’t born to those future sins and are products of our environments as much as actors within them.I have a degree in economics, and am well versed in neo-classical invisible hand theory. I find most people that quote Keynes haven’t had the discipline to read him cover-to-cover; if they had, they might also believe constructive regulation is constructive, like constructive laws are constructive, and that de-regulation isn’t the panacea many conservatives blindly swear by… like a football game with no referees or salary caps, historically, de-regulation has acted more like an albatross around the neck of competition and innovation in this county for over two decades.War is always an answer… a horrible, horrible answer - and one much less likely if those in power had to pull their kid out of private school and send deep into the valley.There are so many lines that are drawn between liberal and conservative whether we’re talking about social policy or financial. No one’s right in this; this is politics and politics is supposed to be consensus building. Governments exist to reconcile opposing interests, so if it’s not always a polite knife fight, they are all on the same side and we should start worrying.Peak governance is a state in which all sides equally feel a little wanting, a little screwed over, but equity is balanced with efficiency and an expansion of that country’s potential… we haven’t been willing to sound the depths with this in mind for decades now; and my issue is that it would seem only one side is even trying.As far as Conservative’s monopoly on ruggedness… that’s mostly a marketing scam. How are disenfranchised minorities from the inner city any less tough, their experiences less harrowing, or their resolve necessarily lesser than those that grow up in the majority? Ever wonder why ‘pampered’ white, liberal, elites are the straw men to be compared against conservatives for the crown of tenacity and grit while the minority experience isn’t even brought into the conversation?None of the above values or beliefs I espouse are strangers to conservatism historically… they harken back to a time not long ago when moderatism reigned and tribalism was an anti-social stance. For all intents I should be conservative but they left me, not the other way around.

I think there is a very high likelihood that we are going to see something very much like it at some point between now and the year 2040.When Democrats found themselves in control of both the White House and Congress in 2009, there was agreement that something big should be done on healthcare, but the party was internally divided between radicals and incrementalists. By radical, I mean those who wanted a complete transformation of the system we had into some kind of universal, government-funded health insurance program.In January 2009, John Conyers introduced H.R. 676, the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act.[1]United States National Health Care Act or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act - Establishes the United States National Health Care (USNHC) Program to provide all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care.Prohibits an institution from participating unless it is a public or nonprofit institution. Allows nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that deliver care in their own facilities to participate.Gives patients the freedom to choose from participating physicians and institutions.Prohibits a private health insurer from selling health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act. Allows such insurers to sell benefits that are not medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery benefits.Sets forth methods to pay institutional providers of care and health professionals for services. Prohibits financial incentives between HMOs and physicians based on utilization.Establishes the USNHC Trust Fund to finance the Program with amounts deposited: (1) from existing sources of government revenues for health care; (2) by increasing personal income taxes on the top 5% income earners; (3) by instituting a progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income; and (4) by instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions. Transfers and appropriates to carry out this Act amounts that would have been appropriated for federal public health care programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.His proposal was not adopted. The Democratic Party 10 years ago was a lot less liberal than it is today. This is true of its partisans.[2]And it is also true of its legislators.[3] [4]The charts above tracking the ideology of the legislators stop in 2014, but there is no reason to believe that the process has reversed itself or even stopped since then. Instead, what we are noticing in the Democratic Primary so far is that party leaders are moving towards advocating for some sort of universal Medicare program.This shift did not happen in a political vacuum. Part of the reason Obamacare ended up with its characteristic shape was that there were conservative Democrats like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson who wouldn’t sign up for anything more liberal. But the other issue was an internal philosophical conversation within the ranks of the Democratic Party about the best method of achieving healthcare reform.One theory was that of people like John Conyers and Anthony Weiner. We should go with Medicare for All because it was the best policy for the country. And since Democrats fully controlled Congress and the White House, they should pass the policy that would most benefit both the population and the country’s finances. Medicare had lower administrative costs than private insurance, whose primary goal was to generate profit, a goal antithetical to that of the government. The country as a whole would spend less on healthcare with universal Medicare than it would by expanding private insurance and Medicaid. A single-payer system would also cover more people and be simpler to implement than the ACA as designed.[5] So that’s what we should do.The other theory was that opposition to healthcare reform was likely to be much less contentious if a moderate program were adopted. Although there was a recognition that the American healthcare system as it existed is not something anyone would have designed from scratch, patching things up by increasing Medicaid and giving people subsidies to buy private insurance was going to be easier and less disruptive than dismantling the whole system and erecting something new in its place. Many of the lawmakers working on this very vividly remembered the failure of HillaryCare in the 90s, and they wanted to avoid the same dynamic by enlisting the support of both the private insurance and the pharmaceutical industries. It was also fervently hoped that since this plan contained ideas that some Republicans had supported in the past, it would attract at least some moderate Republican support.But Republican strategists were in no mood to compromise. It was surmised that campaigning against this new law, and whatever flaws it would have, using whatever arguments were at hand, would pay political dividends. This is how we saw the spectacle of having Republicans refashion themselves into Medicare defenders, and developing a talking point that the ACA was funded by cutting $700 billion from Medicare.[6]Democrats were also genuinely surprised when Republicans decided that insurance mandates were unconstitutional. The argument seemed so novel and histrionic that they couldn’t get themselves to take it seriously. But the argument was there to stay, and it has since become a core part of conservative orthodoxy, so much so that many were disappointed when Chief Justice John Roberts did not go along with it.In the years since the passage of the law, Republicans have filed suit after suit challenging its constitutionality.[7] When Roberts ruled that the law was constitutional because the mandate was a tax, they repealed the mandate, then challenged its constitutionality again, now citing the fact that the tax provision had been abolished. It is quite possible that they will achieve their aims. The law might be declared unconstitutional, and all its provisions repealed. But whatever happens, this entire spectacle, which looks to Democrats to be nothing more than a cynical exercise in feigned outrage on the part of Republican party leaders, has convinced a larger and larger share of the Democratic constituency that there is no point whatsoever in compromising with conservatives on the issue of healthcare.Allow me a personal digression. For the entirety of my life, I have been no fan of festivities. I didn’t like my birthday parties because I had to clean up afterwards, and I would have preferred to have half the money spent on the party. I didn’t even consider going to Prom, because school was supposed to be about learning, not some silly celebration. I didn’t want a party when I graduated from high school, because it was just high school. What was the big deal? I didn’t want a party when I got my nursing degree because I wasn’t even done with my studies. I was going to be a doctor, see? Why was my mom getting all excited about some little nursing degree. I didn’t want to go to the formal dance party with my med school girlfriend because what was the point of this stupid ball anyway? Plus, I didn’t want to be seen dancing by all those people! Oh, the horror. I didn’t want a celebration after finishing med school, because it was just the end of med school. Besides, there was residency to complete. But when I was graduating from residency, I didn’t even tell my parents about the ceremony. I didn’t want them there. The truth was, I didn’t even want a party. I had always been able to find ostensible reasons why I didn’t like such or such party. But the real reason is that I simply don’t like parties.The same is true of American conservatives and government-sponsored healthcare. These plans are all designed by human beings, and there are always trade-offs. So, there will always be something to criticize. But the ostensible reason the laws are criticized is never the real reason for the opposition to it. The reality is that conservatives in the US don’t see government-sponsored universal healthcare as a worthwhile goal. And so they will see any law designed to move us in that direction with extreme skepticism. Any they will use any tool and any argument at their disposal to wage war against any proposal designed to expand health insurance to the whole population.So, the conclusion Democrats are coming to is that it is pointless to compromise on healthcare. At some point, maybe in 4 years, maybe in 8 or 12 or 16, Democrats will control both Congress and the White House. Inevitably, they will decide to tackle healthcare again. And inevitably they will remember that:Republicans will try to invalidate the law on constitutional grounds, so the design must be something everyone agrees is constitutional.Universal Medicaid would save even more money than universal Medicare, but Medicaid is administered at the state level, so Republican states would refuse to follow suit, even if the federal government offers to cover 100% of the costs.Designing a moderate law in the hopes of attracting some bipartisanship will be utterly futile, because Republicans will have more to gain by campaigning against the law, however designed, than by collaborating and helping to improve it over time.The inevitable conclusion will be that Medicare-for-All, whatever issues it might have, is the least bad option.Footnotes[1] H.R.676 - 111th Congress (2009-2010): Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act[2] Democratic voters increasingly embrace the 'liberal' label – especially whites, Millennials and postgrads[3] The polarized Congress of today has its roots in the 1970s[4] Average Ideology of the House and Senate, 1947 – 2014[5] Weiner Pushes for Single-Payer Plan[6] GOP ad says Bruce Braley 'voted to cut $700 billion from Medicare to support Obamacare'[7] Obamacare lawsuits - Ballotpedia