Skip to main content

The Big Tent

no "small c" I see that Ben and Flea and a few others are taking a swing at a group Blog called Urban Conservative. I think this is a great idea and I wish them every success. The new blog is not what I want to write about here, however. Reading it over only reminded me of some thinking I've been doing about North Western Winds. When you start a blog, you have some ideas of what it might be and who might be interested in reading it. You expect it might not turn out just like you thought and you might find yourself changing things just a bit as readership information comes in. There have been surprises indeed. I'm surprised that I seem to enjoy doing longer posts, even if I can't do them every day. I'm surprised - and pleased - that people seem to enjoy those longer, more philosophical posts. I still plan to do the short ones, just maybe not three or more in a day. I'm surprised that I've hooked up with a likeable group of conservative Canadian bloggers, proving that Canadian-ness and conservative-ness are not ideas in opposition. I'm surprised that no one has lashed into me on a socially conservative post. I still think that last concern is a real one and that it is coming, given where our courts are. They are so confident that they can overturn a centuries old institution- marriage- that they just dismiss concerns put before them. Their questioning of conservatives defending the status quo indicates that they think it is the defense, and not the rebellion, that needs to meet the burden of proof. I think they are justified in their reading of the Canadian public and that is why I feel a lashing is inevitable. The pillars of this blog are, as I see them: 1) the life of a tail end Gen X male, living on the west coast 2) of Canada. 3) The conversion of that male from an agnostic public school education that was hostile to religious ideas, which he did buy into for 25 years or so, to orthodox Catholicism. 4) The intelligent defense of religious ideas, by showing that in thought and action some sort of a religious base is always present, even if it is not acknowledged. 5) Demonstrating that tradition, and not rationalism, is the best base from which to generate the necessarily religious axioms that are the fertile soil of a free society. I'm not trying to turn everyone into a 'papist.' That would take more wattage and charisma than I can muster even on my best days. I am trying to show that Canadian conservatives need to think in terms of the "Big Tent." For conservatives to begin to reform Canada will require a reformation of the culture. That and only that will substantially change the politics. The opposite approach can't properly be called conservative, even if it favours traditionally conservative ideas of small government and so on. It's the old ends justifying the means problem and any success found that way is bound to be short term - possibly as short as one election term. Change the culture and you fundamentally change the terms of the debate. A changed culture will put the brakes on what your opposition can do even while they are in power. North Western Winds is a a bit of an odd bird. It has a good number of Canadian readers, but not too many religious ones (that I'm aware of). It's a bit of a struggle to try and appeal to mainstream readers by defending social conservatism. American readers are much more tolerant but often not very interested in Canada or Canadians. Keeping those three things tied together promises to be a challenge. In the end, though, it's about a culture in which one doesn't have to resort to the euphemism of "small c" conservativism. That kind of culture requires that we don't forget where we come from or what we stand for. In my own small way, that's what this blog is about.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi