You are correct that the CPC is closer to the Democrats, at least in terms of social spending. However, culturally, the CPC is closer to the Republicans. That is what should matter the most, because the essence of conservatism is tradition. Right-wing cultural discussions in the USA are parallel to that of Canada, it is on social spending that there is a difference.

First and foremost those of the earlier generation of Canadian conservatives appear to have had a poor definition of conservatism, and often equated it with private property laws. When, in truth, conservatism has always been about conservation of tradition, since the French Revolution. Private property is a component of this, but it also includes the preservation of traditional cultural institutions, religious institutions, and often centred on the family as the primary institution. This is also partly the reason why royalty is often associated with conservatism, it is a combination of hierarchy, and the royal family often being the embodiment of the family as an institution. Thus, conservatism has a much more classical world-view, often a combination of Christian heritage and Greco-Roman philosophical ideas. Marxists in particular often dilute this by making remarks that Jesus was a socialist when, in reality, Jesus was a monarchist, he wanted to help the poor, and those who suffered, but often spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and was keen on preserving sacred institutions, such as the Temple in Jerusalem. Certain left-wing movements are aligned to this as well, particularly that of Dorothy Day, which are socially traditional, but fought for workers rights, although they are a minority. You'd be hard pressed to find an anti-abortion liberal these days.

I can say this with confidence considering how the right-wing in Canada was generally fragmented, it wasn't really until Harper that it was united. What Harper managed to do was unite the conservatives (the traditional world-view) with the neoliberals (low taxes, socially liberal).

In the USA, this unification of neoliberals and conservatives occurred much earlier, back under the Regan years (1970s-1980s). The consequence of Harper is that today the CPC is more aligned with the Republicans than it did in the past, due to the conservatives (in the traditional sense) making up a significant portion of the CPC, whereas in the past, particularly during Mulroney era, it was predominantly neoliberal.

Furthermore, what essentially occurred post-World War II was that neoliberals diluted the conservative movements. Conservatism was never opposed to social welfare, in fact many of the earlier social welfare movements were Christian by nature. It was when Marxism spread throughout the world that there was a dichotomy between social welfare and conservatism, but in principle conservatism does not oppose welfare. Edmund Burke, and Joseph de Maistre, the fathers of conservatism, did not oppose welfare, conservatism was a reaction to the idea that a country should be governed purely by liberal rationalism, and that in fact traditional hierarchies (i.e. faith, nobility) are beneficial as a form of constraint from unbridled rationality that can rationalise any behaviour.

This is the reason why I don't consider the Democrats to be conservative in any sense, at least not in the last 30 years. There is nothing about them that is remotely conservative in the traditional sense. They are centre-right on economic policies, but they are socially, and culturally, liberal.

The fact that I have to explain what is conservatism is a core part of the problem here. There are different strands of conservatism, but generally speaking, conservatism in the West is aligned with those ideas of the French counter-revolutionaries who opposed unbridled liberal rationality, and favoured traditional institutions, and traditional hierarchies.

What is particularly damning is that Marxists understand this distinction (which is why they oppose liberals and conservatives), but so many liberals and those on the right do not. It is baffling, and we can't have a proper discussion about conservatism if people do not even understand what it is.

You are correct that the CPC is closer to the Democrats, at least in terms of social spending. However, culturally, the CPC is closer to the Republicans. That is what should matter the most, because the essence of conservatism is tradition. Right-wing cultural discussions in the USA are parallel to that of Canada, it is on social spending that there is a difference.

First and foremost those of the earlier generation of Canadian conservatives appear to have had a poor definition of conservatism, and often equated it with private property laws. When, in truth, conservatism has always been about conservation of tradition, since the French Revolution. Private property is a component of this, but it also includes the preservation of traditional cultural institutions, religious institutions, and often centred on the family as the primary institution. This is also partly the reason why royalty is often associated with conservatism, it is a combination of hierarchy, and the royal family often being the embodiment of the family as an institution. Thus, conservatism has a much more classical world-view, often a combination of Christian heritage and Greco-Roman philosophical ideas. Marxists in particular often dilute this by making remarks that Jesus was a socialist when, in reality, Jesus was a monarchist, he wanted to help the poor, and those who suffered, but often spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and was keen on preserving sacred institutions, such as the Temple in Jerusalem. Certain left-wing movements are aligned to this as well, particularly that of Dorothy Day, which are socially traditional, but fought for workers rights, although they are a minority. You'd be hard pressed to find an anti-abortion liberal these days.

I can say this with confidence considering how the right-wing in Canada was generally fragmented, it wasn't really until Harper that it was united. What Harper managed to do was unite the conservatives (the traditional world-view) with the neoliberals (low taxes, socially liberal).

In the USA, this unification of neoliberals and conservatives occurred much earlier, back under the Regan years (1970s-1980s). The consequence of Harper is that today the CPC is more aligned with the Republicans than it did in the past, due to the conservatives (in the traditional sense) making up a significant portion of the CPC, whereas in the past, particularly during Mulroney era, it was predominantly neoliberal.

Furthermore, what essentially occurred post-World War II was that neoliberals diluted the conservative movements. Conservatism was never opposed to social welfare, in fact many of the earlier social welfare movements were Christian by nature. It was when Marxism spread throughout the world that there was a dichotomy between social welfare and conservatism, but in principle conservatism does not oppose welfare. Edmund Burke, and Joseph de Maistre, the fathers of conservatism, did not oppose welfare, conservatism was a reaction to the idea that a country should be governed purely by liberal rationalism, and that in fact traditional hierarchies (i.e. faith, nobility) are beneficial as a form of constraint from unbridled rationality that can rationalise any behaviour.

This is the reason why I don't consider the Democrats to be conservative in any sense, at least not in the last 30 years. There is nothing about them that is remotely conservative in the traditional sense. They are centre-right on economic policies, but they are socially, and culturally, liberal.

You are correct that the CPC is closer to the Democrats, at least in terms of social spending. However, culturally, the CPC is closer to the Republicans. That is what should matter the most, because the essence of conservatism is tradition. Right-wing cultural discussions in the USA are parallel to that of Canada, it is on social spending that there is a difference.

First and foremost those of the earlier generation of Canadian conservatives appear to have had a poor definition of conservatism, and often equated it with private property laws. When, in truth, conservatism has always been about conservation of tradition, since the French Revolution. Private property is a component of this, but it also includes the preservation of traditional cultural institutions, religious institutions, and often centred on the family as the primary institution. This is also partly the reason why royalty is often associated with conservatism, it is a combination of hierarchy, and the royal family often being the embodiment of the family as an institution. Thus, conservatism has a much more classical world-view, often a combination of Christian heritage and Greco-Roman philosophical ideas. Marxists in particular often dilute this by making remarks that Jesus was a socialist when, in reality, Jesus was a monarchist, he wanted to help the poor, and those who suffered, but often spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and was keen on preserving sacred institutions, such as the Temple in Jerusalem. Certain left-wing movements are aligned to this as well, particularly that of Dorothy Day, which are socially traditional, but fought for workers rights, although they are a minority. You'd be hard pressed to find an anti-abortion liberal these days.

I can say this with confidence considering how the right-wing in Canada was generally fragmented, it wasn't really until Harper that it was united. What Harper managed to do was unite the conservatives (the traditional world-view) with the neoliberals (low taxes, socially liberal).

In the USA, this unification of neoliberals and conservatives occurred much earlier, back under the Regan years (1970s-1980s). The consequence of Harper is that today the CPC is more aligned with the Republicans than it did in the past, due to the conservatives (in the traditional sense) making up a significant portion of the CPC, whereas in the past, particularly during Mulroney era, it was predominantly neoliberal.

Furthermore, what essentially occurred post-World War II was that neoliberals diluted the conservative movements. Conservatism was never opposed to social welfare, in fact many of the earlier social welfare movements were Christian by nature. It was when Marxism spread throughout the world that there was a dichotomy between social welfare and conservatism, but in principle conservatism does not oppose welfare. Edmund Burke, and Joseph de Maistre, the fathers of conservatism, did not oppose welfare, conservatism was a reaction to the idea that a country should be governed purely by liberal rationalism, and that in fact traditional hierarchies (i.e. faith, nobility) are beneficial as a form of constraint from unbridled rationality that can rationalise any behaviour.

You are correct that the CPC is closer to the Democrats, at least in terms of social spending. However, culturally, the CPC is closer to the Republicans. That is what should matter the most, because the essence of conservatism is tradition. Right-wing cultural discussions in the USA are parallel to that of Canada, it is on social spending that there is a difference.

First and foremost those of the earlier generation of Canadian conservatives appear to have had a poor definition of conservatism, and often equated it with private property laws. When, in truth, conservatism has always been about conservation of tradition, since the French Revolution. Private property is a component of this, but it also includes the preservation of traditional cultural institutions, religious institutions, and often centred on the family as the primary institution. This is also partly the reason why royalty is often associated with conservatism, it is a combination of hierarchy, and the royal family often being the embodiment of the family as an institution. Thus, conservatism has a much more classical world-view, often a combination of Christian heritage and Greco-Roman philosophical ideas. Marxists in particular often dilute this by making remarks that Jesus was a socialist when, in reality, Jesus was a monarchist, he wanted to help the poor, and those who suffered, but often spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and was the keen on preserving sacred institutions, such as the Temple in Jerusalem.

I can say this with confidence considering how the right-wing in Canada was generally fragmented, it wasn't really until Harper that it was united. What Harper managed to do was unite the conservatives (the traditional world-view) with the neoliberals (low taxes, socially liberal).

In the USA, this unification of neoliberals and conservatives occurred much earlier, back under the Regan years (1970s-1980s). The consequence of Harper is that today the CPC is more aligned with the Republicans than it did in the past, due to the conservatives (in the traditional sense) making up a significant portion of the CPC, whereas in the past, particularly during Mulroney era, it was predominantly neoliberal.

Furthermore, what essentially occurred post-World War II was that neoliberals diluted the conservative movements. Conservatism was never opposed to social welfare, in fact many of the earlier social welfare movements were Christian by nature. It was when Marxism spread throughout the world that there was a dichotomy between social welfare and conservatism, but in principle conservatism does not oppose welfare. Edmund Burke, and Joseph de Maistre, the fathers of conservatism, did not oppose welfare, conservatism was a reaction to the idea that a country should be governed purely by liberal rationalism, and that in fact traditional hierarchies (i.e. faith, nobility) are beneficial as a form of constraint from unbridled rationality that can rationalise any behaviour.

You are correct that the CPC is closer to the Democrats, at least in terms of social spending. However, culturally, the CPC is closer to the Republicans. That is what should matter the most, because the essence of conservatism is tradition. Right-wing cultural discussions in the USA are parallel to that of Canada, it is on social spending that there is a difference.

First and foremost those of the earlier generation of Canadian conservatives appear to have had a poor definition of conservatism, and often equated it with private property laws. When, in truth, conservatism has always been about conservation of tradition, since the French Revolution. Private property is a component of this, but it also includes the preservation of traditional cultural institutions, religious institutions, and often centred on the family as the primary institution. This is also partly the reason why royalty is often associated with conservatism, it is a combination of hierarchy, and the royal family often being the embodiment of the family as an institution. Thus, conservatism has a much more classical world-view, often a combination of Christian heritage and Greco-Roman philosophical ideas. Marxists in particular often dilute this by making remarks that Jesus was a socialist when, in reality, Jesus was a monarchist, he wanted to help the poor, and those who suffered, but often spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and was the keen on preserving sacred institutions, such as the Temple in Jerusalem.

I can say this with confidence considering how the right-wing in Canada was generally fragmented, it wasn't really until Harper that it was united. What Harper managed to do was unite the conservatives (the traditional world-view) with the neoliberals (low taxes, socially liberal).

In the USA, this unification of neoliberals and conservatives occurred much earlier, back under the Regan years (1970s-1980s). The consequence of Harper is that today the CPC is more aligned with the Republicans than it did in the past, due to the conservatives (in the traditional sense) making up a significant portion of the CPC, whereas in the past, particularly during Mulroney era, it was predominantly neoliberal.

Furthermore, what essentially occurred post-World War II was that neoliberals diluted the conservative movements. Conservatism was never opposed to social welfare, in fact many of the earlier social welfare movements were Christian by nature. It was when Marxism spread throughout the world that there was a dichotomy between social welfare and conservatism, but in principle conservatism does not oppose welfare. Edmund Burke, and Joseph de Maistre, the fathers of conservatism, did not oppose welfare.

You are correct that the CPC is closer to the Democrats, at least in terms of social spending. However, culturally, the CPC is closer to the Republicans. That is what should matter the most, because the essence of conservatism is tradition. Right-wing cultural discussions in the USA are parallel to that of Canada, it is on social spending that there is a difference.

First and foremost those of the earlier generation of Canadian conservatives appear to have had a poor definition of conservatism, and often equated it with private property laws. When, in truth, conservatism has always been about conservation of tradition, since the French Revolution. Private property is a component of this, but it also includes the preservation of traditional cultural institutions, religious institutions, and often centred on the family as the primary institution. This is also partly the reason why royalty is often associated with conservatism, it is a combination of hierarchy, and the royal family often being the embodiment of the family as an institution. Thus, conservatism has a much more classical world-view, often a combination of Christian heritage and Greco-Roman philosophical ideas. Marxists in particular often dilute this by making remarks that Jesus was a socialist when, in reality, Jesus was a monarchist, he wanted to help the poor, and those who suffered, but often spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and was the keen on preserving sacred institutions, such as the Temple in Jerusalem.

I can say this with confidence considering how the right-wing in Canada was generally fragmented, it wasn't really until Harper that it was united. What Harper managed to do was unite the conservatives (the traditional world-view) with the neoliberals (low taxes, socially liberal).

In the USA, this unification of neoliberals and conservatives occurred much earlier, back under the Regan years (1970s-1980s). The consequence of Harper is that today the CPC is more aligned with the Republicans than it did in the past, due to the conservatives (in the traditional sense) making up a significant portion of the CPC, whereas in the past, particularly during Mulroney era, it was predominantly neoliberal.

Furthermore, what essentially occurred post-World War II was that neoliberals diluted the conservative movements. Conservatism was never opposed to social welfare, in fact many of the earlier social welfare movements were Christian by nature. It was when Marxism spread throughout the world that there was a dichotomy between social welfare and conservatism, but in principle conservatism does not oppose welfare.

You are correct that the CPC is closer to the Democrats, at least in terms of social spending. However, culturally, the CPC is closer to the Republicans. That is what should matter the most, because the essence of conservatism is tradition. Right-wing cultural discussions in the USA are parallel to that of Canada, it is on social spending that there is a difference.

First and foremost those of the earlier generation of Canadian conservatives appear to have had a poor definition of conservatism, and often equated it with private property laws. When, in truth, conservatism has always been about conservation of tradition, since the French Revolution. Private property is a component of this, but it also includes the preservation of traditional cultural institutions, religious institutions, and often centred on the family as the primary institution. This is also partly the reason why royalty is often associated with conservatism, is is a combination of hierarchy, and the royal family often being the embodiment of the family as an institution. Thus, conservatism has a much more classical world-view, often a combination of Christian heritage and Greco-Roman philosophical ideas.

I can say this with confidence considering how the right-wing in Canada was generally fragmented, it wasn't really until Harper that it was united. What Harper managed to do was unite the conservatives (the traditional world-view) with the neoliberals (low taxes, socially liberal).

In the USA, this unification of neoliberals and conservatives occurred much earlier, back under the Regan years (1970s-1980s). The consequence of Harper is that today the CPC is more aligned with the Republicans than it did in the past, due to the conservatives (in the traditional sense) making up a significant portion of the CPC, whereas in the past, particularly during Mulroney era, it was predominantly neoliberal.

Furthermore, what essentially occurred post-World War II was that neoliberals diluted the conservative movements. Conservatism was never opposed to social welfare, in fact many of the earlier social welfare movements were Christian by nature. It was when Marxism spread throughout the world that there was a dichotomy between social welfare and conservatism, but in principle conservatism does not oppose welfare.

You are correct that the CPC is closer to the Democrats, at least in terms of social spending. However, culturally, the CPC is closer to the Republicans. That is what should matter the most, because the essence of conservatism is tradition. Right-wing cultural discussions in the USA are parallel to that of Canada, it is on social spending that there is a difference.

First and foremost those of the earlier generation of Canadian conservatives appear to have had a poor definition of conservatism, and often equated it with private property laws. When, in truth, conservatism has always been about conservation of tradition, since the French Revolution.

I can say this with confidence considering how the right-wing in Canada was generally fragmented, it wasn't really until Harper that it was united. What Harper managed to do was unite the conservatives (the traditional world-view) with the neoliberals (low taxes, socially liberal).

In the USA, this unification of neoliberals and conservatives occurred much earlier, back under the Regan years (1970s-1980s). The consequence of Harper is that today the CPC is more aligned with the Republicans than it did in the past, due to the conservatives (in the traditional sense) making up a significant portion of the CPC, whereas in the past, particularly during Mulroney era, it was predominantly neoliberal.

Furthermore, what essentially occurred post-World War II was that neoliberals diluted the conservative movements. Conservatism was never opposed to social welfare, in fact many of the earlier social welfare movements were Christian by nature. It was when Marxism spread throughout the world that there was a dichotomy between social welfare and conservatism, but in principle conservatism does not oppose welfare.

You are correct that the CPC is closer to the Democrats, at least socially. However, culturally, the CPC is closer to the Republicans. That is what should matter the most, because the essence of conservatism is tradition. Right-wing cultural discussions in the USA are parallel to that of Canada, it is on social issues that there is a difference.

First and foremost those of the earlier generation of Canadian conservatives appear to have had a poor definition of conservatism, and often equated it with private property laws. When, in truth, conservatism has always been about conservation of tradition, since the French Revolution.

I can say this with confidence considering how the right-wing in Canada was generally fragmented, it wasn't really until Harper that it was united. What Harper managed to do was unite the conservatives (the traditional world-view) with the neoliberals (low taxes, socially liberal).

In the USA, this unification of neoliberals and conservatives occurred much earlier, back under the Regan years (1970s-1980s). The consequence of Harper is that today the CPC is more aligned with the Republicans than it did in the past, due to the conservatives (in the traditional sense) making up a significant portion of the CPC, whereas in the past, particularly during Mulroney era, it was predominantly neoliberal.

Furthermore, what essentially occurred post-World War II was that neoliberals diluted the conservative movements. Conservatism was never opposed to social welfare, in fact many of the earlier social welfare movements were Christian by nature. It was when Marxism spread throughout the world that there was a dichotomy between social welfare and conservatism, but in principle conservatism does not oppose welfare.

You are correct that the CPC is closer to the Democrats, at least socially.

However, culturally, the CPC is closer to the Repulicans. That is what should matter the most, because the essence of conservatism is tradition.

First and foremost those of the earlier generation of Canadian conservatives had a poor definition of conservatism, and often equated it with private property laws. When, in truth, conservatism has always been about conservation of tradition, since the French Revolution.