I am still somewhat embroiled in the Battle of Tipping Point, but I would like to preserve on my own blog this particular exchange between me and The Monarchist on his blog, in fact on Walsingham's post. (It should be noted, carefully, that the eponymous Monarchist and Walsingham are two different people. Some people, including myself, originally failed to notice this. Walsingham continues to proclaim loudly his desire not to read my writing even as he has responded to me.)
UPDATE: Walsingham has changed his mind, and he is responding to me, and I will <i>try</i> to get an answer to him tomorrow.
In this response, I use the issue of same-sex marriage as a a case in point to show the weakness of the Reformatories in their failure to grasp the true nature of the difficulties that they are in. They have a long series of blind spots including that one, ones that are quite obvious to me and probably most of my readership, prevent them from addressing the roots of their failure to obtain any long-term traction. Or perhaps these aren't blind spots: they are a result of being rooted in the Reform Party's Alberta base, ultimately, and being unable to extend outward from there, as evidenced by such things as Belinda Stronach's departure.
In any case, it is unfortunate for Canada that it is not up to the task. As I noted before, it impedes the growth of the party I favour as well.
The Monarchist: The Tipping Point - Part II: The most galling presumption in politics today is the attitude that other parties have to "prove" their ability to be a "national alternative", while the Liberals, regardless of their appalling lack of morality, regardless of the extent of their corruption and misconduct, regardless of their own mediocrity, regardless of their regional dependency on Ontario; don't have to prove a bloody thing."
The "proof" demanded is simply a set of policies that a majority of voters in a majority of ridings can accept, AND the belief that the adoption of these policies is halfway genuine and not a mask for ideologies that people reject.
Let me give you a case in point: SSM. Like it or not, there are people in this country who view it as a matter of civil rights, not a matter to be thrown to the whim of the majority. The CPC position has been even until now, somewhat, um, negative on the issue. So what are these people supposed to do: choose a party that allegedly promises purity but does not accept their position on their civil rights? Or live with a corrupt party that gives a half-way decent chance of recognizing their rights and passing the SSM bill?
Of course, you can say, "vote for the NDP!" But it isn't so easy: if a vote for the NDP means that (assuming the SSM bill is pushed until after an election) a CPC government will come to power, then it would be that much harder to pass the SSM bill.
This is but a single case. There are many other slices. That you aren't willing to address these questions is precisely why the Liberals are easily able to peel away sections of the electorate. That you believe that corruption is the worst possible fate betrays a lack of imagination. You cannot dismiss such "special interest groups". Special interest groups, all together, are the electorate. And they will keep defeating the CPC.