"National Review" hearts your PM

[lucknow]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But none of this unless I am wrong has been instituted by Stephen Harper's government. Every government inherits the "furniture" that was there before. Just because they don't chuck it to the curb doesn't mean that's what they would put in place if they started with a clean slate.

And this is where the debate gets interesting: if Canada and the US were clean slates, what would Obama's United States and Harper's Canada look like?

Well, the decision the Conservatives made on Potash corp. is about as liberal as it gets. Harpers main mission is to get re elected and little else matters too much.

[Stubblejumper]

Originally Posted by lucknow

Well, the decision the Conservatives made on Potash corp. is about as liberal as it gets. Harpers main mission is to get re elected and little else matters too much.

Your applying that standard to one but not the other. To be sure, Stephen Harper has compromised his ideology in order to retain power, but it's naive to think that Barack Obama hasn't done exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by Acajack

But none of this unless I am wrong has been instituted by Stephen Harper's government. Every government inherits the "furniture" that was there before. Just because they don't chuck it to the curb doesn't mean that's what they would put in place if they started with a clean slate.

And this is where the debate gets interesting: if Canada and the US were clean slates, what would Obama's United States and Harper's Canada look like?

To elaborate on that a little bit:

It's worth looking at both leaders in terms of what they've done with the framework they've been given, their activities outside of politics as well as their previous speeches and writings in which their ideologies are laid out.

It's also an interesting exercise to imagine what they would do in each others places. How would Stephen Harper vote as a member of the US Congress? Barack Obama as a Canadian MP?

[weltschmerz]

You could say so. He is a "conservative", so he can be said to be in favour of conserving certain things the way they are.

That certainly doesn't apply to the environment.

[BIMBAM]

Originally Posted by weltschmerz

That certainly doesn't apply to the environment.

Also, democratic principles.

[Zoisite]

Originally Posted by Mouldy Old Schmo

I was surprised Harper re-introduced the adjective "Royal" to the name of your armed forces. Is he a big fan of the British royal family?

Anything that has the title "Royal" means that it serves the monarch and the monarchy. Re-introducing the title "Royal" to the Canadian armed forces would not have been Harper's decision alone, it would've had to have final approval from the monarch of Canada as well. In Canada there are a lot of things and organizations that start with the title "royal" - they all have to be vetted and get final approval from our monarch to be deserving of having that title to indicate they serve the monarch.

I don't know if Harper is a fan of the British royal family per se but I think he is a fan of the Canadian monarchy and is a traditionalist in acknowledging that Canada is a monarchy and that our monarch, the Queen of Canada, is a Canadian citizen even if other members of her direct family living in the UK are not.

.