How To Defeat The NDP: Demand Their Constitution Be Made Public

How is a 'political opinion' established, then passed into law?
Is it based on 'what is right' and 'what is wrong'?
Is it based on 'popular majority, regardless of right and wrong'?
Is it based on a Deity saying something, and the people follow the code of the higher being(s)?

When the left strongly advocates for something, what presupposes their position? I.E, what under girds and makes it true, just or right?  The Conservative Constitution is public.

Is it, "this is what is right?"  If so, according to what or who?  Their opinion? Their hearts? The consensus of Canadian values?"


Perhaps we should discuss opinions on what is popular and not what is right or wrong.  If this sounds silly, then where is the NDP Constitution?

I find it striking that something by Mr. Layton can be said with such passion and conviction, but so little supporting core principles where others can learn just how his views are upheld.  I know his voter base are not anti-intellectuals and would appreciate seeing the constitution so they can base an argument on something besides raw hysteria, emotion or 'surface logic'.  Let's get the constitutions public.
I trust there is no hidden agenda, nor anything that will scare off millions of voters, uh...right?

The 'logic' the NDP are presenting to Canadians is "you can strongly and passionately advocate your views (at the Federal level) without defending/showing a core set of guiding principles".  From this, it follows, you don't need 'core principles' to have Mr. Layton's passion to argue positions (by default of him not apologizing for negligently not showing them).   If Mr. Layton does not need so show core principles, then it's not about 'what is right', rather its about what is popular.  Therefore, he cannot argue for his positions, or against others positions on axiomatic moral grounds (because they are not shared to argue from!).

When Mr. Layton attacks other party values, he is 'throwing stones at a glass house' until he presents his party Constitution.



My opinion on this matter is open and not firm.

(A note to people considering commenting: thank you for all the comments, even the ones that disagree with me.  This blog is not 'inspire you to agree', but inspire you to think.  So, if I make a point, try to find the problem with the logic and argue against it directly.  Not liking something and making a wild jump to an incredible conclusion based on nothing I said is permissible, but not advisable.  I would love for awesome debate, but please continue to develop and make it relevant to the flaws/problems with my said 'logic'.  I do not claim to be correct on all matters as I am open and willing to learn.  Thank you)

Morals and Progress



The left has scolded and we have rolled over like lame ducks




Why do we 'separate' moral values from politics these days?
I get pluralism and tolerance, but why not 'include' morals and values in our tolerant pluralist discourse?

Anti-intellectualism is one reason that comes to my mind.

Overall, we conservatives are really passive and wimpy when it comes to publicly standing on our morals.

We almost apologize for our morals and hide them. In politics, the conservative politicians literally form their answers to avoid mentioning the word morals and replace it with 'values' and 'laws'.  Values can 'conflict' without passing judgment.  For example, "well, you like to work, make money and keep it.  Good for you.  I respect your values but think you should give it all away to the government.  That's my value."  You can oppose views without any moral "ought" that otherwise would transcend an individual opinion. (I shutter to think if we ever had a debate that the individual is not God and their opinion is not the center of reality) 
Morals on the other hand 'imposes' a moral imperative on others; meaning "A" is right and "B" is wrong. Therefore do "A".  This does not sit well with the 'left' in Canada.
 
The left have kicked our butts and silenced us from sharing our morals without massive reprisal. We conservatives should admit they 'got us' on this matter (for now).    We are silent pansies tip toeing around each issue: least we are called a whole bunch of names.
Before we spout 'morals' and change the world, I think there needs to be a debate outlining that there is nothing logically wrong with introducing morals into political debates...especially if our goal is to strengthen families.

Secondly, we need to silence the left particularly in the area of their claim we are something bad or wrong if we determine something is a moral issue.  On what 'moral authority' does the left think they stand sovereign over us and instruct us on what our thinking is?  I blog and say something is 'immoral'...what's the big deal?  The very act of the left 'condemning' my "intolerance" is a moral imperative they are imposing on me.  They say, "thou shall not impose your morals on me"...which ironically is a moral judgment in and of itself.

That is hypocrisy.  I say enough.

Step 1. Dismantle the lefts bogus straw man argument: 'avoid morals and use words like values and laws'
Step 2. Be free and debate your morals without fear
Step 3. Live them out by loving others
Love is not based on agreement, so love your neighbour, both on your right and left.