Three Essays I Had to Write

Essay #1: Who is the political figure you admire most and why?
The most underrated politician of the last century, and the one that I admire most, is Republican stalwart Barry Goldwater. His attitudes of responsibility, opportunity, and hard work led to his long tenure as an Arizona Senator. As the Republican presidential nominee in 1964, he eventually lost in a disastrous landslide to Lyndon Johnston. However, Goldwater continued on as a redoubtable figure in the Senate, staunchly defending his values as laid out in his seminal work The Conscience of a Conservative. Goldwater’s courage in the face of great opposition, and his refusal to compromise and pander for political gain, led to his status as an influential figure in the conservative revival of the late 20th Century. Goldwater’s values are relevant and still have a measurable impact.
Goldwater stood for individual freedom and saw the government’s major role as ensuring the liberty of its citizens, which included the lowering or elimination of taxes and stripping of any extraneous responsibilities. As well, Goldwater was an avid anti-Communist, leading the radical right in the United States against socialist influences, and calling for drastic measures against the encroachment of the Soviet Union upon the world. Goldwater influenced the direction of conservatism by uniting radical anti-socialists, a renewed conservative youth wing, businessmen, and disillusioned Republicans. Big government still held great popularity in the 1960s, riding the wave of the New Deal, and centrist Republicans such as Eisenhower who increased the role of government by both expanding government programs and raising taxes. Goldwater acted as the conscience of the reactionary movement against massive, powerful unions, and an intrusive federal government. He spoke for those that valued the powers, freedoms, and responsibilities of the individual above all, and of self-determination away from a meddling central government. As he inspired those sick of a burgeoning welfare state, Goldwater rose swiftly to become a charismatic and popular foil to John F. Kennedy.
Unfortunately, his strong and uncompromising message, as well as the vocal radically conservative wing that followed him, polarized Goldwater’s opposition. The 1964 election ended with the victory of the Democrats, who brilliantly used negative campaigning to paint Goldwater as a maniacal war-hawk and enemy of the welfare state. Republicans were decimated in 1964, but the seeds had been planted. His inspiring works created a legion of motivated followers that became the conservatives who elected Ronald Reagan in 1980, and took back Congress in 1994 with Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. In the 1980s, Goldwater was not afraid of conflict with Republicans either, as he battled the rise of the religious right during this decade, correctly interpreting their views as ones that would strip away personal liberties. In contrast to past governments run rampant in the form of the Canadian welfare state, the relevance that Goldwater holds today is to the continuing struggle to ensure freedom through reducing the sweeping and insidious influence of the Federal government. Barry Goldwater dedicated his life to this admirable toil, with staunch courage and clarity in the face of all opposition.



Essay #2: Please name a book or piece of writing that has influenced or challenged your political ideology and describe how it shaped your views.

Abraham Lincoln chose to be called conservative- one who would conserve and protect the best of the past and apply the wisdom of the ages to the problems of the future.
-Barry Goldwater

George Orwell’s 1984 is a novel that has shaped my life and views, and it still holds great relevance to the present conservative movement. As both a student of history and a proud conservative, 1984 acts as an adhesive that binds these ideological institutions together. 1984 raises several main themes including: the integral importance of analyzing and learning from history, the threat of government control, and how history and conservatism can be used to ensure freedom.
Orwell’s work illustrates the dangers of totalitarianism and the importance of personal freedoms to a healthy society. As he most eloquently wrote:
“Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past.”

Using this quotation and the aforementioned one from Goldwater, we see how history, conservatism, and 1984 are intertwined. History proves that the progressive views of defending the liberty and self-determination of a person are the way for a healthy society to flourish. True conservatism, as we learn from history, defines the role of government as defense of its citizen’s freedoms. The “progressive” liberals of the world see the role of the government as taking on greater responsibilities and increasing the tax burden of its citizens. These ill-considered socialist measures, stripping away the independence of a person, are simply the first step towards reaching the level of dreadful totalitarianism and government control that Orwell displays. The basis of the true conservative movement is tied to historical analysis and modern rationality, not to the 19th century thinking that conservatives are archaic churchmen bent on withholding and oppressing. Thus, the role of the true conservative is to learn from history, and defend liberty at all costs.
We understand from history, by studying past societies, that the best change for the future is gradual, using common sense and rational discourse. History itself is a means to an end, a sweeping tale of humanity to analyze, and from which we learn important lessons. Orwell’s chilling and harrowing tale of government run amok shows the peril of not acting conservatively, of thrusting forward without using the lessons of the past and analyzing every context of a decision. True conservatism, for example, is recognizing from a rational analysis of history that a healthy balance between social order and personal liberty is key to a healthy society. The shoddy theocrats of North America that pass themselves off as conservatives attempt to justify the control of people’s lives with religion, all in the name of order. However, those that would impugn conservatism use these latter “conservatives” as examples to slander the real roots of conservatism. These roots maintain that taxes and government programs are a means to strip away liberty. Orwell reinforces the true conservative spirit, and the message of straying away from the gradual path of totalitarianism.



Essay #3: What one policy would you like to see a Conservative government implement?

Though a dry topic, and somewhat played out after the battlegrounds of Meech Lake and Charlottetown, senate reform is still a relevant and important issue for the political health of Canada. A Triple-E Senate (equal, elected, and effective), modeled after the Australian or American Senates, would have numerous positive consequences for Canada. This Triple-E Senate would have equal representation from each province (including lesser representation from the Territories and Native Reserves), a meaningful voice in the passing of bills, and elected senators with term limits. This is in contrast to the current Canadian Senate, a traditional institution based on the British House of Lords. Our Senate has unequal regional representation and Senate tradition frowns on proposing bills. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), and though a bill has to be passed through the Senate, it’s very rare for the Senate to not follow the House of Common’s leash. Thus, the Canadian Senate is an archaic and powerless institution, and in reality, its sole purpose is for patronage appointments, rather than to act as a check on the powers of the lower house and the PMO. A Triple-E Senate would strengthen the Federal government and the bills it passes, help end the plague of patronage, allow for an equal and effective voice for all provinces, and lead the way for further democratic reform in the House of Commons.
Tradition is never an effective justification for any action or decision, and just because something is ‘traditional’ does not mean it is the rational choice. We move on from these infantile arguments that support the current Senate to the many positives of a Triple-E Senate. In a Parliament where there are two separate and elected houses, each with an effective voice in law-making, it means that a bill is looked at from the viewpoint of a supposed representation of the people (the lower house), and a representation of the regions (the upper house). This strengthens the perspective of law-makers and allows for more effective bills, and a stronger check on weak legislation.
Patronage has been ever-present in Canadian politics since the beginning, with a Senate seat as a prime appointment for loyal party workers. By allowing a portion of our legislature to be degraded in such a manner, by disregarding all meritocratic principles in the Senate, we do a great disservice to the Canadian people. Elected senators put an end to Senatorial patronage. As well, the First-Past-the-Post system of the lower house ends up with great discrepancies between the popular vote, the will of the people, and the people’s representation in the House, or how they are represented in law-making. A Senate where every province has an equal voice allows for further reform to the House towards proportional representation, and true democracy. Only by a transition to a Triple-E senate can we ensure the democratic future of this great country, where the Federal government is both strong and accountable to the people.