LondonLady at FreeDominion posted the latest email from Tristan Emmanuel:
On the surface these arguments reveal a cycle of cynicism that is so deeply entrenched among social conservatives that it threatens to paralyze the movement. In my latest book, Warned: Canada's Revolution Against Faith, Family and Freedom Threatens America, I warn Canadian socons about the dangers of institutional cynicism. Cynicism among socons in my estimation eats away at our prospects for future victory because it stops us from accepting that change doesn't happen all at once, but incrementally. Cynicism also expects the worst from all conservative politicians because the party has to be corrupt since it is not theologically or ideologically "pure enough." And worst of all, cynicism causes us to war among ourselves because we believe everyone is only out for themselves. That's why we don't effectively network with each other; we don't want to be seen as building anyone's empire.
I see this firsthand. I go to Campaign Life meetings, and I say how things are looking up, and the old hands look at me like I am nuts. I see all the things happening: how there are more so-con voices out there, if only on the internet. I see how people are converted to the fetal rights position (or a more pro-life position) simply by seeing the facts about abortion and the unborn child.
Another thing I would add is: maybe we should also stop relying too heavily on one group-- Campaign Life-- to fight all our fetal rights battles.
CLC and its supporters has promoted the non-partisan approach for decades.
In a way, their hands are tied, and that's the way they must operate, because they're a lobby group, and a lobby group can't be seen as being partisan.
However, I see the need for more groups to come to the fore to handle more issues, and maybe give CLC a hand. For instance, there needs to be a pro-life group in this country that tells pro-lifers how to vote in the most strategic fashion possible, to get the best possible result, on a riding-by-riding basis. In my riding, I have to vote Conservative even if they run a dead rat, because my riding has gone Liberal since even before my dad was born (no joke!).
But perhaps it would be a good idea to have a group that would do all the calculations to tell pro-lifers: according to our calculations, pro-lifers in Ottawa-South should vote X, pro-life voters in Outremont should vote Y and if the election goes as we expect, we should get X pro-lifers, Y pro-aborts and Z unknowns. The pro-life strategy would not be based purely on ideology, but on projected outcome, so that maybe a vote for John Baird, who's cut funding to SOW and CCP might be a more sensible than a vote for Joe Candidate from the CHP, who 101% pro-life. Defeating the NDP might be a more sensible option than voting for a no-hope candidate. And if all three candidates from the major parties are hopeless, then recommend the fringe candidate.
I also think it might be good if we had lobbies for "micro" issues. CLC does EVERYTHING. In fact, most so-con groups take on a whole host of issues that make them sort of all over the place.
Maybe it might be useful if we had one group for embryonic stem cell research, one group for fetal victims of crime, one group for late-term abortions (that might include pro-aborts!).
We have to start doing things differently, and I sense we are.
But socons need to be more resolute and dedicated to a strategy of results rather then posturing about who is the more theoretically pure. We need to be willing to help those who are helping us. And in my books that means, at least for the present, helping Harper.
I think this is generally more sensible. Some of the pro-life Liberals haven't been very pro-life in the past. Or very so-con.
People should have to compete for OUR votes.
Check out the Big Blue Wave Message Board
