I was talking politics with a friend yesterday and the idea of conservative vs. progressive came up, and I realized that most folks probably don't know the origins of those words, and knowing where the origins of these movements come from is helpful to understand them. (short 🧵)
So after the First French Revolution, France was in a political flux. Napoleon rose to power, and then fell again. In the aftermath, different groups emerged. One group wanted to return to pre-revolution politics. They wanted to restore the deposed King Louis to the throne.
There was another group who wanted to embrace the values of the revolution. They wanted to move society forward under the values of equality and fairness. They were progressives. They sat on the left side (left-wing) of the chamber. The conservatives sat on the right.
The conservatives wanted to restore the king because of a belief that a hierarchical society is right and good. They believed that some people were simply more deserving, or intrinsically more worthwhile than others. The monarchy was a path to sustain that system.
Eventually, the second French Revolution happened, and democracy took root. So the conservatives had to come up with a different plan. And they did. They enforced their hierarchical model of society using ideas like the development of exploitative financial systems and...
suppression of labour power. Even more shamefully, minority groups were (and still are) viewed and treated as a form of underclass, fit only to hold space at the bottom of the pyramid. Instead of enforcing a hierarchical model of society through monarchy and bloodlines,
they did it through economic forces. And that model of society, that works to rank and sort people into winners and losers? That is what we need to break down. Conservatism excludes the underprivileged, by definition. Don't lose sight of that.
The Sask Party is broken. They aren’t even pretending to be functional at this point. They seek only to concentrate the power and wealth in this province into fewer and fewer hands. How did they come to be so broken? I have a theory, and it has to do with Greek Myth. A thread…
The seeds of the development of the Sask Party came in the 1995 election. The PCs, under Bill Boyd, got crushed, taking 5 seats. The Liberals, under Linda Haverstock, took 9. The NDP looked unbeatable. The Liberals and PCs recognized this, and decided to join forces.
The original Sask Party started with 4 PCs and 4 liberals, Not long after, in 1998, they voted Elwin Hermanson their first leader. EH struggled to win elections. He made gains in 1999, taking 25 seats, but lost in 2003 by saying he’d listen to offers to sell Crown Corps.
So, as you can probably imagine, I've been having a a lot more political conversations lately, which has led to me arguing with people with different views than mine. And I've learned a trick. Before engaging in an argument, try to get both parties to make a statement of belief.
Conservatives especially, but not exclusively, take positions of opposition. Think about how they're obsessed with inflation right now, but are offering absolutely no ideas other than "inflation bad." So instead of engaging with their reaction, insist on a statement of belief.
If they suggest not taking action on climate change, ask "Do you believe climate change exists?" or "Do you believe we have to take action on climate change?" It takes away room to quibble about details, and stops them from just parrotting talking points.
When I tell people I teach middle years, they usually react with a mix of shock and concern. But I love my job so much. Middle schoolers are the most creative people in the universe. At present the class has built an elaborate love story between an Optimus Prime action figure
we found on the playground, and a dried-up gluestick. The tale of Optimus and Gluestick is a romance for the ages. They've even made it official, and wear rings. What people don't always understand is, those goofy moments are what sustain you as a teacher. It's the best.
A photo of the happy couple. They couldn't get the ring to stay on Optimus' arm so it's more of a necklace.
Since the SP took power, education in this province has changed dramatically, but also quietly. Most of those changes have come about as a direct result of a massive erosion in funding. How’d it happen? How has the government convinced people this is okay? Join me for a thread…
The SP took power in 2007. What did education funding look like then? Well, it was regional. School Boards set local property tax rates to meet local needs. The Sask Party had a huge problem with this. Because it meant that urban divisions had access to larger pools of funds.
Sask has always had an urban-rural split, which the SP exploited to gain power. Playing on the idea of urban school being much wealthier made them political hay. But, like everything they do, it doesn’t really tell the tale. Urban divisions need more money, for a lot of reasons.
So I wanted to talk a bit about the climate today, and how our government seems to have no interest at all in dealing with it. So I tried to read through the official climate plan, and…hoo boy. It’s a real piece of work. A thread.
When you follow the link, you’re shown the single stupidest chart you’ll see in your entire life. Comparing a small province to the entire global population is intentionally misleading. You’re then treated to a video of Brad Wall talking about the plan.
I know it's an older news release, but not much as changed and Moe has barely talked about the plan. I mean, he promised a new “made in Saskatchewan plan” as soon as possible. In March. So, don't hold your breath.
Since I've started talking more about politics, I've gotten a range of reactions. Some folks think I'm ridiculous for caring about electoral politics, and, fair enough. I used to agree. Then I got more involved in labour and saw how politics puts its stain on everything.
Wanna bargain? The law governs what you can bargain about. Wanna strike? The law governs when, where, and how you can strike. Want a higher salary? The government decides how much food is on the table, then unions argue over scraps.
And there are some folks who will argue that labour laws are made to be broken, and that's fine. But lots of the folks who are in those labour groups have families and responsibilities, and different risk tolerances. Not everyone feels they can take the same stands.