My fellow columnist, Nathan Giede, has written about what it is to be a conservative - or maybe I should say Conservative - in recent weeks.
I find his discussion interesting. But I also find it peculiar for a conservative that believes "while society can progress, people are imperfect and imperfectable" to offer up the perfect solution for municipal elections.
After all, the hallmark of the conservative ideology is maintaining of the status quo. This is not to say that conservatives don't think that things should change. They just think that should be a good reason. And change should only happen slowly.
At least that is what I get from reading conservative pundits and talking with conservative colleagues (yes, there are conservatives at the university.)
But the big C Conservatives are not about maintaining the status quo. They would like to change the structure of Canadian society. Everything from prostitution laws to economic progress seem to be up for grabs.
Slap a coat of paint on everything because it is time to change.
So, maybe Mr. Giede is really a "Conservative" with his recent call to change the local electoral system. Or maybe not.
In any case, the first point in his argument about conservatives is the idea that "conservatives believe in a moral order." This idea pervades much of the discussion of conservatism by conservative pundits and think tanks.
There is a right and a wrong. Good and an evil exist. It is the fear of retribution for performing evil that keeps society in line.
I have often confronted people that say something like "it is only fear of eternal punishment that keeps people from breaking the law".
That is a sad view of things. Whether or not an afterlife exists should not be the only reason that someone does the right thing.
A belief, though, in absolute good and evil does beg the question: "Can you do evil in the name of good?"
I wonder about the moral conundrum that our leaders must face. If you truly believe that there are moral absolutes, then the Christian Bible proclaims, Thou shall not kill. Indeed, all of the major religious texts have some equivalent prohibition against the taking of a life.
In every case, there really isn't a lot of weasel room with such an order. It is not Thou shall not kill unless it is Monday or Thou shall not kill if someone is looking. It is Thou shall not kill, period.
So how does a conservative reconcile this command with declaring war? Our fearless leader has once again declared that we will partake of the coalition of the willing and go to war alongside our NATO allies against ISIS.
But Thou shall not kill says that it is wrong to kill. We shouldn't kill the members of ISIS. They are people. How do you wage war in a structure of moral absolutes?
Or maybe it is not moral absolutes. Could it be Thou shall not kill unless the people that you are killing belong to a different religion? Or Thou shall not kill unless the people that you are killing have committed heinous acts?
Being part of the military action against ISIS is part of what we must do as a country.
But it is hard to see how this turns out for the better. ISIS is social movement and as such has the backing of the people involved. Some ISIS insiders would likely say that they are revolutionaries.
(The most powerful country in the world - the United States - was created by revolution in the first place. I think that is something that is often overlooked south of the border.)
The difficulty lies in having moral absolutes. Do I think the murderers in ISIS should be punished? Absolutely.
Do I think that what ISIS is doing is wrong? You bet.
Do I think that some people are going to die in the upcoming conflict?
Yes. Am I happy about that? No, but I do think that it is necessary to maintain the present structure of modern society.
But I also don't have the finely honed moral compass of the conservatives. There are no moral absolutes. There is just the pragmatic solution.
This brings us to the question of whether or not Prime Minister Harper is a "conservative". I certainly think that some of his views harken to a time of greater moral certainty. But I also think that he is willing to bend morality when he sees fit.
This is why he is a Conservative, with an emphasis on the big C. Change, moral ambiguity, suspension of democratic freedom, and seizure of private property are all possible under a big C.
We are an imperfect people and we sometimes do things that are wrong for the right reasons.
