David Cameron gets it right

It’s rare when a politician, particularly one from a social democracy like Britain, engages in straight talk. But that’s exactly what David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party of Britain, did during a recent speech in Glasgow.

---

Cameron talked about the “moral neutrality” that was eroding Britain’s values, citing the politically correct and morally neutral euphemisms so often used in reference to people in poverty, people who are obese, single teenage mothers or those who generally take no responsibility for their lives. It’s a refreshing and encouraging sign to see a politician so openly talk about a concept as novel as self-reliance. Too bad we do not have politicians in Canada who are prepared to defy the received wisdom of liberalism and offer alternatives to the endless social programs designed to alleviate the squalor of people who are content to have the state lead their lives. The only politician in recent memory who had the moral courage to attempt to reverse the seemingly endless trend toward more and bigger excuses for those living in poverty was Ontario’s Mike Harris. Harris understood the concept of personal responsibility and enacted programs that supported it. He reversed the trend among Ontario’s welfare recipients to create dynasties that were all dependent on the state for their daily bread. For this he was reviled by the establishment of bleeding hearts who were perfectly content to ensure that people lived in poverty forever. Most Canadians are compassionate to a fault, granting all who need help the benefit of the doubt. And most Canadians, except perhaps the obnoxiously vocal inner city NDPers, believe that it is incumbent on individuals to take care of themselves. While the idea that one can pull one’s self up out of poverty through diligence and hard work appears to have lost some legitimacy, it’s nevertheless one of those universal truths that’s hard to escape. Simply put, it’s a matter of cause and effect. If you choose not to be educated or choose not to work or choose to have a baby on your own, then it’s a safe bet that you’ll be poor. Similarly if you are sedentary and prone to overeating, then you’ll get fat. However, liberal apologists like to introduce the concept that if you find yourself as a poverty stricken, obese single mom, it’s through no fault of your own and the nanny state will ensure that you can live a subsistence level lifestyle in perpetuity. There is no alternative, according to those who would keep you poor. As a society we have lost sight of the fact that our actions (or inaction) have consequences. Smokers are reviled for smoking cigarettes, yet in the same vein they are pitied, as society believes they are addicted and incapable of helping themselves. So they need government sponsored smoking cessation programs. Similarly, of late we have recognized “sexual addiction” as a diagnosable illness, rather than the piggish behavior it has always been. It was this tectonic shift in attitudes that enabled Bill Clinton to abrogate responsibility for his bad behavior, after wagging his finger and self-righteously proclaiming that he “...did not have sex with that woman.” For a time I actually held out hope that the Harper government might make a difference with policies and legislative endeavors designed to strengthen the concept of individual responsibility. But alas, that was just a pipe dream on my part, as Harper & Co. no sooner took office than they began adopting all those stale, old Liberal concepts as their own. That’s the thing about courage; Britain’s David Cameron seems to have found the courage to say what needs to be said, while Canadian lawmakers would prefer to continue using the same stale politically correct euphemisms that have created a permanently afflicted under class.