scary

Does Stephen Harper scare you?

That's the question asked by this poll, which wmtc brings you via ALPF.

While not a majority, a significant number of Canadians replied "yes" to the questions "Would you say that Stephen HarperÂ’s position on social issues such as abortion, the death penalty, and same-sex marriage scares you or not?" and "Would you say Stephen HarperÂ’s pro-American position scares you or not?". In this survey, more Canadians were scared by Harper's pro-American stance than his position on social issues.

In WorldNetDaily - which isn't as loopy as it first looks, though obviously not my own editorial slant - Ted Byfield gives his take on why Canadians fear conservatives. In a word: religiosity.

. . . what price for all this conduct can the Liberal party expect to pay in an election?

The answer, according to the first poll made since the party survived a crucial parliamentary division by a single-vote margin nine days ago, is no price at all. Liberal support has not been reduced by a single percentage point, a Leger Marketing poll found. If the election were held tomorrow, 38 percent of Canadians would vote Liberal, only 27 percent Conservative.

Their reason for shunning the Conservatives, however, was a telling one. Was it Conservative leader Stephen Harper, the pollsters asked? Not at all, came the reply – the electorate think Harper has far greater integrity than Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin. It's the Conservative Party as a whole they don't trust. They suspect and fear its "social" policies.

By this, of course, they meant the Christian influence. . .

Byfield notes that the in Canada, the "religious divide is also a geographic divide", as "the party which 38% of Canadians fear and distrust draws about three-quarters of its numerical support from the four western provinces." Then he seems to makeveiledled threat of Western secession/revolt/radical change:

If the Conservatives want to form a government, the Globe and Mail endlessly lectures, they will have to suppress and silence their "socially conservative" wing. That is, the Conservative Party can only be elected if on social issues it becomes identical with the Liberal Party.

A rather large assumption is implicit in this line of argument – the assumption that if people are made to choose between their country and their faith, they will naturally choose their country. The Globe and Mail could be mistaken about that.

Full column here. (Thanks ALPF.)

Feel free to discuss. I will be among the ancient Phoenicians.