Nation bids farewell to political ideology
July 25, 2010 - 8:26am
Nation bids farewell to political ideology
Canada seems headed to an unending series of minority governments, with the two major parties always hovering about 30 per cent of the vote.
Pretty surface analysis of what is plainly evident to anyone. Contextualized in a format that presumes there is no possible alternate ideology, and mired in the notion that real politics actually happen in the parliamentary politics. In fact, the apparent lack of distinction between the "parities" (actually one party with three factions) in the visible political process, indicates that their is actually a singular ideology that governs the views of all three parties.
Canada is in the grips of a single totalizing ideology based in neo-liberalism.
But despite the problems the picture that accompanies it is dead on the money:
I presume you had family discussions around my teaser question on why there's the proliferation of sex scandals and other personal attacks?
One should note that article was written by a Liberal, which Party was always the most non-ideological.
Ideology gets in the way of the free flow of money. Money is of utmost importance to the inhabitants of Forest Hill and Westmount, who vote for the Liberal Party.
Their millions vote for the highest return, no matter what ideology it is dressed up in.
I presume you had family discussions around my teaser question on why there's the proliferation of sex scandals and other personal attacks?
You mean because they have nothing else to discuss?
Is the entire Liberal Party as oblivious as the writer here?
The social welfare state has been seriously under attack for nearly three decades, by the republican revolutionary right that masquerades as a 'conservative' party. They have absolutely no respect for the traditions and institutions of Canada; they active attack, undermine and dismantle them.
The Liberal Star is one of the few media outlets that might be expected to recognize this, but unfortunately, it seems, all major Canadian mass media is hopelessly compromised and incompetent.
Yes, the writing is a whole mish-mash of crap really. For example, I don't see how there being no clear ideological difference between the Liberals and the NDP, therefore means that they should not form a single party. But... well... I would say the fact that he is a lawyer, as opposed to him being a Liberal, probably has more to do with his ability to argue himself out of the point he just succeeded in making with the scratch of a pen.
But, the point remains, there is no real difference, other than the fact that it is clear that Harper is an authoritarian, whereas everyone else is too disorganized or afraid of their own shadow to have any authority.
The author is happy to re-gurgitate some tired, old pragmatic drivel under the claim of "no ideology". If you want something new in practice, however, ya need something new in theory as well. These "pragmatists" are allergic to theoretical thinking. It hurts their "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" brains. lol.
Just notice how the author circambulates around the whole issue of left/right being connected to social class. At least the milqtoast NDP makes some nods in that direction; even if they won't SAY "working class" they use all sorts of code words to get the idea across.
So he get his 15 minutes of Warholian fame. Time's up.
What boggles my mind is that the NDP is trying at every moment to be holier than the pope, and out-right the center-right, or is it that they are trying to out center, the left of center?
It's hard to tell really. But, if there is one lesson that can be drawn from the tories success, is that you do not actually need anything like a majority mandate to set the national agenda. For 6 straight years the Tories have led the charge while being overtly detested by 64% of the population, by appealing to a very small group of right wingers by sticking to their principles.
By giving itself a distinctly left wing platform, with creative ideas, they could easily pick up a large section of disenchanted left wing voters: quite possibly more than they would lose in the center.
Why it is that the NDP can't figure out that a minority constituency motivated by a clearly principled agenda can shape the course of the country is beyond me. Stephen Harper has proven this fact.
I totally agree. The NDP will never out-centre the Liberals.
By giving itself a distinctly left wing platform, with creative ideas, they could easily pick up a large section of disenchanted left wing voters: quite possibly more than they would lose in the center.
How large is this constituency, do you estimate, specifically? Where are they located across the country? And, who are they voting for now, or do they not vote?
By giving itself a distinctly left wing platform, with creative ideas, they could easily pick up a large section of disenchanted left wing voters: quite possibly more than they would lose in the center.
How large is this constituency, do you estimate, specifically? Where are they located across the country? And, who are they voting for now, or do they not vote?
Cueball is right on. Here's thing OO, the NDP is hovering around 20%. No where near becoming official oppositiion never mind the government, So why not stake out a principled, uncompromising left-of-center platform based on identified values (health care, fair trade, peace, human rights, environmental rights, right to water, etc ...) and see what happens? If support is lost, oh well, return to business as usual. If support is gained, however, maybe we discover Canadians want an actual alternative to the Harper agenda rather than weak tea and soggy sandwiches.
That alternative, however, if it is something more than the "Third Way" blasphemy of War Criminal Tony Blair, would require more than simply the Parliamentary myopia of "vote for me and I'll set you free". And it's doubtful that the NDP wants to play such a mobilizing role in regard to the mass movements needed to enforce any serious alternative.The NDP needs to be PUSHED.
Hence the need for the left to carry out that task.
i agree, it's our own fault we haven't organized around the principles that we supposedly care about. Hell, they did it in Bolivia!
FM, that's wing and a prayer stuff, then, not quantified nor quantifiable. Yet, Cueball stated it as a certainty. Has anyone tried to quantify it? It's not like people aren't looking for winning coalitions. Maybe if the numbers were provably there, you might make some progress.
By giving itself a distinctly left wing platform, with creative ideas, they could easily pick up a large section of disenchanted left wing voters: quite possibly more than they would lose in the center.
Does such a large section of disenchanted left-wingers exist? Probably not. When pollsters make the undecided and/or non-voters choose a party or political identity they feel closest to, the results aren't all that different from what you get for the population as a whole.
I totally agree. The NDP will never out-centre the Liberals.
There is a difference between trying to out-centre the Liberals and trying to be relevant to the lives of people most of whom haven't thought about politics very much.
As author is a rising Liberal Party member (and someone whom I respect personally), his arguments weren't directed at NDP supporters but instead toward Liberals. I don't think he wants an ideological left-right battle between the Liberals and Conservatives in the next election. Most voters will not care about left or right. They will vote for a party that appears competent. I think the author also implies that the Liberal strength is in the centre--not to the left-of-centre. Strategically, I think he is right. Every vote that the Liberals take away from the NDP is no loss to the Conservatives; every vote taken from the Conservatives is a loss.
I think both the Liberals and NDP can challenge the Conservatives on the so-called Conservative strengths of responsible spending and individual rights. The Conservatives are big spenders. Look at the G8/G20 spending. They don't care about individual rights. All those police officers in downtown Toronto meant that individual Canadians were not free to go shopping with their families.
By giving itself a distinctly left wing platform, with creative ideas, they could easily pick up a large section of disenchanted left wing voters: quite possibly more than they would lose in the center.
Does such a large section of disenchanted left-wingers exist? Probably not. When pollsters make the undecided and/or non-voters choose a party or political identity they feel closest to, the results aren't all that different from what you get for the population as a whole.
Why is it necessary to look at politics like soap. You're perspective is to ask, "well, is there an existing market for left values and policies?", when maybe the question ought to be "would Canadians be open to a clearly articulated and powerful alternative to neo-liberalsim or Harper-brand politics?"
You see, it is a different question.
What about the fact that there are already parties to the left of the NDP that contest elections? Why is it that these parties do not provide a good barometer of Canadian 'openness' to a more explicitly left-wing platform?
I just read this opinion and was going to start a thread on it... Guess I don't have to.
Well, never hire this guy as your lawyer. His annalogy of the hockey game, there being only two teams in a game, meaning there should only be two political parties to choose from.Is a joke.
I hate to inform this guy but there are way more then two teams in any league. What, the NHL has how many teams, 40 or something? So is he saying we should have 40+ political parties to choose from?
So then, what is the real reason the Toronto Star published this opinion? Are thebourgeois afraid of something and need to shore up their confidence in banality?
Maybe they do? But we don't know. Has there been a message to the electorate, in recent years, with the amplitude of the NDP, labour, and mainstream left organizations? I don't think so. The challenge to alternative parties, including the Greens, is that they fall for the main stream trap. That is, they present themselves as only marginally different than the status quo. And, in fact, they present the alternative not so much in policy, but in style in opposition to "old style" politics.
The real problem I have with the bourgeois media and its political opinons is the fact that they will not discuss any other form of economics like socialism. It's as if Capitalsim is a fate accomplished and every problem in society is because of human error that is not connected in any way to the economy of life.
They always come to incoherent conclusions. It's a futile endeavor they are on and it always makes them sound so dumb.
For instance, this guy could have just said. All the political parties that we support, (then names the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Bloq and Greens,) are supporters of Capitalism. They only disagree on miner issues (then high lights the disagreements).
How about we declare, right here and now, that when we talk about Left and Right politics, we're really only talking about Capitalist politics?
Left parties would be in favour of Capitalism with heavy restrictions ( i.e. Taxes and regulations on business).
Right parties would be in favour of Capitalism with no restrictions (except of course on your liberties, then it would be full restrictions).
Because quite frankly , that would make way more sense to me then. Also I wouldn't have to waste my time on Canadian politics. I would just be an International Socialist and be done with it. Were Socialsim would be the anti-thesis of Capitalism, not the left of it, not the right of it, not the top or bottom of it. Just something completely different.
Like a different world, were people work because they want to . Not because they want to eat. Were people want to help each other out, not beauce if they don't they won't get paid and thus not be able to feed their families. But because it's the right thing to do and makes you feel good.
I guess I live in a pipe dream? Snoooozzzzzzze.
Why is it necessary to look at politics like soap. You're perspective is to ask, "well, is there an existing market for left values and policies?", when maybe the question ought to be "would Canadians be open to a clearly articulated and powerful alternative to neo-liberalsim or Harper-brand politics?"
You see, it is a different question.
That's the thing, though. It's not as if there's a massive demand for radical left policies, that is to say a large group of people sitting on their hands hoping the NDP would get more socialist. There is such a constituency but it's small and mostly voting NDP anyway. There isn't a huge one for radical right policies either, but what the Conservatives have done well is to marry up that constituency to a larger constituency of people who are more moderate. It can be a fine balancing act - the latest issues over the census and employment equity are attempts to keep the hardcore happy without losing everyone else, but they've done it so far. The plan is to slowly push Canada toward a conservative consensus, not to try to get to Tory paradise in just a couple of terms in office. The left needs to think in a similar way.
Doug:
To me, you sound confused. Most people of Canada are not in favour of Conservative capitalists policies. The reason that the Conservatives are in power is because of the way the bourgeoisie have set up their democracy. It was never a choice of the working class to have Harper lead the country.
If you want to understand why the working class does not, in mass, vote for the NDP, then you would have to look at the history of the NDP.
AT what point in time have the NDP done anything to change Capitalism? How many times has the working class revolted against the bourgeoisie and their capitalist ideology , only to have the NDP turn the protests into a few marginal compromises from the ruling elite?
Social Democracy is a failed reformist program. It does nothing to change the class nature of the Canadian capitalist socio-economic system. In other words, no matter how many reforms you have, the capitalists are still in control. So why vote for the NDP if nothing changes?
The only thing that the ruling elite have done to save themselves thus far, is alow the working class to share in the wealth it creates, through livable wages and wealth redistribution by taxation.
But don't you worry, as world capitalism crumbles because of the USA downward spiral. The Canadian bourgeoisie will be hammering away at our social programs and wages ever more.
What will the answer be from the NDP and the left? More Social Democracy compromising?
Why is it necessary to look at politics like soap. You're perspective is to ask, "well, is there an existing market for left values and policies?", when maybe the question ought to be "would Canadians be open to a clearly articulated and powerful alternative to neo-liberalsim or Harper-brand politics?"
You see, it is a different question.
That's the thing, though. It's not as if there's a massive demand for radical left policies, that is to say a large group of people sitting on their hands hoping the NDP would get more socialist. There is such a constituency but it's small and mostly voting NDP anyway. There isn't a huge one for radical right policies either, but what the Conservatives have done well is to marry up that constituency to a larger constituency of people who are more moderate. It can be a fine balancing act - the latest issues over the census and employment equity are attempts to keep the hardcore happy without losing everyone else, but they've done it so far. The plan is to slowly push Canada toward a conservative consensus, not to try to get to Tory paradise in just a couple of terms in office. The left needs to think in a similar way.
How do you know that? Based on what? Is there a demand in Canada for a clearly articulated opposition to the Harper agenda? I say there is, and my evidence is the failure of any one opposition party to capitalize on a massive opposition to Stephen Harper. Why can't they? Because they've all adopted a fear of confrontation in an adverserial political system. But confrontation is desperately called for. I say the NDP is weak and actually fears success.
By giving itself a distinctly left wing platform, with creative ideas, they could easily pick up a large section of disenchanted left wing voters: quite possibly more than they would lose in the center.
Does such a large section of disenchanted left-wingers exist? Probably not. When pollsters make the undecided and/or non-voters choose a party or political identity they feel closest to, the results aren't all that different from what you get for the population as a whole.
Voters polled, don't have a left wing option to be polled on, so you have no statistical data upon which to base your assertion.
That said, the other story here is that a relatively small motivated constituency represented by the Canadian Alliance, managed to mobilize and organize around a grass roots right wing agenda. Your arguement comes down to Preston Manning saying... oh we only polled 10%, lets give up and go home, there is no support for our agenda.
The real resson the NDP doesn't take this kind of grass roots approach is because people such as yourself don't want too, and the leadership is too afraid of losing even a small share of their personal influence and prestige.
What about the fact that there are already parties to the left of the NDP that contest elections? Why is it that these parties do not provide a good barometer of Canadian 'openness' to a more explicitly left-wing platform?
Pfff. Like what? I guess you missed the part about the election act being designed to steal the per vote dividend from any start up's, independents or small parties, in order to create institutionalized preference for the existing state sanctioned parties, by taking tax money and giving it to the official state funded factions?
But I guess there is my answer. The NDP is not really interested in attempting to set the agenda, if that would mean they might risk even a small fraction of the funding that keeps people like Brian Topp in shoes and socks. Far safer to keep fishing in the middle of the pond.
Stephen Harper however, dares to lead, and that makes all the difference.
I have some sympathy for those who see the NDP continually watering our wine till all we're offering is a pink-tinged spritzer of good-government and personal rectitude cliches. But it's really hard to sell a left platform to the voters.
Don't believe me? Listen, there are probably 100 ridings across the country where, if you walk in with 20 friends ready to buy memberships, you can win the NDP nomination for the next election. No kidding. It's happened a few times in my riding (once with only 11 supporters.) Then you can run a left campaign with the gratitude and expertise of the Riding Association behind you. It can be done. You'll have a national strategy you have to conform to, but it's pretty vague and you'll be making it up as you go on issues that matter locally. Pay lip service to the national team and you'll have a very long leash. In my experience, you'll poll slightly below the historical average for the riding, but you never know, you could be the one to prod the NDP to the left. I'm serious. Take your shot.
I think the best strategy, though, is to get elected, burnish your personal reputation through constituency work, then start on the long task of bringing your constitutents around to the idea that a more leftish agenda can be a good thing. I think that's what Joe Comartin is doing. In the long run I hope he's going to develop coattails that will allow other candidates in the Windsor area an easier ride. Not to dismiss the importance of the war of ideas, but the media is so massively right-wing that every proposal will be met with a volley of objections. In a practical political sense, we need to get more leftish candidates elected. But I don't know that you can do that by running a hard-left campaign. Glad to cast this pall of gloom over the proceedings.
Why it is that the NDP can't figure out that a minority constituency motivated by a clearly principled agenda can shape the course of the country is beyond me. Stephen Harper has proven this fact.
Good point. The answer on what to do next is staring us/them right in the face.
To be fair, you-know-who said to me that that idea wasn't considered before. To that person, it was totally new.
What about the fact that there are already parties to the left of the NDP that contest elections? Why is it that these parties do not provide a good barometer of Canadian 'openness' to a more explicitly left-wing platform?
Pfff. Like what? I guess you missed the part about the election act being designed to steal the per vote dividend from any start up's, independents or small parties, in order to create institutionalized preference for the existing state sanctioned parties, by taking tax money and giving it to the official state funded factions?
But I guess there is my answer. The NDP is not really interested in attempting to set the agenda, if that would mean they might risk even a small fraction of the funding that keeps people like Brian Topp in shoes and socks. Far safer to keep fishing in the middle of the pond.
Stephen Harper however, dares to lead, and that makes all the difference.
I'm not here to advocate 'fishing in the middle of the pond', as you suggest, however the rationalization put forward by yourself and FM for moving the NDP to the left seems to be "why not?" and "give it a try, and if it doesn't work, oh well, back to the drawing board, eh?". I am simply not persuaded by that. The failure of anyone to address the point I made in my first question underscores the fact that this position does not seem to have been well-thought-out.
Two other problems I have with the argument:
1) the premise that the Tories are "overtly detested by 64% of the population" and that there is "massive opposition to Harper". The country is simply not that polarized. Not everyone who voted other than Conservative (or didn't bother to vote) "overtly detests" Harper. I'm sure a lot of people on this board (and at the G20 protests, and in the 'No Prorogation' Facebook group, etc) do, but then that's not exactly representative of the Canadian polity, is it? This is a classic example of one segment of the population simply assuming that its views are shared by the rest of the population.
2) Harper has jettisoned (or at least suppressed) a lot of the old Reform/Alliance agenda. I would certainly not call the Conservatives 'principled', and they have more than their fair share of critics from the right who would agree. The fact that a Reform/Alliance agenda will not be embraced by the political mainstream is amply demonstrated by the fact that the Reform and Alliance parties could never crack 25% of the vote.
Let me say that I don't disagree that the NDP needs to do a better job of differentiating itself on policy from the Liberals, beyond the 'packaging'. And I don't disagree that if you actually give people something to vote for that's not "Liberalism with a human face" (or something to that effect), you can appeal to people who otherwise might not vote (I recently attended a COPE event where Jamie McEvoy - a New West councillor - gave a very good speech about implementing a 'Living Wage' policy and this was one of his themes). But I'm not convinced at this stage that moving the party far to the left is the way to increase its political clout, particularly when we are given no idea of what shape that might take or why it is a good idea (other than the aforementioned 'why not').
What about the fact that there are already parties to the left of the NDP that contest elections? Why is it that these parties do not provide a good barometer of Canadian 'openness' to a more explicitly left-wing platform?
Pfff. Like what? I guess you missed the part about the election act being designed to steal the per vote dividend from any start up's, independents or small parties, in order to create institutionalized preference for the existing state sanctioned parties, by taking tax money and giving it to the official state funded factions?
But I guess there is my answer. The NDP is not really interested in attempting to set the agenda, if that would mean they might risk even a small fraction of the funding that keeps people like Brian Topp in shoes and socks. Far safer to keep fishing in the middle of the pond.
Stephen Harper however, dares to lead, and that makes all the difference.
I'm not here to advocate 'fishing in the middle of the pond', as you suggest, however the rationalization put forward by yourself and FM for moving the NDP to the left seems to be "why not?" and "give it a try, and if it doesn't work, oh well, back to the drawing board, eh?". I am simply not persuaded by that. The failure of anyone to address the point I made in my first question underscores the fact that this position does not seem to have been well-thought-out.
I don't actually have FM's account info, so I didn't post any of that.
My point is actually about "organizing" from the grass roots, and working to shift the agenda. While it is true, the Conservatives have made a show of suppressing the "social conservative" aspects of their platform, it is quite evident that they are still edging in that direction. For example;
...and so on and so forth.
Clearly they sneak in "social conservative" agenda items on a regular basis, and keep those irons hot.
It is a common assertion that it has been suppressed, but as far as that goes, that really seems to be about reigning in outspoken wingnuts in the party, while implementing their views, gradually. The idea that these policy stances are being suppressed, seems to be a bit of a media myth, designed to make them seem more palatable.
There is no evidence at all that this agenda appeals beyond their core constituency, as evidenced by the fact that they never hit more than 36% in the polls. Indeed, they readily feed that core constituency, with prejudiced executive decisions, such as those listed above, as well as forwarding the neo-liberal agenda in the house.
But with 36% support of the Canadian population they still lead, because they focus first on appeasing their base of support. They certainly never suggest, like NDP leadership often does, that once in power they have to rule "for all Canadians", or any such thing.
In other words, a small but committed grass roots movement based in traditional jingoistic white nationalist conservatism has managed set the overall agenda. We see this same process happening with the Christo-fascist right in the USA, and movements like the tea-baggers, as well. And indeed this is not at all unlike the manner in which Tommy Douglas and the CCF/NDP managed to build a movement that shaped Canadian politics throughout the 60's and 70's, without ever actually winning power directly at all.
If the NDP wants to be relevant, it really needs to look at the conservative success, and how they have managed to shift the overall political ideological stance of the body politic, largely by mobilizing a committed core of persons who will forward their ideological stance by word of mouth in their communities, and stand by the party on ideological grounds.
There is huge support among Canadians for "left-wing" socialist values, throughout the country, even if many persons who have those values don't actually identify them as such. This can only be mobilized by taking an assertive stance that looks not only at policy platform ideas, but at how grass roots mobilization of even small groups can radically shift the political discourse.
In conclusion your point, that Canada is "simply not polarized", seems to be self-fulfilling prophecy that is actually a reiteration of the point made in the article in the OP. My point is that it is not polarized because all political institutions choose not to polarize it.
Or to put it more simply, for polarization to occur, two poles are required.
Right now, only one is functional - the south pole of yanqui republican revolution which continues to pull this country down.
double post
(I did actually click twice, because nothing happened for a minute or more after the first click. It seems the server hosting us here gets markedly more decrepit each passing month.)
The Left seem to be willing to complain about Harper and the Conservatives.
However, that is all they seem to do.
Some Hockey fans like to see a more-or-less evenly matched game.
Harper seems to be firing them into an empty net.
The real problem seems to be the pacifist nature of the Left. There need to be a few enforcers on the Left squad.
Otherwise the Left are going to be like the Leafs, looking back to the 60s for any sign of victory.
Right now, the referees (mass media) are a teensy bit (totally) one-sided. No chance for folks in the bleachers to understand..even if they read.
The Left seem to be willing to complain about Harper and the Conservatives.
However, that is all they seem to do.
Some Hockey fans like to see a more-or-less evenly matched game.
Harper seems to be firing them into an empty net.
The real problem seems to be the pacifist nature of the Left. There need to be a few enforcers on the Left squad.
Otherwise the Left are going to be like the Leafs, looking back to the 60s for any sign of victory.
There is no consensus on what constitutes "The Left" and some critics of the Harperarchy don't identify with the term.
As for "firing into an open net" , the Harperarchy can't miss.
There is no shot too wide to the right that the Media won't fall over themselves to move the goalposts into scoring position--and pronounce any goalie offside.
double post
(I did actually click twice, because nothing happened for a minute or more after the first click. It seems the server hosting us here gets markedly more decrepit each passing month.)
Sorry for the drift but as a frequent late night lurker, I can tell you I'm 99% sure babble site maintenance gets done at 3am. Not even posting, it slows right down for me.
You might find the following interesting on re-defining the "left":
This is from p. 20 of Monthly Review which has Harnecker's "Latin America and 21st Century Socialism: Inventing to Avoid Mistakes" translated from the original Spanish.
But that is not all. The criteria of practice is critical as Harnecker expresses agreement with the views of Uruguayan researcher Beatriz Stolowicz who notes:
"One is not left just because one says one is, but one is left because of what one does to achieve these necessary transformations and constructions. That is how one comes to be left."
This is critical because the right now habitually APPROPRIATES the language and even the terminology of the left to carry out their nefarious political programs.
link to Monthly Review