In the last hours of the 2011 federal election campaign, as word of Jack Layton's Orange Wave spread to a wondering Canada, a longtime New Democrat supporter of my acquaintance made the following observation: "If it turns out on Monday that we only win 15 seats, a lot of New Democrats will quietly say to themselves, 'Thank God!'"
During the election campaign, Layton achieved a goal that many of us thought was impossible: he turned the federal New Democratic Party into something it hadn't been for many years. To wit: a political party.
And the NDP's transition to a political party is going to be very hard on one significant group of loyal New Democrats -- those who thought the NDP was their church.
Well, whether we like it or not -- and face it, in their heart of hearts, many New Democrats won't -- the days when the NDP can be the church of choice for a small group of comfortable old social democrats are gone, thanks to the hard work of Layton and his associates.
I say good riddance, because the one thing the Church of the NDP had no hope of doing, ever, was forming a government. That was because churches almost always put dogma and political purity ahead of success in this life -- just as the old NDP church certainly did.
But no one can say that the New Democrats under Layton have not taken the first step to being a government, to being the Government of Canada. (The Layton Government, as it were…) The special interest groups of the far right may not like this, and may argue why it shouldn't be, but their arguments have the whiff of righteous fear to them, and with good reason.
Of course, it may not happen, for Layton and the party face formidable problems -- not least among them the lack of an obvious successor should the Opposition Leader's health falter again, the inexperience of some members in Layton's large Quebec caucus and the inevitable bitterness of the old "churchgoing" NDPers who would rather be big fish in a marginalized pond than small players in a political party with potential.
Advertising
Still, stranger things have happened. Luck and skill play almost equal roles in political advancement, and as a leader Layton has had both on his side. If his luck -- and ours -- holds, and his constitution supports his undoubted political skills through another Parliament, less likely things could happen than an NDP government of Canada.
Indeed, what political success story could be less likely than that of our disagreeable, petulant and ideologically pure far-right prime minister finally achieving a majority government?
If the NDP is to form the government, it won't be easy. Layton will have to cozy the old NDPers along, keep the sovereignist tendencies of his Quebec caucus under control, school inexperienced MPs, keep a lid of those who have played leadership roles in other kinds of politics and safeguard his own health. But this is really not so different than the challenges faced by any other Canadian federal political leader, including the prime minister but especially the leader of the disintegrating Liberal Party.
If Layton can succeed -- and he may just -- sooner or later the basest instincts of our unlikely but undeniably skilled neo-con prime minister will tempt Stephen Harper to venture out where the ice is thin.
When that happens, all things being equal, Layton will have his chance to help Canada live up to its true potential.
There's an old question-and-answer joke that asks: "Why do Canadians join political parties?" Well, it answers, "they join the Conservatives to get drunk, they join the Liberals to get lucky, and they join the NDP … to get leaflets."
It's still funny, but almost overnight Jack Layton has made it obsolete.
This post also appears on David Climenhaga's blog, Alberta Diary.
David, you've listed some key challenges here but have ignored the elephant in the room that is Layton's number one challenge: convincing the mass of Liberal voters who think of themselves as "moderates" to vote for the "socialist" NDP (something I can't see happening as the NDP in the rest of Canada has the same stigma attached to it as the Liberals do in Alberta).
Watch the media simply build the Liberal party's reputation back up over the next 4 years; in fact, the media campaign has already begun to do so, and it is a deliberate tactic. As Tom Flanagan clearly said on this week's CBC Radio Sunday Edition, in order for the to succeed, the Conservatives NEED the Liberals and the NDP to divide the vote.
So, where, exactly, do you think the new voters needed for Layton to cross to power will come from? The Conservatives? The Liberals?
The fact that Quebecers capitulated to the NDP vote is merely a consequence of their unique - caught between a rock and a hard place -- position in national politics after finding themselves in a rut with the Bloc. You can't count on that same impetus working for the NDP in English Canada.
Exactly as Judy Rebick warned in in her post-election analysis, English Canada will not progress without a concerted effort by social, environmental, and labour organizations pushing for a united political strategy. As someone who attends various organizations' events, however, I hear a great deal of whining but I rarely hear political unity promoted by progressives -- in fact, just the opposite, with mostly everyone in the room (especially those from the NDP and Green parties) sticking to their guns with their own partisan, never-budge views every single time the subject of multi-party cooperation is broached. (Liberals seem to be the only ones who say they are willing to work together, but in a quid pro quo arrangement, of course, not a free-for-all giveaway of their votes. For this, they are scoffed at and rebuked.)
How many times does this have to be said? At this point in time, and until proportional representation is enacted, you cannot count on entrenched English-speaking Canadians to vote for the NDP en masse without an inclusive strategy that allows their own parties to survive. I wish it could be different, but that's the harsh reality.
I meant to add that what I've written above is only true if the leaders and execs of the NDP, Liberals, and Greens continue to dismiss out of hand the idea of a united party in order to have PR implemented. The key to that success being that the voters are only offered one option, of course, with no other centre/left choice to distract their votes from the target goal of PR.
Why can't the centre/left take a lesson from the Reform/PC alliance? If all such a temporary marriage brought were to be legislation of PR, and then things fell apart afterwards, that'd still be wonderful progress for Canadians. Right now, we have nothing, with a powerless opposition that is doomed to stay so for a long time.
So, once the NDP purges itself of all those pesky "churchgoing" social democrats (I suppose the Socialist NDP caucus doesn't warrant a mention), what is the point of the NDP forming government again? Why are they better than the LPC? Is it their purity of heart?
Good article, and great response by outwest.
What a shame it is that whenever the NDP does well (1988, 2006, and now 2011), Canada does badly.
It seems unlikely Canada will ever rid itself of FPTP, so the only alternative that works for Canadians is a united progressive party. I also heard Mr Flanagan's on Sunday Edition. What's striking about his remarks is that it's a clear admission, by a Conservative strategist, that Stephen Harper's politics will NEVER command the support of the majority. It's only because we progressives won't come together that he wins. Lest we minimize this, the same thing happened under Margaret Thatcher, and she did radical and tremendous damage to the UK before she was done. I hope this isn't a repeat of that.
I'm all in favour of merging with the Liberals just a few Liberals at a time. Progressives who have previously chosen to operate within the Liberal Party (however wrongheaded I believe that strategy to have been) should come home to Canada's only progressive party. Beyond that, there is nothing to be gained from a formal merger besides all the old baggage and bankrupcy of the crumbling Liberal edifice - and perhaps the overweaning sense of entitlement that hass been p*$$**g Canadians off for the past 20 years or more.
@ Catchfire, I understand the whole point of a political party having a philosophy/point, but at the end of the day a political party is political therefore it will have to make some sacrifices some people won't like. The objective should be to win power, build infastructure that supports your philosophy and therefore a legacy. If the party can't even get into power, and can only hope to influence the debate to build a legacy if everything goes perfectly, then chances are it will become irrelevant.
"What a shame it is that whenever the NDP does well (1988, 2006, and now 2011), Canada does badly."
Actually the NDP did well in 1972 - and i would argue that was good for Canada. Its a shame that whenever the Liberals do well, Canada does badly. (ie: the Trudeau majority government of 1974-1979 was a toftal fiasco and the Chretien/Martin government was the most rightwing government we have ever had from 1994-2000)
The suggestion with this article is that the NDP hastily find another use for the election bus. Thump thump...there goes another 'oldie.'
Outwest suggests that the rest of Canada would never vote NDP - does your rest of Canada include BC, Sask, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, because the last time I looked all those provinces have had multi NDP govts. In fact in BC, the present Liberal leader is contemplating a name change due to liberal brand damage, but it's not really Liberal but a combo of soc credits & right-wing libs. In Sask & Man the Liberal band is basically DOA. So the rest of Canada - please be specific, as it would be fasinating!
Jan, I think he means PEI. Like so many Liberal apologists, he's grasping at straws.
The key word in your assertion, Janfromthebruce, is that those provinces "have" had NDP govts in the past.
Fooled by the Liberal bag of tricks, B.C. voters have perpetually shut out the ND as of late, and Saskatchewan voters seem to have fallen into to the same honey-trap as Albertans by believing the right wing promise of "we'll give you low taxes, you'll keep your job, and everything will be A-Okay." Manitoba and Nova Scotia alone are not going to be enough, imo, and even then, both seem have somewhat faltered in their support. (Why didn't Manitoba go NDP in the election??? I was surprised.)
Outwest, that is (as per usual) a load of stinking tripe.
The simple fact of the matter is that every party - even normative parties of government - spend sometime out of power. Governing and renewing at the same time, while not impossible, is damned difficult. Currently the NDP are out in BC (though virtually tied in the polls) and in Saskatchewan. BC elected a significant number of New Democrats. Saskatchewan actually had one of the highest NDP popular votes in the last election, but won no seats due to the ridiculous vagaries of the boundaries here. However "outwest" you may fancy yourself to be, your knowledge of the state of play in Saskatchewan is something less than two-thirds of four-fifths of eff all.
The reality is that governments in power accumulate baggage that eventually leads to defeat. Effective parties use defeat as an opportunity to renew.
You claim based on nothing but your Liberal talking points that Canadaians in vast swathes of the country simply will not vote NDP. In fact, the only province where one can credibly make that case is Prince Edward Island - with its massive four seats.
My Liberal talking points????
Having lived on the prairies most of my life, I have a pretty good handle on the political temperature here, and, imo, neither of these provinces will be going NDP anytime soon, thus, your idea that the ONLY province where one can "credibly make the case" that it won't happen is PEI, is dead wrong.
Thanks to what Andrew Nikiforuk calls the Petrostate (the threat of the loss of jobs that pay good money), I repeat that my biggest fear is that Saskatchewan voters are now tracing the goose steps of Alberta's right wing voting patterns and aren't about to return to common sense any time soon. And it doesn't look as though the majority of BC voters have got a clue, lately, either.
But I guess we'll have to wait to see in the next fed and provincial elections who's talking "tripe" here. (By the way, calling my opinions "stinking" is pretty rude.)
Someday, a dumbed down NDP may take power. it will be a Liberal/liberal party -- opposing deficit financing, have a vague policy on the Middle East, be a reluctant NATO member and find clever ways to keep Canada a thrifty member of that zombie organization. Don't think so? Look at what Jack Layton stands for now. Why do I say "someday." Because it's unlikely that the party will ever form a government. Why? Because the party has no strength in English Canada. It splits the vote here. And it won't supply real solutions to problems, preferring to be bland instead of radical. As for Quebec, Layton will never be able to satisfy the province's desire for more power. Remember the aftermath of the Charlottetown referendum? And if Layton thinks he can avoid Middle Eastern issues, wait until the Quebec caucus members get their sea legs in Parliament and start to demand clarity on issues like Israel/Palestine. The old church may be gone, but the new one doesn't come with a comfortable pew.
As a resident of Nova Scotia I can attest to how an NDP government that has shed all its progressive principles in favour of a craven and unremitting outreach to do business's bidding is really no better than a Tory or Liberal one. In some ways it is worse because many communities (union members, environmentalists, poverty advocates) the Nova Scotia NDP of Alexa McDonough paid attention to and supported now feel disloyal if they criticize Darrell Dexter's government.
It's hardly progress to close the "church of the NDP" (and ignore its parishioners) and replace it with a crass opportunistic crowd who will do anything to curry favour with business and the right, and nothing to offend them.
For example, Darrell Dexter is the driving force between a planned trade mission to Israel in October to increase trade with that pariah country. The workshop to orient participants features Israel's former trade commissioner and the executive director of the Atlantic Jewish Council.
Not a peep about Gaza, the West Bank and the Palestinians. Alexa must be aghast. But she and her principles were part of that old church David Climenhaga is so keen to free of.
"...the lack of an obvious successor should the Opposition Leader's health falter again" Mulcair is an obvious choice.
"...keep the sovereignist tendencies of his Quebec caucus under control" - hah, good luck with that one. Why would he bother? Probably at least a third of the Quebec caucus is sovereignist, so discouraging this faction will simply drive them into the BQ, if that party survives.
"Well, whether we like it or not -- and face it, in their heart of hearts, many New Democrats won't -- the days when the NDP can be the church of choice for a small group of comfortable old social democrats are gone, thanks to the hard work of Layton and his associates."
What an arrogant piece of tripe. Makes me glad I haven't renewed my NDP membership yet*.
*For what it's worth, Brad Lavigne is the reason I never renewed. His appearances on P&P made me think the NDP is becoming too centrist, and we already have the Liberals there.
Richdontpay wrote: "As a resident of Nova Scotia I can attest to how an NDP government that has shed all its progressive principles in favour of a craven and unremitting outreach to do business's bidding is really no better than a Tory or Liberal one."
I agree. In fact, the only reason many progressives want the Libs/NDP to work together is so that PR can be implemented (preferably MMP), and only on the condition that the NDP use it as their #1 non-negotiable bargaining chip. The idea being that if in all other matters NDP ideals are subsequently watered down, the attainment of PR, at least, would be worthy of the effort.
What a joke!
When did the NDP ever worship "dogma and political purity"? There's no such thing as social-democratic dogma, because social-democratic parties pick and choose their principles according to the current relationship of forces at any given time. Their principles, such as they are, are only embraced as long as they appear to be useful in advancing the fortunes of the party; after that, they are jettisoned like so much excess baggage.
As proof of this, one need only look at the motley crew of parties that call themselves social democrats (or "democratic socialists") who comprise the so-called Socialist International. They have very little in common.
MSpector - I don't think the NDP ever worshiped dogma and purity, but a certain cadre of progressives always have.
Outwest, you may live out west, but your knowledge of Saskatchewan politics is more than a trifle weak.
The NDP vote in SK was higher than every province but Quebec, Newfoundland and British Columbia - an virtually tied with both of the latter. The reason the NDP won no seats is not for lack of popularity, but for the vagaries of electoral boundaries. Had the last FOUR elections been fought on the boundaries originally proposed at the last distribution, the NDP would have won five seats in each of those elections.
You may have trouble grasping things, but even effective and popular governments get turfed every now and again - and frankly, iits usually a good thing in the long run. By your perverse logic, the CCF defeat in 1964 was a repudiation of Tommy Douglas, Woodrow Lloyd and Medicare - ignoring the fact that the CCF vote actually went up, of course.
I don't know if calling your "analysis" stinking tripe was rude. It was certainly accurate.
There are other Canadian political parties to the left of the NDP. If principle is more important than "selling out" to get elected, why wouldn't those who are unhappy with the NDP vote for those parties instead? They're already OK with electoral failure, so why not?
This is an old paradox. The further-left doesn't want to vote for the NDP "because they care more about being elected than about pure socialism". But they don't want to vote for, say, CPC-ML, because CPC-ML "doesn't stand a chance of being elected".
Ideological purity, or electoral success: pick ONE.
It's not really about picking between success or purity, so much as it has to do with acting upon those those occasional impulses to describe charlatanism.
That's not the reason I don't usually vote for CPC-ML, and I don't know anyone who uses that as a reason for not voting for that party. There are good reasons why they are unpopular, and it has nothing to do with the fact that they are left of the NDP. One good reason, for example, is that they are likely to "sell out", as you put it, if they ever do get into power.
In fact, on more than one occasion I have voted for CPC-ML precisely because they don't stand a chance of being elected! I did it because I couldn't bring myself to vote for any of the other parties.