Columnists

Murray Dobbin
A message for the pre-election NDP: Trust the people, be bold, take a risk

| January 31, 2011
NDP leader Jack Layton at a large rally to support locked-out steelworkers in Hamilton, Ont. on Saturday, Jan. 29. Photo: Jessica Rose.

Parliament resumes today and Canadians could be forgiven if they decided they would rather stick pins in their arms than watch another round of Stephen Harper's cynical manipulation compete with Michael Ignatieff's inept political meandering. I haven't seen a recent poll on whether or not people want an election but it wouldn't surprise me if 75 per cent put an ‘x' beside "I couldn't care less."

Our democracy is suffering from multiple chronic ailments with the overall effect being that it can't even get out of bed -- it is gridlocked in an absurd standoff where one national party is led by Stephen Harper, who is obsessed with dismantling everything decent ever done by government, the "natural governing party" is headed up by a right-wing snob who has no idea what he would do with power if he got it, and the "third" party is led by Jack Layton, who is far away the most trusted and well-liked leader in the country but cannot break through 18 per cent support for his party.

Layton is far ahead of the other three party leaders according to data provided by Angus Reid. The poll asked people to rank the four leaders by getting them to respond to nine key political terms, giving each man 1 to 4 points for each. The popularity index which resulted saw Jack Layton graded "A", Stephen Harper "C+", Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe "D", and Michael Ignatieff "F". In terms of total points: Layton received an amazing 34 out of a possible 36 points (94 per cent) while Stephen Harper finished second with 25 out of 36 (69 per cent). Gilles Duceppe got 18 out of 36 (50 per cent). The hapless and mistrusted Michael Ignatieff was an also ran with just 12 out of 36 (33 per cent).

One of the chronic illnesses of our system is revealed here and that is the nearly pathological aversion for many people to making the leap from other parties to the NDP, the coinciding of their values notwithstanding. It's almost as if people look at the party and say well they're low in the polls so there must be something wrong with them. The corporatization of politics -- that we must sacrifice everything for the amorphous "economy" -- plays out here, too. When, 40 years ago, the popular culture saw the economy as serving people and communities, things were different. But two decades of mass media posing the question -- "Is it good for the economy?" (a euphemism for what is good for large corporations and banks) has changed all that.

And the NDP suffers most from this reframing of the role of the economy in Canadian politics because the pro-business parties and their media promoters have successfully framed the NDP as "not be trusted on the economy." It has become a self-fulfilling declaration -- reluctant to go out on a limb on the economy, people don't know what the NDP would do and hence, don't fully trust them.

But into this stale and suffocating mix of politics comes a rogue element, delivered, oddly enough, by Stephen Harper himself -- through Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. The decision by Harper to throw down the gauntlet on the issue of more tax giveaways to the coddled corporate sector is bizarre. He already has the sector behind him and if he really wanted to broaden his base what better way than to take away -- temporarily -- a tax cut that will barely improve their bottom line anyway ($6 billion could provide the start of a national childcare program, but divided between thousands of corporations it's not that much). Polls show Canadians opposed to the cut by a margin of 3:1, something the Conservatives had to know through their own polling.

Here is the opening the NDP could use to take on the issue those close to the party know they want to lead on: the need for tax increases to meet the revenue needs for all the things Canadians say they want. The caucus is eager but the party staff grows peaky at the mere thought -- understandably. There are, so far, no civil society voices engaging the public on the subject, and legitimizing it, a fact that will go down in history as the social and labour movements' biggest failure of the era.

Advertising

But now it's out there. Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society -- and people know it. When asked if they could be assured revenue from a tax increase would go to any number of public goods -- education, childcare, reducing poverty -- two-thirds to three-quarters of Canadians say they would be willing to pay higher taxes. Its one of the many contradictions facing progressive politicians: people no longer trust government as it is, but know the importance of government as it could be.

The latter is the base upon which the NDP must build if it is to make a breakthrough in the next election -- which it must achieve if it is going to confront the intransigent Michael Ignatieff with the need for an accord or coalition government.

Both the Liberals and the NDP are trapped in the current gridlock and it is largely their own doing. The first part of the trap is the failure to recognize that there is little more to be gained electorally from further demonizing Stephen Harper. That strategy is in fact at the root of the deadlock. Harper can't get beyond 38 per cent and stay there for any length of time because almost two-thirds of Canadians already know what he is about. They know of his contempt for democracy, his freakish obsession with controlling every aspect of government and party, his coldness, his dedication to the tar sands, his blind support of Israel and on and on. They know it because he doesn't even hide it. It is already factored into people's view of the federal scene.

The other side of the trap is a consequence of the first: convinced (as I am) that Harper wants to dismantle the country they pursue the strategy of exposing him with scant attention to actually telling people that a better world is possible. But that is what people want to know. Right now they are convinced that things are going to get worse and that no one out there has the will or the imagination to provide the support they need.

I repeat: Canadians know the value of government as it could be and should be. They hunger for someone with the guts to take a risk and engage them honestly about what is possible and what the price of that possibility is. The first party to be bold and take a risk, say what they mean and mean what they say will make the breakthrough in the next election.

But the resistance to such a strategy is enormous. Fear of failure -- fear of the attack ads, and of a media leaning strongly to the right and to Harper, keeps political staffers up at night. For the Liberals it is simply a matter of strategy and tactics. The party of opportunism which has historically done well by running from the left and governing from the right (uh, that's lying) simply does the calculus of policies. It has no soul -- only a craving to be in power once again.

But for the NDP it is a terrible dilemma to be in: they don't trust the people who are looking for bold leadership with good governance at its core, the people who say year after year that their values are indeed progressive and aligned with the NDP. But instead of taking a risk and challenging people to take it with them, the NDP has gradually become less progressive and more cautious. That's not just a pity for the rest of us; it will prove disastrous for the party. Most pollsters (even sympathetic ones) say the NDP will have to fight like hell just to hold on to the seats it has.

The corporate tax issue -- and the door it opens to the broader issue of the need for more tax revenue, not less -- is not the ideal issue to lead with. It's sort of the cart before the horse. A handful of carefully chosen, bold new policies (or even some of the old ones) could be used to engage people about the tax issue: Here's what you say you want and we do, too. Here's what it will cost. Risky, maybe reckless? Sure. But otherwise who the hell will care about the next election? Millions will stay home -- among them the people who want the incredibly popular and trusted Jack Layton to return their trust.

Murray Dobbin's column runs every other Monday in The Tyee and on rabble.ca. He also blogs for rabble and publishes articles on his website.

A few dollars is a small price to pay for news for the rest of us. Please donate to rabble today.

Comments

Quote:
There are, so far, no civil society voices engaging the public on the subject, and legitimizing it, a fact that will go down in history as the social and labour movements' biggest failure of the era.
In Ontario, People for Corporate Tax Cuts (a project of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union - OPSEU) asks readers how they will raise the $500 per household needed to fund the slated provincial tax cuts. Perhaps a campaign like this needs to be taken up at the federal level.

I think far too much is made of opinion polls that rank politicians on a likeability scale. George W. Bush had high likeability ratings - he was said to be the kind of guy Americans would like to have a beer with.

Politics is not, and should not be, about individual personalities. The fact that Layton's popularity far outstrips that of his party is proof enough of that proposition. To win the support of voters a party needs much more than just a likeable leader; and clearly, the NDP at present just doesn't attract the voters. It's especially obvious that this is so because the present time is a rare conjunction of opportunities for the party, and yet it is unable to make any headway. We live in a time when both the Liberals and the Conservatives are unpopular with the voters; a time when both parties have leaders who are widely disliked; a time when both parties have similar policies on just about everything, and voters looking for a change ought to be willing to look beyond the traditional parliamentary duopoly and consider third parties as the only real alternatives to the status quo. Canadians have just experienced a catastrophic recession - catastrophic for the working class, at least - and are now facing the prospect of widespread austerity measures while the rich and the corporations are getting bailouts and tax cuts. Canada is mired in an unpopular war. Our incomes and our liberties are under attack.

If ever there was a time when Canadians are ready for a political change, this should be it. The fact that the NDP hasn't seen that, hasn't responded to it, and hasn't been able to benefit from it, is testimony to its increasing irrelevance in the minds of the voters.   

i got stuck at "each man".

what happened to Elizabeth May?

and its important that tax talk be described as a step in reclaiming power from an out-of-control banker-run money system.   Elections shouldn't be run on single issues- parties need to present full platforms that incorporate their whole vision.

Never offer a tax increase during an election campaign.  The NDP could always state that the median tax paid by citizens to Ottawa will not go up, and that the NDP will manage Canadian citizens' tax dollars better than the current Harper government.  The NDP could focus on three to five things that the party considers a priority.  Make sure that these priorities are targetted at people who will actually vote.

I hope that Jack Layton and the NDP do not support the Conservative budget just because the NDP may not be strong in the polls.  Election campaigns are about momentum and persuading people to vote for you.  It's not where you start in a campaign; it's where you finish.

Gary Shaul is on the right idea of mentioning the $500 each family will have to raise to support Harper's corporate tax cuts.  I will add that whether it's multi-billion dollar fighter jets or G20 meeting expenditures, I would suggest that the NDP not use big numbers.  Use numbers that are meaningful to families.  For example, if one takes a family of four, the G20 weekend cost $114.  Fighter jets will cost each family $2,400.  Twenty-one billion is a meaningless number; it's close to infinity.  The actual cost of the jets may be more than $21 billion.  It may become $42 billion.  There is psychologically no difference between 21 and 42 billion.  There is a big difference between $2,400 and $4,800 per family.

My final thoughts for now:

Stephen Harper is an autocrat.  We all know that.  However, he espouses democratic reforms with his flimsy Senate reform proposal.  He does have supporters for his proposal.

Jack Layton needs to demonstrate that he is a democrat by expressing strong support for voting reform through some form of proportional representation.  He won't get Harper Conservative voters switching to the NDP; he will get weak Liberals and Green supporters by mentioning voting reform.

As a sidenote: I do hope that someday, the NDP will drop its commitment to abolish the Senate.  This doesn't help the party recognize regional differences.  Instead, the NDP can express its commitment to abolish the existing Senate.  I don't think the Senate issue needs to be played-up during the next election campaign.

Login or register to post comments