Neoliberalism & the Quebec election

I suspect that I'm the only babbler who actually lives in ADQ country (La Peltrie). [eta: oops - perhaps Simon Vallйe?]

What's happened is the same thing that has happened elsewhere in Canada: the singular inability of urban progressives to connect with rural and small-town concerns.

[ 29 March 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

I printed out Corvin's article to read on the way home from work last night. It was interesting and I enjoyed reading it. Not being much of an expert on Quebec politics, I don't get all the dynamics happening there (although I've been following the threads on babble with interest), but I think what he says about the Quebec left could probably apply to the left in much of Canada.

In response to your critique, pimentrouge (thanks for starting this thread, by the way!), I'm not sure I read Corvin saying that those three parties weren't neoliberal all along. He wasn't saying that Quebec was a lefty paradise up until this election - I think what he was saying is that the Quebec left was a strong holdout and had more political clout than you see the left having in other provinces, and that many of them were working within the PQ in order to reach the goal they agree with the non-left within the PQ about - sovereignty - and in so doing, forced the PQ to hold more progressive social policies.

But now that they have two hard-right parties in power and opposition, and the PQ has been marginalized (and QS has no real political power), then Quebec has indeed reached a stage of neoliberalism that hasn't been seen for a long time.

The thing that is fuzzy for me in his article is that he refers several times to the left having to do politics in a "new" way. But he doesn't give me much of an idea what that new way might be.

quote:

---

We need to actively forge new collectivities and new forms of organization which can wage ideological battle against neoliberalism by developing compelling alternatives to it that go beyond social democracy, beyond the old socialism, beyond isolated struggles.

---

Like what? Maybe I'm dense, but what does this mean?

As for the Quebec left working with the rest of the Canadian left (and his remark that the Canadian left needs to come to terms with the soveriegnty issue) - sounds good to me. But the problem is, I doubt the Canadian left WILL come to terms with the soveriegnty issue - many of us just don't understand it or support it. I think it might even be a fundamental difference in vision for leftist federalists and leftist sovereignists, the vision of how government services should be provided (centrally across the country or decentrally by province).

So, I'm not sure how that can be overcome. Maybe that's part of the "new collectivities" Corvin's talking about - collectivities that focus on our similarities rather than our differences?

What "new form of organization"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]I suspect that I'm the only babbler who actually lives in ADQ country (La Peltrie). [eta: oops - perhaps Simon Vallйe?]

What's happened is the same thing that has happened elsewhere in Canada: the singular inability of urban progressives to connect with rural and small-town concerns.

[ 29 March 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ][/b]

---

So you see it as similar to the Reform Party winning former NDP strongholds in BC in the early 90s?

Jack Layton, speaking in advance of the NDP Quebec Council found the ADQ showing to be about a rejection of the two traditional parties, rather than a choice for right wing policies. There are good reasons to be disatisfied and he gives some to the this CP reporter, notably income stagnation, and growing gap between needs of working families, and the ability to make ends meet.

Jack Layton qualifie d'intйressante la performance de l'ADQ, lundi dernier
31-03-07 13:00
QUEBEC (PC) - Le chef du Nouveau parti dйmocratique Jack Layton qualifie d'intйressante la performance de l'Action dйmocratique du Quйbec lundi dernier lors des йlections gйnйrales.
En entrevue а NTR, M. Layton a formulй ce commentaire dans le cadre du conseil gйnйral du NPD quйbйcois qui rйunit une centaine de militants ce week-end а Quйbec.
Le leader du parti de gauche croit que, comme au fйdйral, les deux "anciens" partis, qui s'йchangent le pouvoir depuis des dйcennies, ont oubliй leurs racines avec le peuple. M. Layton soutient que, malgrй la prospйritй йconomique, les familles ont de plus en plus de difficultй а joindre les deux bouts. Il croit que c'est l'une des raisons pour lesquelles Mario Dumont a vu ses appuis augmenter considйrablement.
Les chef du NPD n'est toutefois pas convaincu que les Quйbйcois ont dйcidй d'appuyer les idйes de la droite. Il y voit plutфt un rejet des anciens partis.
Avec le dйclenchement probable d'йlections gйnйrales fйdйrales, Jack Layton dit vouloir lutter contre les dйcisions prises par le gouvernement Harper au sujet de l'Afghanistan, de l'environnement et au niveau social.
M. Layton s'attend finalement а ce que son parti effectue une percйe au Quйbec. Pour ce faire, il compte sur des candidats comme l'ancien ministre quйbйcois de l'Environnement Thomas Mulcair et le leader autochtone Romйo Saganash.

As was discussed on another thread somewhere, Dumont is all about 'increased autonomy for Quebec' which sounds suspiciously like Meech Lake all over again.

[babble needs a delete function to get rid of these accidental doubles posts]

[ 31 March 2007: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]As for the Quebec left working with the rest of the Canadian left (and his remark that the Canadian left needs to come to terms with the soveriegnty issue) - sounds good to me. But the problem is, I doubt the Canadian left WILL come to terms with the soveriegnty issue - many of us just don't understand it or support it. I think it might even be a fundamental difference in vision for leftist federalists and leftist sovereignists, the vision of how government services should be provided (centrally across the country or decentrally by province).[/b]

---

I have to take issue with this generalisation that sovereigntists want decentralized delivery of government services. Granted that I'm from BC, but I support both a strong federal government, and an independent Quebec. We need a federal government that doesn't allow for different levels of government service in different provinces (because having health care stay public in Saskachewan while it gets privatized in Alberta and BC isn't good enough). At the same time, I believe the Quebecois people deserve their independence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left Turn:
[b]

I have to take issue with this generalisation that sovereigntists want decentralized delivery of government services.[/b]

---

Then I'm afraid you don't understand what is meant by it. They want control over the delivery of government services, rather than having Ottawa control it. That means they want it decentralized, with Ottawa being the centre of which we speak.

quote:

---

Originally posted by duncan cameron:
[QB]Jack Layton, speaking in advance of the NDP Quebec Council found the ADQ showing to be about a rejection of the two traditional parties, rather than a choice for right wing policies. There are good reasons to be disatisfied and he gives some to the this CP reporter, notably income stagnation, and growing gap between needs of working families, and the ability to make ends meet.

---

Duncan, interesting points from Jack, but ultimately he's being disingenuous. I understand the need to get across a progressive viewpoint on an event in public, but I don't think we on the left should kid ourselves.

Every vote against something is also *for* something. True disgust with the process could have meant staying home, or a vote for another party. There was an organized lefty alternative, and it mustered all of about three and a half percent. The ADQ got almost 10 times as much, and I doubt many ADQ voters thought they were voting for an independent socialist Quebec - voters not being dumb, they probably know exactly what they got with 35 more ADQ members.

Any vote gains for an explicitly anti-politics, anti-government message are almost by proxy anti-progressive. The whole nature of progressive politics is to attempt to use the collective power of government for positive change. Less faith in that possibility means less interest in an openly progressive platform.

I see your point, Left Turn, and I think maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I didn't mean that I think most progressives in the ROC want Ottawa to be the service provider for everything. I meant that they want Ottawa to be able to set universal rules for provinces to follow when it comes to providing provincial services.

I think that might be a big fundamental difference between Quebec leftists and the rest of Canada. Maybe I'm wrong - lord knows, I'm no expert, and I'd be happy to be corrected by people who understand the politics better.

Hi MJ, nice to see you too!

Yes, I was thinking when I posted that, that it sounds like I'm saying what I dislike hearing in others - "You complain but offer no solutions!" Criticism is, in itself, valuable if you ask me.

But that's not what I meant. I meant that I don't really understand what Corvin means when he says there need to be new collectivities and organization, or the need to "go beyond social democracy, beyond the old socialism, beyond isolated struggles". It wasn't a criticism of Corvin's thinking on the matter, it was a struggle on my part to try to visualize what he means by that.

Although I suppose by asking that, I'm implicitly asking what IS beyond social democracy, old socialism and isolated struggles. I guess that's the point, right? That's what he wants us to think about - what IS beyond those things?

[ 01 April 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I see your point, Left Turn, and I think maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I didn't mean that I think most progressives in the ROC want Ottawa to be the service provider for everything. I meant that they want Ottawa to be able to set universal rules for provinces to follow when it comes to providing provincial services. [ 01 April 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ][/b]

---

I'm not sure you're uderstanding me. What I'm saying is that it is possible for a progressive in the ROC to support Quebec independence while at the same time supporting national standards in the ROC for things like health care (or even ownership of the means of production by the federal government in areas not under provincial jurisdiction). I'm from BC and this is my position.

Of course, if you already understood my position, I apologize for this post.

[ 01 April 2007: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

I don't think your position on sovereignty is the same as mine. As far as I can tell, your position is that Quebec has the right to separate, but that you would rather that the Quebecois people vote against separation in any future referendum. My position is to cheer for the yes side in any future Quebec referendum. That said, you're still way ahead of much of the left in the ROC on the national question.

I agree wholeheartedly with Corvin that the left in the ROC needs to come to grips with the national question. On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree with his analysis of QS. I think there are things QS could do better, such as a stronger stand in favour of sovereignty to combat the PQ siphoning off left-wing votes on the national question (I don't think the QS position of separation if federalism doesn't work out is strong enough). However, Corvin's rant about "doing politics differently" seems a bit vague.

[ 02 April 2007: Message edited by: Left Turn ]