Thomas Mulcair

FWIW, my experience is that any public figure who can justify one set of atrocities - or look the other way when it suits him or her - can justify any set of atrocities. Furthermore, it's strange how the most normal thing in the world - remaining neutral about things one is ignorant about - somehow doesn't fit into the lexicon of the usual suspects. I doubt Mulcair could make such a claim, mind you.

If Mulcair is weak on the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by Israel, treats any criticism of this odious and racist regime as equivalent to bigotry, and makes all the appropriate seal-like noises when required by his party, then who is to say that he won't be weak on other foreign policy matters - like the US/NATO occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan - when push comes to shove? 

For an imperialist country like Canada, foreign policy is a rather easy dividing line between those who support genuine and universal solidarity - socialists or better - and those who do not. And the more imperialist the country, the easier it is to identify this line.

It's going to be easier and easier to identify this line for Canada ... and the overwhelming majority of our Parliamentarians fall on the wrong side of this line. So to say something positive here, Mulcair won't be out of place. And there's no one of Svend Robinson's magnitude in sight.

Unionist wrote:

If Mulcair said sweet fuck all about Zionism and Jews and Israel, I'd be fine with that.

Not only would it be fine with you- it would be useful even if it got no further than that... as piddly as it might sound.

That much at least sounds quite attainable. And it might not stop there.

N.Beltov wrote:

If Mulcair is weak on the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by Israel, treats any criticism of this odious and racist regime as equivalent to bigotry, and makes all the appropriate seal-like noises when required by his party, then who is to say that he won't be weak on other foreign policy matters - like the US/NATO occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan - when push comes to shove? 

 

This is why he would be to the NDP what Tony Blair was to the Labour Party. I would not support the NDP if he was the leader. Also, his most progressive credential was on the environment front when he was part of Charest's Liberal government. His proposals were pretty much in line with something Dion or even May could come up with. Solid policy based on best practices in Europe.

I would definitely support Charlie Angus who for me has strong socialist credibility and sensibility. Perhaps not as principled and courageous as Bill Siksay and Libby Davies, but a far cry better than the right leaning Thomas Mulcair, Pat Martin and Peter Stoffer.

nicky wrote:

I opened this thread to explore the possible strengths and weaknesses of Mulcair as a possible future NDP leader. Much of the discussion has focused on the narrower Palestinian issue. I appreciate there are strong views held on this issue which in the opinion of some eliminate Mulcair from consideration. I hope we can have a broader discussion. I suspect that given the demographics of Outremont it would be electoral suicide for Mulcair to have taken much of a different position on the Palestinian issue. This perhaps explains but might not excuse. I don't purport to know. The broad Canadian electorate will however not cast it's vote on this issue. I would like to get a better sense of Mulcair. I like what I see. I think he is formidably articulate and persuasive. there seem to be electoral opportunities beckoning the NDP in Quebec which may be harvested with Mulcair as leader. The party's weakness in Quebec has always undermined It's viability nationally. I remember that it was only after Mulroney broke through in the polls in Quebec in the 1984 campaign that the rest of the country fell in line for him. Maybe the same thing can happen with Mulcair.

As for this repeated appeal ?  Nada, perhaps because folks really know booall about the chap except what they read in the johnny one-note threads such as this.

George Victor wrote:

The "progressives" set the bar so high, there is not a person in the realm whose foot fits the fucking slipper of their moral choice.

ha ha. Good one. But, George, aren't you the one defending current US President Obama and his regime's unending torture, indefinite detention, and what have you ... in the longest war in US history.

[Amy Goodman: "The war in Afghanistan is now the longest war in US history ... " ]

Anyway, the bar isn't really all that high. A high bar would be to insist that all NDPers be socialists. Showing solidarity with Palestinians against Israeli atrocities is only "anti-imperialist" and doesn't even rise to the level of socialist anyway. 

These aren't simply "moral choices" George. Perhaps that's your problem in understanding what's being said here. It's about not allowing the bar to go so low ... that one becomes indifferent to torture, war, aggression, and so on.

This is the kind of thinking that keeps re-electing the right-wing Cons & Libs governments to power in Canada. I'll be blunt. The NDP doesn't need, nor does it want, this kind of support.

laine lowe wrote:

I would not support the NDP if he was the leader.

[/quote]

Your assumption of a superior moral position is also the product of an excited imagination, NB,  unable to understand that to eliminate the problem, one can't just climb up on a fucking soapbox and proclaim to the world what a superior fellow you are.

Never works that way in the kind of world we've inherited.

laine lowe wrote:

I would definitely support Charlie Angus who for me has strong socialist credibility and sensibility. Perhaps not as principled and courageous as Bill Siksay and Libby Davies, but a far cry better than the right leaning Thomas Mulcair, Pat Martin and Peter Stoffer.

My New Years wish:

a lightning bolt from the sky illuminating that "principled and courageous" people are not only the ones people agree with.

I understand, but dont share that opinion.

My sense of humour does not include taking digs at people. Not to say I dont. It is a weakness, not something to complacently indulge in.

But as to the substance, "I understand" means that I empathisize what you are reacting to. But you werent just being humorous, You were expressing an opinion about what motivates people. I dont share that opinion.

@ laine lowe
"I did my time supporting the NDP with my votes, financial contributions and door knocking/phone calling/scrutineering in the past but I am not at all inspired to do so anymore."
A customary complaint.
1 - About how much time did you do? 2 -  What has changed...besides the apparent acceptance of the current social institutional arrangement forced into being by the NDP and its CCF predecessor?

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Mulcair has the potential to be Canada's Tony Blair. 

It is comments like this that make me come back here, again and again.

It occurs to me that if an athropologist from say 500 years in the future dug this thread out of some sort of computer hard drive buried in the rubble of Toronto they would easily be able to understand why the left of the early 21rst century in Canada ate itself and left the field wide open for the right.

@ George. I'm not that old that I actually was around for the CCF. I did tons of footwork for Ottawa Centre in the 80s and 90s  on the municipal, provincial and federal levels.

@ KenS. I am not trying to denigrate those who would support the people I like, at all. I just am not impressed with the people the NDP has been tryiing to recruit in the recent past like "progressive" banker Paul Summerville or professor Michael Byers. Trying to displace the LPC by more or less morphing into the LPC smacks of following Tony Blair's Third Way policy.

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

It occurs to me that if an athropologist from say 500 years in the future dug this thread out of some sort of computer hard drive buried in the rubble of Toronto they would easily be able to understand why the left of the early 21rst century in Canada ate itself and left the field wide open for the right.

The "he's not pure enough" schtick only serves Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff et al.

Look, the Palestinian solidarity movement is one which many posters on babble are active in, or at least strongly sympathize with.  And being active in this movement means that we have a bit of a strong emotional attachment to it.  And I don't know if you noticed, but this movement is also facing some pretty severe attacks by the government - including certain NDP polticians like Mulcair, Pat Martin, Judy W-L, Cheri DiNovo, Christine Melnick, etc., and there are very few politicians willing to stick up for us.

Now, I have very little patience for people who insist that I have to support neo-McCarthyite twits who are trying to shut down a movement I'm involved with.  If we're going to pretend to be all one big happy family with the NDP as our friends in Parliament, then solidarity has to be a two-way street.  If someone has made some political calculation that they'll get more support by shitting on us than supporting us, then obviously they don't need our support.

Some of us actually do have a new world in our hearts, and are involved in the daily struggle to make that a reality.  And yes, that also means that some of us also find supporting oppression to be disgusting.  I don't think that's a bad thing, even though sometimes it means we have to go against the grain, or at the very least against people whose only concern is maximizing the number of orange ties in Ottawa.

@ genstrike...from one who can't possibly have a "new world in his heart" ...

What you apparently don't realize is that you are making it possible for Steve to take over. Completely.

Any thoughts on solidarity in the "real world" based on that notion?

George Victor wrote:

Mulcair would understandably have nothing to do with such mincing social democrats,  apparently ready to let Steve set the pace of Canadian social and economic development . Mulcair's  constituents would not understand. (They aren't alone.)

Uh...."mincing social democrats"?  What the hell?

A note about posterity

The KW Labour council has just sold the old (1922) building that has housed the remaining labour unions (membership 3,000 and change) since it was purchased by the collective of unions in 1955 - the year of formation of the CLC and the AFL-CIO - when there were 10 times that number of union members in the region.

Is it perhaps time to stuff the rhetoric and come to realize that "progressive" means combatting the bastards on a level playing field, not in the graveyard?

I don't know guys, what progressive principles exactly have the federal NDP stood for recently, up to and including standing up to this scarey government?   Mulclair for example may have been uneasy about offending some of his base support, as a politician, but did he really HAVE to speak out publically AGAINST fellow New Democrat Libby Davies?  And hasn't Layton himself supported this supposedly frightening regime, when it served his own short term purpose?  Or at least what he thought at the time.  And aren't most of you still talking eagerly about 'overtaking' the Liberals, regardless of whether it merans Harper gets his majority?  Or why its impossible to do business with the other opposition parties?    

And really now, if this board is so far to the left of the 'average' Canadian then what does it matter if some here don't support the official NDP line on small considerations like the MiddleEast?

Methinks certain self-described 'moderates' have just gotten into the habit of projecting their own poorly thought out biases onto the so-called mainstream. 

And Erik, could you rejoin that lunch that you have apparently just returned from?

George Victor wrote:

What you apparently don't realize is that you are making it possible for Steve to take over. Completely.

You know, the last time I heard that line was from some Young Liberal clown when I said I was voting NDP.

Bingo.

genstrike wrote:

George Victor wrote:

What you apparently don't realize is that you are making it possible for Steve to take over. Completely.

You know, the last time I heard that line was from some Young Liberal clown when I said I was voting NDP.

And who did you decide to vote for?  You and U?