No More Tom Foolery?

Organizing a movement against Mulcair on the left sounds like a good idea to me.  He was very open about his Third Way politics and intention but a lot of people seemed too enamoured with the idea of "winning."  Now we basically have a Liberal Party under the NDP banner.

Even the narrative about "standing up to Charest" and his "resigning on principle" is kind of a joke.  

I'm also less than enamored with the NDP's increasing deference to NATO. And I'd also like a party that's more willing to challenge the status quo in Israel.

But when I see that video, I don't see a dismissive guy. I see someone I disagree with on a few points, which isn't the same thing as dismissive.

I also see a lot of people engaging in yelling, heckling, badgering, and basically asking questions that they have no interest in hearing someone else's opinion on. I work with a lot of brilliant, optimistic, and effective activists. But there's a kind of activist that's so belligerent, so resigned to pissing in the wind, and so incapable of basic conversational etiquette ("YOU FUCKING SELL OUT THE IMPERIALISTS DON'T DESERVE ETTIQUETTE!!!") that I seriously wish we weren't on the same side.

If these are the people that are going to challenge the party, you can count me out. Those types of people are fundamentally incapable of ever building a "movement", nor do they ever understand why more people aren't interested in joining their "uprising".

The only consolation is that these people will make themselves look so stupid that the NDP will be able to use them for a "sister souljah" moment, to make ideas like universal child care and carbon pricing look reasonable.

Again, you have to distinguish between "dismissive" and "disagreeing". Between "not wanting to be bothered" and "not wanting to pander or agree". Someone asked his opinion on something where he's in open disagreement with strict anti-imperialist activists. He disagreed, but he did it with a lot of detail and respect. As opposed to saying "I'm not going to answer that", or "I reject that question", or "security, could you please do something about this person".

As another point, the NDP was in unanimous agreement about Libya, as the video pointed out. If letting NATO do this kind of thing without Canada is more important to you than (say) carbon pricing, proportional representation, child care, and so on, then maybe you should consider that the NDP isn't the right party for you in the first place?

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

If letting NATO do this kind of thing without Canada is more important to you than (say) carbon pricing, proportional representation, child care, and so on, then maybe you should consider that the NDP isn't the right party for you in the first place?

Indeed I have left but only because the party keeps moving right. I hope when you go to the convention you demand that they take any mention of socialism out of the Constitution.  You wouldn't want to confuse all those liberal voters you are hoping to attract.

Good luck on your quest to get people like Debater to vote for you.  I suspect that voters who have voted Liberal in the past when faced with a Liberal party and the NDP acting like a liberal party they will likely pick the real Liberal party. 

You shouldn't put yourself down in such a fashion. I think you have more in your brain than straw.

However if you want to trade, I'll trade my strawman for your false dichotomy.

People wanting to get rid of a leader it is acknowledged they never wanted- that's a non starter.

And I would think it is obvious why this sucks for reasons that go beyond left, right, centre.

I honestly believe that the best way to reduce U.S. violence would be to emmigrate there and get involved. Canada's role in these conflicts is symbolic. Even in the most wildly optimistic dream, where you could create some kind of groundswell where Canada denounces (say) the counter-terrorism mission on Mali. Then what? If you want to stop violence initiated and perpetuated by other countries, you have to go fishing where the salmon are.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Right. Because the guy with "social democratic" in his name is secretly a liberal who wants to remove all elements of socialism from the party.

You often sound so cynical and bitter and defeated, I guess you need to find victories wherever you can, even if you have to make them up.

I said take the socialist references out of the Constitution I never said anything about the taking social democracy out of anything. It should have been removed years ago but the party likes to lie to the left to gain support and volunteers. Having a reference to socialism in the Constitution is just barefaced hypocrisy.

After working for the party for decades, partially because of its stands on foreign policy not just Canadian policy, you tell me I was always in the wrong party and then you call me cynical.  I and other idiots like me kept the party alive as a third party only to see it morph into a pro free trade, pro NATO, pro tar pipelines party and you can't think of any reason why that would bother me.

I am sorry I was so stupid as to have thought that those ideals were worth fighting for when it fact it is obviously only power that is important. Its your fucking party now not mine so good luck in reaching for the brass ring but please don't try to claim to have any socialist leanings in Tom's party.

I love the fact that you not only want to kick people out of your party for daring to raise foreign policy issues but you also suggest they should leave the country and move to America. WTF is with that?  The RCAF bombs Libya and provides heavy lift capabilities to the French invasion forces in Mali and your party agrees to it.  It is not just America anymore that is to blame there is blood on Canadian hands now too and there is no parliamentary opposition to it. 

What good will it be for the party to gain government, yet forfeit its soul? 

@kropotkin1951: You might think of joining the Greens, if you can accept the Clarity Act.

I hear what you are saying A24. And you arent the only one.

But the formal processes are neither the problem or the solution.

Tom Mulcair not only won a free and fair election. But there was a ton of discussion, and I think people knew what they were voting for.

Coming to the present- there should be leadership reviews, but there aren't. Thats not because someone(s) "ran it down". It is because constitutional change is VERY difficult because of the two-thirds majority requirement. When One Member One Vote was proposed it got surprising consensus support. But that was fragile. And it wa achieved and maintained by keeping it simple. If you get into "the details," people who were never sure they wanted this start going sideways. If you want OMOV, stick to that. Leadership reviews get into heel digging disagreemnts about how. So you dont go there.

And predictably, people dont want to go back there.

But even if there were formal leadership reviews [like every year?]- Tom Mulcair would easily pass.

Having unsupportive 'forms' doesnt help. But the content is the issue. You can make the NDP far more pro-actively democratic, and it is still the same big tent. And the overwhelming majority in that big tent dont agree about everything, and from time to time largely dont like what is going on.... but they are satisfied with the 'long wave' of the ideological orientation of the party.

Which in turn consigns another group of people to being a perpetual minority. Not without influence, but rarely in a position to say they are satisfied.

It doesnt have to be that way. But that is [at a minimum] the way it has been.

This is a waste of space thread. Mulcair is doing a great job and I'm very happy with him.

Brachina wrote:

This is a waste of space thread. Mulcair is doing a great job and I'm very happy with him.

So, because you are happy with him, everyone else should just fall in line?

I think criticism, holding him to task, and even opposition is fine. It is a good and necessary thing, actually.

On the other hand, I think a leadership review is premature, and would actually undermine everyone's credibility. These criticisms of style and policy might be valid, but I don't see any critical mass there. To start off by saying we want to get rid of him (and I don't think that is mis-reading of this) and then go looking for the ammunition sounds more like disappointment with the results of the leadership campaign that was just held not too long ago.

If that's what you want, fine; but I think this is not the right time. As Boom Boom seemed to imply, he got elected, and he deserves at least a kick at the electoral can.

and @ ODA
There was at least one well-documented case of that tail being cut off, for good or ill (I think ill). But you are never going to have a party in which everyone is of the same mind about everything. These tensions are always going to exist - in every party.

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

autoworker wrote:

Why doesn't the NPD's socialist faction form its own party, rather than being the tail that insists on wagging the dog?

 

My guess is that would be a bitter prospect for many, considering that 'tail' was once the whole dog. 

It might represent the beginning of a new breed. Besides, who can resist a cute puppy?

In a thread on Dec. 28, 2010, I wrote this:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

From what I have seen of him on video, I think that Mulcair has the "Royal Jelly". The unlearnable aura of competence and sincerity that makes people feel that they can trust him to make decisions for them. Whether he would actually improve the situation if he became Prime Minister is another question, but I am cautiously optimistic that he might, despite his faults.

My opinion hasn't changed much since then. I voted for him as leader because I believed that none of the other candidates were likely to prove much more left wing than he would, but they would all be much less likely to become Prime Minister. My fondest hope is that Mulcair and the NDP will form a government and keep their promise to enact MMP. Then it will make sense for the left wing of the NDP to join with other socialists from outside the party to form a new, clearly left party.

I would join it, and hope to elect a few dozen MPs, who could advocate for causes that centrist parties are afraid of, and even take part in left coalition governments. Until that happens, I will continue to support the NDP as the best hope for some sort of positive change, and Mulcair as clearly the most talented vote getter in the party.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Social democracy has always been a mix of free market policies with regulation, nationalization, and wealth transfers to make for a more fair society. The NDP is advocating for policies like carbon pricing, a federal minimum wage, and aboriginal sovereignty, which all fit nicely into a social democratic tradition. The NDP is also advocating for national child care, increased home care, and a national infrastructure plan, all paid for by asking corporations to pay more taxes. By those facts, the NDP is a social democratic party. And Mulcair belongs here as much as (most of?) the other MPs.

Not true. That's primarily post WW2 social democracy. The Social Democratic Party of Germany was originally a Marxist party. Lenin and Luxembourg refered to themselves as social democrats until 1914. The use of the term social democracy was abandonned by the radical left after 1914 because of its ties to those social democrats who voted to supply war funding to their own countries during WW1.

This is to a certain extent why I believe blaming Mulcair isn't the answer. If we take post war social democracy as a starting from the Clement Attlee's Labour government, we see a steady shift to the right. In fact in 1945, Labour went about building the welfare state despite the fact that government debt was 225% of GDP. Slowly but surely basic tenets of post war social democracy jettisoned. First the issue of public ownership was abandoned. The major changes of neoliberalism were never challenged by social democrats. While Thatcher may have abolishedncapital controls in the UK, capital controls were abolished by social democratic parties in other countries. Social Democrats have started using the language of "competitiveness." Even the NDP points out that it wants to keep the corporate tax rate below the US one for this reason. We saw the SPD government in Germany a decade ago increase labour market flexibility which has caused an explosion of precarious work there. And now the French Socialists are about to do the same.

So what does social democracy stand for today? If the NDP wins in 2015 and we have decent growth and no deficit we will get some progressive legislation, but if there's a huge deficit and global downturn as the NDP takes power don't expect the NDP to challenge orthodoxy. No social democratic party in power during the global crisis has attempted to combat the downturn with a pro-growth plan. I don't see how the NDP can somehow escape the trend of what is happening to social democracy everywhere else. The Ontario & Saskatchewan NDP certainly didn't when faced with these issues in the early 1990's while in power.

KenS wrote:

North Star wrote:

If the NDP wins in 2015 and we have decent growth and no deficit we will get some progressive legislation, but if there's a huge deficit and global downturn as the NDP takes power don't expect the NDP to challenge orthodoxy. No social democratic party in power during the global crisis has attempted to combat the downturn with a pro-growth plan. I don't see how the NDP can somehow escape the trend of what is happening to social democracy everywhere else. The Ontario & Saskatchewan NDP certainly didn't when faced with these issues in the early 1990's while in power.

"Decent growth" is only a [faint] possibility. And setting "no deficit" as your standard, means you [and many others] are not paying attention to the Harper agenda. 2015 being an election year, there either will be no deficit, or close to the target. But that will be after over 20 years of slashing both spending, AND the fiscal capacity of government. The later is the particular long term plan/vengeance of the Harper years: "Starve the Beast."

Even with the annual deficit gone, and "modest growth".... there will be no fiscal capacity to do anything other than continue to administer the decimated government. Thats the plan Stan.

Which is why Topp and Cullen proposed raising taxes during the leadership campaign: we absolutely need it, and because they are both convinced that astutely rolled out, it can be a cornerstone winning strategy. Mulcair said no during the campaign, and I beleive he has since made affirming comments.

Leaving aside what Mulcair in particular stands by, social democracy that cannot make winning conditions out of whatever is available, that only wins by flying in under the radar.... that is worth what now?

I agree with you that social democracy can't make winning coniditions of whatever is available- but social democratic governments have done more with less than we have now in the past. I mentioned the economic situation of the UK in 1945. There's also the New Deal and while the CCF in Sask completed an ambitious agenda in 4 terms, it managed to accomplish more in its first term than social democratic governments do today in several terms.

But yeah fiscal capacity is a major issue and until the NDP is willing to address it, they remained limited in what they can do. 

I agree with you that the Cons are really gunning for that balanced budget. Growth will probably remain weak but not non-existant. However the global economy is still a wild card. If there is another major downturn and the IMF, World Bank and G20 finally come to their senses and recommend another round of stimulus will Harper listen? He's already bucked international trends before. Even if he rejects a coordinated stimulus Canada may still end up in the red anyway with another downturn.

I'll be a 'good soldier'.

But his game with the energy sector has only begun. Its premature to say that he has come out with a draw- even so far.

If you want to use the anolgoy of military service, being "a good solider" doesn't mean going "Ready Aye Ready" without thought. I know, I served. People have a right to challegne it seems to me. I am personally troubled by much of what Mulcair proposes, but will work for his election and hope for the best. But others chose not to and challenge instead, I have no issue with it. It seems to me that dissention out of concience is a key part of being a New Democrat. At least, that's how I see it.

A nice counterpunch:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/16/mulcair-points-out-harper-denoun...

Obviously we're not going to be witnessing a revolt from within anytime soon, no matter what.

Since we're making predictions now- I doubt it.

Eventually: probably. [Given indications of where Mulcair will go.]

Soon: not likely.