Here is an interview of Andrea Horwath where she identifies as a socialist and explicitly calls for a rejection of the Third Way approach.
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=779503&...
And following that, there is an interview with socialist scholar Leo Panitch where there is some critique of Horwath's approach and is interesting but my guess will be far less popular around here.
I will try to find time to watch the Panitch interview later.
The more I see and hear Horwath, the more I like her. And, I suspect that's not an uncommon thing, even amoungst people who don't share my bias. So, she needs to find ways to get more exposure.
I like her language. It's time the NDP started using words like "stolen" because that's what's happened, and that's what people feel.
However, I think she doesn't make the case that the entire Ontario economy is dependant on a vibrant manufacturing sector. Instead, it seemed she was lobbying for a narrower interest. It would have been better to explain how, for example, mom and pop business at street level benifit from good paying manufacturing jobs. Which is not to say the linkage to green jobs was out of place, or wrong, just not as complete a picture as what needs to be painted.
I watched Andrea Horwath and she came across as principled, articulate and quite likeable. And Paikin was superb, as usual.
I tried watching the Panitch interview but I was kind of turned off by his claim that the NDP was just another rightwing party that wasn't good enough for a big important professor like him.
Excellent interview for Andrea. Paikin wasn't giving up on trying to box Andrea and the ONDP into a corner. He certainly wanted to reinforce the old media addage that the NDP is out of date, and I think she made some good points on why the NDP has a role, and I can understand why the NDP cannot simply be a "Concious" as he would like.
Other then that, I tend to agree with Mr. Paine above, but as many of the people who watch the show do not have a manufacturing background, nor might not understand the importance of manufacturing to the Ontario economy, even in what little Andrea gave, it is 1000% more then delivered by any other party leader when it comes to supporting a manufacturing base.
Paiken is one of those types who wishes to see value added production leave Ontario, because he must have been told we cannot make things here anymore :)
Until that attitude changes and people understand the nature of Capital and Manufacturing many industries are going to leave. Andrea has the right notes on manufacturing.
I think it was a good interview. I also think as she progresses she will have to talk about broader issues and those people who understand manufacturing need to realize that there is only one horse in the race for their "interests" in our economy.
It is "Our Economy" isn't it?
What I hear from my non-political friends (I do have a few) is this: "She comes across as a real person, not a politician."
That certainly can't hurt, eh?
"Paiken is one of those types who wishes to see value added production leave Ontario, because he must have been told we cannot make things here anymore :)"
Well, when the Ontario government starts to make cuts to TVO because Ontario has a substantially reduced tax base, maybe Mr. Paiken will have an epiphany.
I watched and agree that she was articulate. Photogenic, likeable....etc. However as a supporter of the third way approach I found her to be far too left for my liking. She takes a large gamble in assuming that just becasue workers have been cheated out of their pensions and the maufacturing sector is crumbling then these so called disenfrachised people will automatically gravitate towards the NDP. In this age more and more people outside of this board express views that are consistant with center to center right ideology. Horwath in announcing her socialist identity has boxed herself into the far left mold. She also came accross as too pro union thus further entrenching the concept that the unions run the ndp. (don't they?) I realize this suits the left and her partrons well but this strategy is most likely to keep the NDP in third party status (hopefully with official party status) rather than in a position of government. The average voter is going to stick with the devil they know rather than risk it on left wing radicalism (in their minds not mine) Palkin was masterful in his role as Liberal attack dog. He deflty led Horwath down a path that a) pigeon holed her as a socialist and b) forced her to admit that she advocates for a redistribution of wealth in society. Mark my words: people are not even near ready to hear this kind of talk. The only ones listening are the lefties that have impatiently twisted for someone other than Hampton (god he was brutal) to beat this drum. Ontarians are not ready to self-actualize and respond to the socialist message. Maybe a reccession unitl 2018 will make this happen but otherwise a third way propose and not oppose method would be a better way to lure center voters to the ndp. We don't have to be Liberal but instead show we can do a better job then they can. The mantra: propose not oppose. Still not too late to overhaul the messaging.
I like Horwath because she endorsed BC-STV. We'll swap you for Carole James. And we'll throw in Bill Tieleman and David Schreck.
Mark my words: people are not even near ready to hear this kind of talk.
But if they never get said, they'll never get used to them.
Ready or not, here we come....
Those words have been said before. In China where many of our immigrant Chinese hail from. Pretty sure they don't like the sounds of it. Scratch 5 ridings in Scarborough. 1 for Richmond Hill and 1 for Markham. Socialism is definetley not a hit with the East Indian Crowd so scratch 1 riding in Brampton. Move on the affluent to semi affluent ridings like 5 in Mississauga. 5 in Ottawa. 1 for Pickering. 1 for Whitby. (These middle to upper middle class folks won't be keen on wealth distribution.) Don't forget a few in Toronto where the real money players play. I could go on here to talk about the senior citizen/baby boomer vote that makes up a huge chunk of the electorate. The grey power folks have heard those words before. In WWII from the Russians. So scratch that base. Who is left? THe patient North that is growing increasingly impatient with waiting for the NDP to catch on anywhere else in the province. Hamilton? Sure they'll stick. GM auto towns? Maybe....but then they did go conservative last time around so I'd put them at moving a bit left to Liberal at best. My point? Socialism a great idea but many don't understand it and link it to a) problems in their country of origin. b) the Soviets and the cold war and failure. c) as a means to overtax the middle to upper middle class. I'd say take a socialist approach. Once you've formed government but don't ride that bandwagon into the next election. Sounds way to risky for uncertain people in uncertain times.
So your best recommendation is to lie?
Are you certain you're not really 'Liberalman'?
...'cause you sure sound like one.
I'm all for parties being "strategic" to some extent and within certain limits, but they also have to be true to who they are. The NDP's core philosophy is to support some measure of redistribution of wealth and support more people being unionized since unionization tends to lead to higher wages and better working conditions. If the NDP were to completely reneg on those principles then there would be no reason to exist at all.
Mark my words: people are not even near ready to hear this kind of talk.But if they never get said, they'll never get used to them.
Ready or not, here we come....
Exactly. And Panitch criticizes Paikin's claim that parties go where the votes are - certainly Thatcher and Reagan on the right and Douglas on the left changed the way people saw the world, they didn't just go for the median voter.
Bob Rae of course just got in by a fluke, and did not change the way people thought about the world, and in fact prepared the ground for Harris.
Well, Douglas was also of the view that you should never be TOO far out in front.
So was Reagan for that matter.
I think Leo's never grown his movement much beyond his students and some fellow professors because he's pretty removed from where working people are actually at - in every way.
I think Leo's never grown his movement much beyond his students and some fellow professors because he's pretty removed from where working people are actually at - in every way.
That's almost exactly what Rosario Marchese once told me!
Anyway you're right Douglas was also pragmatic - but I can't think of any other NDPer who was such a transformative figure. I mean, Ed Broadbent was popular and likeable but he didn't really change the way people saw the world.
Its funny how we deify Tommy Douglas now over 20 years after his death, but when he was a major political figure at the national level in the 60s and 70s, he was known for losing his own seat twice, being humiliated in his native Saskatchewan, never winning more than 22 seats for the federal NDP and by the late 60s there were plots within the NDP to dump him because people felt that his folksy, "hayseed" image was an obstacle to growing the party in urban Canada.
After Obama's victory, a group of his advisors were interviewed on 60 Minutes (video available as part of [url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/obama-communications-director-to-speak-new-democ... release[/url] on the NDP website). One of the comments that struck me was that they spent almost no time deciding on their message. Obama knew what he wanted to say from day one. I think that candidates who speak in language that is fed to them, instead of what they really believe, sound insincere -- because they are.
Lester Pearson's wife thought the same thing about hicks in Manitoulin Island area. She asked him why they had to travel all the way up there. And Lester reminded her that those were some of the people who voted for him
Its funny how we deify Tommy Douglas now over 20 years after his death, but when he was a major political figure at the national level in the 60s and 70s, he was known for losing his own seat twice, being humiliated in his native Saskatchewan, never winning more than 22 seats for the federal NDP and by the late 60s there were plots within the NDP to dump him because people felt that his folksy, "hayseed" image was an obstacle to growing the party in urban Canada.
And yet while Broadbent and for that matter Layton were more successful electorally TC Douglas was far more of a transformative figure.
define "transformative"
define "transformative"
If you have to ask, you can't afford it.
define "transformative"
Changing the way people see things, rather than just capturing a certain segment of the voters where they already are.
As much as i admire Tommy Douglas, I think its a mistake to say the he personally was so "transformative". He got elected Premier of Sasjatchewan - good for him - Medicare came in 16 years after he was elected and was actually brought in by his successor - Woodrow Lloyd. I give Douglas credit for doing some good things, but let's not overstate things. In the 9150s, 60s and 70s, government all over the western world were busy expanding the role of the state and creating nw social programs and Douglas as Premier caught that wave. I wonder how transformative he would have been if he had been elected for the first time in 1991 instead of 1944?
As much as i admire Tommy Douglas, I think its a mistake to say the he personally was so "transformative". He got elected Premier of Sasjatchewan - good for him - Medicare came in 16 years after he was elected and was actually brought in by his successor - Woodrow Lloyd.
The first government in this hemisphere to implement socialized medicine!
And after twelve of the Liberals in Ottawa, all we got was a lick and a promise for national daycare.
Provincial conservatives in one Northern Ontario riding held a seat for over 50 years promising the locals a bridge to their little island off the North shore. And they soaked it for all it was worth. 50 some years later, they finally got their bridge at some wild cost overrun.
In the 9150s, 60s and 70s, government all over the western world were busy expanding the role of the state and creating nw social programs and Douglas as Premier caught that wave. I wonder how transformative he would have been if he had been elected for the first time in 1991 instead of 1944?
Exactly! Like, I wonder how transformative Albert Einstein would have been had he been born in 1359, in Damascus, as a sheep?
Anybody else?
It all happened after turn of the last centiry because millions of western world citizens were martyred by two terrible economic depressions and two terrible world wars. North American laissez-faire capitalism fell flat on its ass for a second time by 1929, and Soviet communism threatened a way of life for the creme de la creme, or so they were led to believe by Pentagon capitalists. The elite were willing to share national incomes with workers for a short time to the 1970's. And the most amazing thing about the rollbacks of social democracy since the end of cold war is that it was done in face of near-full voting rights.
As much as i admire Tommy Douglas, I think its a mistake to say the he personally was so "transformative". He got elected Premier of Sasjatchewan - good for him - Medicare came in 16 years after he was elected and was actually brought in by his successor - Woodrow Lloyd. I give Douglas credit for doing some good things, but let's not overstate things. In the 9150s, 60s and 70s, government all over the western world were busy expanding the role of the state and creating nw social programs and Douglas as Premier caught that wave. I wonder how transformative he would have been if he had been elected for the first time in 1991 instead of 1944?
There's a lot of truth to that - social democratic parties around the world have capitulated to neoliberalism and I don't know if Douglas would have been able to withstand it. That being said, it's not as if people "naturally" thought government healthcare was a good idea. Douglas had to convince people of it, and did so.
Politicians don't always simply go where the votes are. Do you seriously think Thatcher and Reagan simply went where the votes were, or did they also do a lot to change people's perceptions?
There's a lot of truth to that - social democratic parties around the world have capitulated to neoliberalism and I don't know if Douglas would have been able to withstand it.
I have no doubt Tommy Douglas would have found paying for social prorgams much more difficult today. Canada's federal Liberals and Tories, together, capitulated to the neoliberal ideologylike few other countries and forced it on Canada's provincial governments from a top-down approach since FTA-NAFTA. Deregulation has been a large part of the ideology pushed by NAFTA free traders, and deregulation is now at the root cause of capitalism in crisis around the western world.
English speaking western countries became neoliberal experiments in free trade and deregulation since the 1980's. Key economic sectors for deregulation ended in disaster or were stopped, stalled, and put off to later dates over the last few years. And now deregulated financial capitalism, the crowning achievement of neoliberalism since failing the first time in Pinochet's Chile, is on the wane here in North America.
[url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-social-welfare-stat... Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology[/url] 2006
Finland, Norway and Sweden, which have been governed by left-of-center social democratic parties for much or all of the post�World War II era. They combine a healthy respect for market forces with a strong commitment to antipoverty programs. Budgetary outlays for social purposes average around 27 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the Nordic countries and just 17 percent of GDP in the English-speaking countries.
Ha! If only we had the same haberdasher.I think Leo's never grown his movement much beyond his students and some fellow professors because he's pretty removed from where working people are actually at - in every way.That's almost exactly what Rosario Marchese once told me!
Couldn't agree more.
(Actually I was being sarcastic)
It's true but the NDP and other parties like it used to play an important role in terms of popular education, etc. and not just seeing themselves as trying to reflect some segment of the electorate that sees itself as left of center.
typical ndp. so oppositional that we detract from the legacy of our success stories. Minimalizing the accomplishments of Tommy Douglas? Jesus.... and even Bob Rae, at least he got into governement. time to start thinking like winners and moving from the margins. You socialist/radical lefties have hijacked my party. I want it back. And to answer an earlier post. I could never vote for those Liberal thieves. I'm starting to think I could also never vote for this whinner NDP party either. FUCK.
You're funny.
They might have a case against social democratic parties around the world if it wasnt for Nordic countries making Canada appear to be a socially regressive and uncompetitive resource colony for the vicious empire.
So, ndpman - Why exactly do you vote NDP? What do you want them to stand for? What kind of platform do you envision? (...the real, honest one, not the one you want to lie about.)
Socialists and radical lefties have hijacked the NDP?
I wish.
The Andrea Horwath interview was impressive. Non-third way socialism with a human face, and a desire to win. The whole package!
Jesus.... and even Bob Rae, at least he got into governement. time to start thinking like winners and moving from the margins. You socialist/radical lefties have hijacked my party. I want it back.
Sorry - are you calling Stockholm a "socialist/radical lefty"?
In any case, ndpman, it looks like you have your party back... maybe not in Ontario anymore, but definitely federally. In December 2008, the federal NDP capitulated at the mere possibility of being part of a coalition government with the Liberals, and immediately dropped the ONLY two policies of theirs from the table that distinguished them from the Tories, Liberals and Bloc: not decreasing corporate taxes and corporate income taxes, and an immediate withdrawl from Afghanistan.
Now, we're in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression... it should be a time for massive policy innovation and leadership for Canada's pretendy socialist party. And what is the leadership talking about? EI, pensions and credit cards. That's it! In a bid to prop up the Tories, even. Even deputy party leader and NDP house leader Libby Davies seems to be leading these efforts.
ndpman, you should be jumping for joy.
I like Horwath because she endorsed BC-STV. We'll swap you for Carole James. And we'll throw in Bill Tieleman and David Schreck.
Ha! I don't even consider myself a socialist, but I totally agree. I'd vote/volunteer/donate to her party any day. It's too bad that the ONDP is a third party cause she has a lot of potential, but you know, I could see her changing that. I agree with everyone who said she has that "real person" and not politician-y touch.
[URL=http://www.lindamcquaig.com/Columns/ViewColumn.cfm?REF=99]Corporations blame unions for economic meltdown[/URL]
Elite deflect blame, settle old scores, by demanding concessions from auto workers.
By any logic, advocates of unfettered capitalism should be seeking cover from public wrath these days, as the deregulated capitalism they foisted on us continues to self-destruct, bringing calamity into the lives of millions.Yet I've heard barely a whisper of mea culpa from members of this corporate crowd.
On the contrary, they seem to see the economic meltdown as an opportunity to finally do in their old foes in the labour movement.
German and Japanese auto companies are being bailed out too, but their government are not demanding wage rollbacks from auto workers.After years of demonizing unions and undermining workers' rights, they're now taking advantage of the unpopularity of the auto bail-outs to try to take away gains that the Canadian Auto Workers spent decades achieving, and that set a standard for the labour movement.
In demanding wage concessions of up to $19 an hour, auto company executives and the Harper government are hoping to deflect public anger for the economic meltdown onto those who assemble cars. (If only GM workers hadn't frittered away their time on the assembly line bundling together those Credit Derivative Swaps.)
Auto workers in Ontario should be real glad they voted Liberal and Tory. Looks good on 'em.
Sad but true, Fidel.
