Why the right-wing (Liberals & Conservatives) are winning, and how to reverse it

2 Billion later and still no one reads that shit. If they did Canwest wouldnt be bankrupt.

The real problem is Jack. Dont get me wrong, I root for him. I root for the leafs too, but that doesnt make them a good team. I'm sure he's a very nice man. I'm sure Toskala's a very nice man. That doesnt make him a good goalie.

Jack's just not that bright or radical

The media is a problem, and I cannot believe some try to discount it.

Okay; point taken - constructive criticisms always more useful than vague complaints.

For one thing, organization.  On the same day that the NDP was backing the government because of EI reform, I received a missive from Jack et al deploring the ongoing support of the Liberals for the Cons and asking for more funds to help in the fight.  Absolute crap timing.

(I'll post more ideas later - have to go out.)

I think the left over-complicates things. Only 23% of Canadians are university educated and many of those are business grads, lawyers, doctors, not people who studied political science or humanities.  Canadians are preoccupied with the details of daily life not the details of politics so they are suseptable to sound bites and talking points. Not because they are stupid but because they don't have the time for complicated analysis. "General impression" matters alot.

That boils down to quality services and lower taxes.  The parties all fight amongst themselves over who can deliver the best mix.

Canadians are "liberal minded" so the Liberal Party used to win on the basis of governing competence with support for socially liberal causes like gay marriage and pro-choice, separation of church and state. So, they were able to cut our social services based on the need for fiscal restrain.  Liberals lost the integrity war. Harper may not have more integrity but he doesn't have less. All attempts to roll back rights to gay marriage etc. have failed. Ignatieff is distant, he has no experience pertaining to running a country and seems to have an overall poor opinion of Canada. It doesn't seem like he would do anything particularly differently than Harper.

The NDP needs to stop playing the game on the turf of the Conservatives and Liberals. They need short messages that get to the heart of what is happening in Canada.

Publish concise numbers on wealth redistribution in Canada without comment. Let the other two parties explain why rich people have to have all the money.

Point out which country has the best eduction system for what amount of money per head.

Point out which country has the best medicare system for what amount of money per head.

Focus on the need for synergy between cities and rural areas.

Conservatives and Liberals have pitted the middle-class against the poor leaving the wealthy out of the equation. The wealthy have convinced the middle-class that their best interests lie with the corporations that generate the wealth of the country. The poor are a drag on that wealth and a problem that can't be solved with more money. The wealthy are smart people to be admired for their achievements not robbed of their reward for hard work. Conservatives condemn "class wars" while perpetuating one.

NDP needs to popularize the war against the middle-class being perpetuated by the wealthy.

Sweden has a highly successful economy that also delivers greats services. Illustrate best practices in governance around the world.

Defend government as a servant to the people that saves money by delivering essential services more cheaply than private companies.  Medicare is a great model.  Show what a typical family of four pays for health insurance per month to what a typical family in Canada pays per month for public health insurance.

Conservatives and Liberals paint the NDP as a rather unrealistic party that would "tax and spend" through pouring buckets of money into social services for the poor at the expense of the middle-class.

No the media has convinced people they are not.

Not really.

First, as remind said, the media can't be discounted. It is because of the media that Conservatives are perceived as sound economic stewards despite a) missing the biggest economic downturn since the 30s, and; 2) putting us in deficit over ideologically based tax cuts.

But more importantly, the reason the Conservatives and the Liberals do well is because they represent the status quo. People don't like change and they resist it strenuously. The Left represents change so they are rejected repeatedly regardless of the message, the leader. the issues. People accept change, even embrace it, only when circunstances warrant it--which is to say when disaster strikes.

Despite the increasingly sire warnings coming from normally staid scientists, wjy is it Harper continues to do well in the polls despite climate policies that will ensure Canadian children will suffer greatly in the coming decades? Because Harper's do-nothing policies offers Canadians the illusion of safety within the status quo. In other words, reject change in favour of technologies that do not yet exist. Another example:

Quote:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed tough new measures to reduce the health toll from air pollution around the Great Lakes by forcing lake freighters to stop burning dirty bunker fuel.

But the plan has an unusual opponent: The Canadian embassy in Washington has quietly asked the EPA to weaken the measures, arguing that they could harm trade. It wants ships to be allowed to continue using the high-polluting fuel and to instead install smokestack scrubbers that would clean up their emissions. The Canadian recommendation, if accepted, could delay the clean-air measure for years, because the technology for the scrubbers does not yet exist.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-quietly-asks-epa-to-we...

There was a study kicking around here, I think it was, about many people's inability to perceive future events in the now, and thus forestall them.

Which makes me think that thus it has always been. And thus people were labelled "Seers"  when what they noted came to pass, as if it was some mystery observation pulled out of the ether.

Now, I believe they were just see'rs, as in those who were in the action of seeing things that would come to pass if x,y, and z occured, because they can "see".

I think the reason why the NDP is losing is because they have forgotten how to fight back.  At one time, NDP governments could be counted on to push reforms which will make concrete improvements in people's lives and could count on popular support in the face of media and corporate opposition.  Somewhere along the line, that strategy was dropped and the NDP decided to try to abandon the above and try to get some support from the media and big business.

Of course, when the NDP becomes part of the right wing and there are no labour or social movements willing to take on the NDP, then the right wind by default.

Blaming the media ignores a good chunk of the equation - the NDP's willingness to follow along.

Quote:

At one time, NDP governments could be counted on to push reforms which will make concrete improvements in people's lives

Do you have an example of such a government and such reforms?

NorthReport wrote:

What an incredible distortion of what has been said.

The thread title is "Why the right-wing... are winning, and how to reverse it".  Maybe I'm a little cranky because I was at a convention today and had a few to soothe the pain because the results were depressing, but I don't think explaining one of the reasons why I think the left is losing is that far off topic.  I'll be blunt - I think while corporate media does disadvantage the left, blaming the media for every setback, failure or sellout as some NDPers are prone to do is a tiring cop-out.

NorthReport wrote:

And oh yes, another leftie who thinks that attacking the NDP is going to do political wonders for the left in Canada.

I'm honest about my feelings regarding the NDP.  So what's your point, that by being honest I'm hurting the left?  If me truthfully talking about politics from my perspective on an internet forum in my spare time is going to seriously damage the left, then we're way more fucked than even the biggest pessimist can possibly imagine.

The Right keeps winning because the deck is stacked in its favour. Most people are averse to change, yet the Cons or the Libs need only 40% of the vote to get a majority.  That's why Mulroney won in a landslide in '84, while the majority of Canadians were against Free Trade (which represented an unknown quantity to voters) The MSM have always been in cahoots with big business, because they are a big business, themselves (no surprise there).  So, what's to be done? 

The Left needs to recognize that most voters are happy with the status quo.  What voters are mostly concerned about are threats to their 'middle class' status,  through potential job loss, or an erosion of retirement security.  The Cons and the Libs compete with each other by playing to those fears, as they each position themselves as competent economic managers who are also comfortable with Canada's business elite. Urgh! you might say, but it's it's true, from my experience. 

Instead of trying to reach a majority of Canadians, the Left (and I include much of the Greens) needs to focus on a plurality of voters, in order to obtain a majority of seats.  No kidding, eh? 

If the Left can't find a way to accomodate itself, it should abandon all hope of actually winning an election, and concentrate on promoting proportional representation (PR), in the hopes of garnering each faction's share of the remaining votes.

Perhaps, the greatest obstacle that the Left needs to overcome is it's aversion to popular culture.  Instead of taking issue with some picayune point of fact, vis-a-vis some arcane policy issue, it should get down with the 'masses', and get to know them a little.  In other words: less Policy Options and more People magazine (Canadian edition, of course).

You could give left libertarianism a try

Frustrated Mess wrote:

genstrike says that blaming the media is a cop out but then displays attitudes and perceptions that are media driven - that the left is all about dull things while the right is all about fun things.

I never said that

Frustrated Mess wrote:

The left no longer has its own narrative as we have surrendered that to the corporate media and it is why the Left, as a whole, is without direction and is politcally irrelevant--we've lost touch and meaning with our own message.

I agree with that - this is what I was saying.  While corporate media does play a role, it was the left which surrendered our narrative.

Rightys are from Mars and leftys from Venus. The right sees a problem and deals with it without conscience while the left sees a problem and agonizes endlessly about how they should conceptualize their emotions about it.

If the left wants to seize power, the operative word is 'seize'. Seize means concrete efforts to attract the voter with the number one priority: a fiscal policy that protects the 'middle class' entitlements without ruining the economy or introducing delusional social engineering.

Once the left gets that fiscal policy thingy right, the rest will be a cakewalk because while the voter agrees with much lefty policy, they just don't trust leftys with their money.

Quote:

concrete efforts to attract the voter with the number one priority: a fiscal policy that protects the 'middle class' entitlements without ruining the economy or introducing delusional social engineering.

Here is an excellent example. The poster is likely middle-class. That there is rising financial inequality and a shrinking middle-class is of no concern to him/her as it does not yet affect him/her. So (s)he defends and advocates for a status quo, anti-change, and promotes false perceptions of sound economic management by the right, so long as the shrinking economy amd global economic crisis, brought about by the very ideologies and status quo (s)he advocates for (protecting middle-class entitlements), does not directly impact him/her.

When it does, then (s)he will be more disposed to change and open to challenging his/her false preconception fed by a media monopoly--a monopoly on discourse if not ownership.

That's not a problem of demographics so much as alienation.

I agree with a lot of what has been said here-- however I was concerned by a comment upthread about aiming efforts to the 85% who are employed rather than the 15% who are not. This is only partly sensible-- the right wing parties cater to greed and self interest-- voters motivated only by these things will not be moved by the left. The left does not just cater to the 15% it caters to a wider sense of social involvement, collective responsibility and public good. Taking care of the 15% is part of that but in so doing we are indeed catering to the wider group that we may appeal to as left wing voters are not moved primarily by self interest. I think  it is one of the problems of the NDP that at times it forgets this.

The left has to make itself relevant to these wider issues to be successful. It needs to remember that will the right wing parties can compete in the same formula for success-- that is not the recipe for left wing success. Unless we make ourselves into what we want to defeat-- we cannot motivate voters using the same methods as the right wing parties. A different political idealogy requires a different appeal. Indeed perhaps it is this reason the left is so weak in Canada-- it is failing to compete with the right wing parties using right wing political attractions. Now what would happen if the left promoted itself on core values of the left-- and did so consistently. If the left reached out to educate and engage people along the lines of what motivates us? I did not vote NDP when I was poor because it would only help me-- otherwise when I became "middle income" I should have abandonned that voting pattern. I won't be moved by an appeal to my self interest just because I make more money-- if I could be moved for that reason, I'd just vote Liberal or Conservative. I get motivated when the NDP appeals to me for the reasons I am attracted to the party-- when the aprty comes out with specifics that promote social justice, equality, the environment, public goods etc. A misguided attempt to buy me off with a short-sighted appeal to my wallet won't work. My wallet does not vote-- I do.

Now, this does not mean that I would tolerate unfairness to me-- so a measure that I think I desrve and will be paid for perhaps from something that does not deserve -- like corporate profits might leave me interested. But most of all I am motivated by public goods. I am not entirely generous about this-- I want to social stability a just society can offer, I want a sustainable life not just a wealthy one, I want my children to live in a safe and just society regardless of what happens to them personally. I also want to feel good about what I do with my vote.

Not everyone is motivated by the same things I am but those who may vote NDP are and the NDP needs to appeal to this -- not some 85% of people including a bunch who would never consider voting NDP. The NDP needs perhaps to ask its current supporters why they vote NDP and then think about that response and use it to expand that base. It can also ask people who don't vote NDP as to why they won't-- then sort that result into people who are incompatible -- for whom we will do absolutely nothing to get their vote; those who are not considering the NDP due to a misperception on their part that we can correct and those who want something we are not delivering that we can and should deliver because it is a part of our political philosophy to do so. These second two groups are who we should appeal to. On the one hand it is communications to correct misperceptions, on the second it is a question of rethinking what parts of our own political philosophy we are not being true to. These second two groups we can attract without becoming something we aren't. But too often we go after the first group and pervert our policies to bait them and in the end never get them anyway.

In fairness there may be a fourth group: these would be the people we might be able to change-- those who think they are incompatible with us but if we appeal to them from our roots-- honestly and directly we might be able to move some of them-- people who thin they can only be motivated by greed but who might be reachable some other way. So this means there are five groups: the incompatible that can't be moved-- nothing can reach them; those who are misinformed; those who we can serve better while being true to our core philosophy; and those who are against us now but may be moved by the right appeal. None of these people can be reached by pretending to be what we are not or using the formula of the right or by compromising on our principles. Being who we are not of course destroys us from within.

The left needs to apply its principles, produce holistic policies that pass the test against what we believe, be comprehensive policywise when it comes to governance-- and do so from our perspective not someone else's.

Don't try to appeal to potential NDP votes using the formula that works for potential Liberals to vote Liberal. In the end it will still make Liberals vote Liberal. Appeal to potential New Democrats based on what motivates potential New Democrats to vote NDP.

Dear Fidel, you're right about Free Trade being the issue of the 1988 election...  thanks for the correction.  !984, if I recall, took many of us by surprise (especially in Quebec), although polls in the final week showed momentum for the Tories (as they were still righfully callled, back then--who knew that Brian and Ronnie would soon be crooning a duet together!)  I agree with you that the Free Trade implementation, along with the GST imposition, created much cynisism amongst the electorate that, you correctly point out, is still with us today.  Many people I work with have simply given up on the electoral process, and party politics in particular.  It's getting harder to convince people that casting one's pebble into the pot will make any tangible difference to their lives. 

Infosaturated wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

  I get motivated when the NDP appeals to me for the reasons I am attracted to the party-- when the aprty comes out with specifics that promote social justice, equality, the environment, public goods etc. A misguided attempt to buy me off with a short-sighted appeal to my wallet won't work. My wallet does not vote-- I do....

 

Not everyone is motivated by the same things I am but those who may vote NDP are and the NDP needs to appeal to this -- not some 85% of people including a bunch who would never consider voting NDP.

I disagree, I think more people are motivated by those things than you think.

You lost me here-- which things do you think more peole are motivated by than I think-- greed or the things that motivate me-- until I know what you mean by "those things" I can't follow the rest of your argument or how it is a response to mine.

For the most part I do not disagree with much of what you ahve to say but I do not think that pandering to selfishness is the way for the NDP to get more votes-- it undermines the rest of the argument and boxes the party into proposals that make no sense and not justification for support.

Waste in government spending as you describe is a social as well as a personal problem. I don't see how this contradicts what I said even though I agree with it as worthy of some focus.

Quote:

According to George Lakoff, the Right is winning because they have learned how to frame the language of the political debate. They have developed language that people identify with and lead people to the conclusion that the ideas they are framing are in fact the "common sense", (when Ontarians heard that before ?), solutions to the problems of government. An example of the framing of the debate is , "Tax Relief".

Again, this comes to media. If some guy used the words "tax relief" it would have no weight without the megaphone of the corporate press behind it. A good example is the amount of media coverage given to right wing organizations such as the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Association as opposed to, say, the Centre for Policy Alternatives. Also note that while the CPA is almost always identifed as "left" the former two are rarely identified as "right".

So what happens is that right wing politicians speak of tax relief and the media echos them but the media never speaks of the services for which taxes pay. There is a disconnect in the minds of voters between taxes and services. If you asked a voter, do you want to pay fewer taxes? The voter will undoubtedly answer "yes!" But if you then ask, "what do you want to give up?", the conversation begins to take a turn.

The issue of "framing" is simply a new spin on "spin" and it all comes down to the manipulation of public opinion through misleading language and images without any challenge from the corporate or, for that matter, the public media.

It's easy for the right and centre-right old line parties to propose lower taxes. Firstly, Canada is already not a high taxation country compared to 30 other rich countries. We already don't receive a great deal for our taxes, if we compare politically conservative Canada with other rich capitalist countries where their citizens get more for the taxes they pay. Our two right-rightist old line parties assume that what Canadians have never experienced in terms of social democracy, we can never miss.