Partisan Politics and the NDP

22 posts / 0 new

Thu, 2010-03-25 22:27

Kloch

The comments by NDP supporters in some threads came to mind when I read the link below. Here is an excerpt:

"There is an unfortunate transformation that some sometimes undergo when they become a part of what is the institution of our New Democratic Party.

Without being entirely cognizant of the process, they begin to adopt an attitude and a style of doing things that they would have laughed at had they seen it in others, indeed would have condemned in those who act similarly within the Liberal or Conservative Parties. Their institution becomes one of the pillars of their life, and a concern develops within them about that institution being even shaken up a bit, lest they, in the process, be toppled from their secure pedestal of pontificating, lest they discover, despite the allegiance to a party that long ago dispensed with the socialism or radicalism that apparently demarcates them from the rest, they are, in fact, so like all the others who surround them."

http://ndpleft.blogspot.com/2010/03/caught-in-workings-of-machine-democracy.html

Is it possible that, in their criticism of Stuart Parker, the recent NDP executive vote, that otherwise well intentioned members of their party have, rather than analyze the incidents in an analytical sense, have engaged in the sort of partisan attacks that they despise in their ideological adversaries? Is it possible that, even in the NDP, that one's loyalty to party can affect one's political judgement?

Issues Pages:

Politics in Canada

Thu, 2010-03-25 23:13

KenS

Pop psycholgy storms the Bastille.

Political judgement coming from deep institutional loyalty. Did I hear that somewhere else today?

I stand before you, throwing off the shackles of shame....

Institional Loyalist

and not just any Institutional Lolayist,

i'll have you know ive had bestowed on me the honorific of

Deep Institutional Loyalist

... ready to lay waste to heretics all and sundry.

Thu, 2010-03-25 23:31

ottawaobserver

Hmmm, I thought he meant me.

Fri, 2010-03-26 00:27

KenS

you can be an Ordinary institutional loyalist.

It must be within my powers as the Deep Institutional Loyalist to confer that [subordinate] honour upon you.

Fri, 2010-03-26 00:30

KenS

strike up the band...

Loyalty Forever,

Loyalty Forever..

the In sti tution makes us strong!

Fri, 2010-03-26 00:56

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

The name United Empire Loyalists is an honorific name given after the fact to those American Loyalists who resettled in British North America and other British Colonies as an act of fealty to King George III after the British defeat in the American Revolutionary War and prior to the Treaty of Paris. Some sought to recover fortunes (land and private property) lost under laws enacted by the Continental Congress to finance the revolution with confiscated properties. Most, however, are believed to have gone north because the British offered them free land, or because they rejected the republican ideals of the American Revolution, which they regarded as anarchistic .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Empire_Loyalist

Fri, 2010-03-26 10:14

antsunited

Kind of ridiculous. Support for a motion from the executive that some of us think is a good way to plan to use most effectively limited time and resources = blind loyalty to the party. I for one have found lots of ways to express my dissatisfaction with my party when warranted. Even going so far as public condemnation as in the example of Cheri Dinovo's attack on freedom of speech and coocoobananas support for Fatah and his wretched racist ideas. But Kloch thanks for the insinuation that my analytical skills have been suspended because I don't agree with you. Very effective.

Fri, 2010-03-26 10:52

Kloch

antsunited wrote:

Kind of ridiculous. Support for a motion from the executive that some of us think is a good way to plan to use most effectively limited time and resources = blind loyalty to the party. I for one have found lots of ways to express my dissatisfaction with my party when warranted. Even going so far as public condemnation as in the example of Cheri Dinovo's attack on freedom of speech and coocoobananas support for Fatah and his wretched racist ideas. But Kloch thanks for the insinuation that my analytical skills have been suspended because I don't agree with you. Very effective.

It's not that you disagree with me that's the problem.

When the public meeting about party democracy was advertised, the first reaction from several posters was not to defend the executive's decision to give themselves another year in office, and the internet voting. Rather, they spent an entire thread accusing us of smearing some person's good name. The issue was raised not to impunge the person's integrity, but to question why seemingly normal rules that ensure transparency and accountability weren't followed. Rather than address those points, the authors of the letter were accused of character assassination.

And of course, our endless Stuart Parker discussion, in which a guy is rejected as a candidate for using "inflammatory" language to describe an incident in which the police shot thousands of rounds at aboriginal protestors.

For the most part, none of the posters could formulate a serious argument and simply relied on assertion and accusations of character assassination. The above article accurately describes the behaviour of some New Democrats, not all.

Fri, 2010-03-26 11:37

KenS

What I just posted is relevant in its own right. But it is a reply to your non-response to antsunited.

antsunited wrote:

But Kloch thanks for the insinuation that my analytical skills have been suspended because I don't agree with you. Very effective.

And your opening post is so over the top in doing what he says that its comical. And you've done the same thing earlier.

Your stock answer to criticism is that people suspend their analytical skills. When you tired of a substantive discussion with me, that was your solution.

When you tire of a discussion you could say so rather than make ad hominem dismissals.

Fri, 2010-03-26 11:41

#10

KenS

You know Kloch, it was possible to have made a defence without an attack on all criticism.

Kloch wrote:

When the public meeting about party democracy was advertised, the first reaction from several posters was not to defend the executive's decision to give themselves another year in office, and the internet voting. Rather, they spent an entire thread accusing us of smearing some person's good name. The issue was raised not to impunge the person's integrity, but to question why seemingly normal rules that ensure transparency and accountability weren't followed. Rather than address those points, the authors of the letter were accused of character assassination.

And of course, our endless Stuart Parker discussion, in which a guy is rejected as a candidate for using "inflammatory" language to describe an incident in which the police shot thousands of rounds at aboriginal protestors.

For the most part, none of the posters could formulate a serious argument and simply relied on assertion and accusations of character assassination. The above article accurately describes the behaviour of some New Democrats, not all.

The disputing about the observation of the vote you are referring to was not there from the beginning of the discussion. And I disputed precisely the attribution of motives of the Executive giving themselves another year in office, and a host of other over the top stuff. [Like it was about delaying Convention and the principles of democracy of that process. Why bring in all this other crap?] Don't reduce the disputing to the parts you have the easiest time dealing with.

Contentious discussions typically degenerate into obsessing on one aspect of the larger discussion. This one was no different. What it ended on was not what the discussion was about.

Then there is the 'none of the protesters' could formulate a serious argument appearing to referr to the Stuart Parker discussion. Did you really intend to say that?

Though I would take exception also to 'no serious argument' being made against that overblown press release by Laxer and Schwarz that launched the discussion.

Fri, 2010-03-26 11:49

#11

ottawaobserver

No-one apparently formulated an argument *you agreed with*, but the rest of that statement is incorrect.

Fri, 2010-03-26 11:56

#12

Kloch

KenS formulated a few arguments I disagreed with, as did you. A few other folks joined a pile-on accusing me of impunging the good name of a person who isn't even mentioned.

Can you explain what part of the statement is incorrect?

Fri, 2010-03-26 12:45

#13

Life, the unive...

Just because someone was not named does not mean they were not identified. Clearly people were identified and enough people knew who was involved to know who people were going at.

One thing I noticed, having no horse in the race since I am not an NDP member, is that some people with a lot of experience were identifying some glaring over the top comments and asking, even if not politely, for a retraction because they were not true and smeared, even if only by implication, someone. Yet those on the other side, responded with 'that's not what we mean please refer to our argument". Which on the face of it is a ridiculous rejoinder.

It is the same media (public utterance) illiteracy evident in the Parker issue. It is not that the issue might not be a substantive one, it is how it will be portrayed and the distraction it will cause to the national campaign and all the other 300 plus candidates. When dealing with the media you don't get to decide what you meant - they do. The same goes when you put out a media release. You don't get to decide what it means- the reader does. Whining about being treated unfairly might be correct in absolute terms, but it won't do much good when your campaign is coming down around your ears. Look at Layton in his first campiagn and his remarks around homelessness. In absolute terms he was 100% correct, but in political and media terms it was a disaster. That is what is at stake with comments like "the NDP shot at". That some still don't get that is more about their blinders than the blind allegence of people who are pointing out the terrible price that would be paid for those kinds of comments. It is fundamentally not the same thing as saying the NDP government made horrendous mistakes. It is the language and the use it would be put to against the local campaign, and all other campaigns including the national one.

So instead of throwing around accusations at people who clearly have a much deeper understanding of the mechanisms of public discourse, maybe those doing the throwing around should look at the substance of what people were saying, because if you look behind it - there is a heck of a lot of substance, and on the face of it, I would guess a lot of hard won experiance to base it upon.

On the face of it, the contention of the opening post is just plain wrong and very superficial in its analysis and says way more about the inadequecy of the author to understand the nuances of public discourse than anything about those trying to exlain why those people are just wrong.

Fri, 2010-03-26 13:07

#14

ottawaobserver

Thank you, L-T-U-A-E. And hard won it was, indeed.

Fri, 2010-03-26 13:53

#15

wage zombie

Kloch wrote:

When the public meeting about party democracy was advertised, the first reaction from several posters was not to defend the executive's decision to give themselves another year in office, and the internet voting. Rather, they spent an entire thread accusing us of smearing some person's good name. The issue was raised not to impunge the person's integrity, but to question why seemingly normal rules that ensure transparency and accountability weren't followed. Rather than address those points, the authors of the letter were accused of character assassination.

I think there is definitely a need to reform party democracy within the NDP. I think that such reforms will generally have to be pushed for--ie. the executive will always see other more pressing business. So I think the Ginger project is a good idea.

I also found it a bit odd that people jumped on the Jack Murray thing and kept riding it.

But if you are serious about party reform, you need an attitude adjustment. I'm trying to help you out here.

There will always be pushback against something like the Ginger project, and your role as an activist, whether you like it or not, is to minimize that pushback. Whoever wrote that release (maybe it was you) should've worded things a lot better. When you're communicating with someone and they keep missing your point, you have to find a better way of saying it.

It's in part because you're right. Party democracy absolutely needs to be reformed, and it's because the party mechanisms are suboptimal that refroming party democracy is such a tricky issue. The mechanisms aren't in place to bring good ideas forward and have them adopted. One of the results of that is that some members will resist what they see as unhelpful suggestions coming from those on the outsite who know less about what's going on. And it's a catch 22 situation because reform will have to come from outside.

So you've got quite the job ahead of you, as a party reformer. You have to both be critical of gaps in the party, while still managing the sensibilitires of the people you ant to win over.

And this time, you have failed. You could've just said, "Oops, I guess clearly the wording needs to be better (since people had such a problem with it). This is not about Jack Murray, we changed the wording it was a poor choice." And then you could've moved on and it would've been cool. Instead you said that people didn't have any valid reason to object, and if they had any issues with how you were going about things, they were cultish defenders of the status quo. Great job getting people on board!

Now maybe if you changed the wording, and apologized, some people might have found other objections to bring up. And you would've had to address those too. As a party reformer, part of your role, whether you like it or not, will simply be to address people's concerns. Address all of their concerns and you will win them over. Telling them that their concerns are not valid enough for you to have to addess will not win them over.

If you want to be successful in what you are doing, it's not enough to just be right--you need to be right and congenial. I support what you're doing and i'd like to see you be successful--but i don't think that the tactics that you've been using on babble are the right ones for what you want to accomplish.

I think your opening post is terrible. You are right about some things but the way you go about saying it just makes those things worse.

ETA: Just realized that the opening post was the teaser from that blog link. I thought it was written for babble which seemed rough. The whole blog post reads like a rant to me.

Fri, 2010-03-26 14:06

#16

KenS

While the intention cannot be to create push back. There does seem to be a heavy emphasis on the marshalling of outrage.

The problem with such a heavy dependence on marshalling outrage is that it leaves one uncritical both about the facts and accusations being used ['looks right to me']; and even more, the inherent shock value only motivates the choir. It shifts the opinion of virtually no one else, and creates a lot of push back.

Had you talked about the need for internal reform, linked it to the ONDP's doldrums and incoherence, and strenuously protested JUST about what you had a strong case for [there is something wrong with an 'emergency vote' on a long standing issue 2 weeks after a full Council mtg where it is generally discussed, and what is this process in lieu of the Council vote].... then you would have got flak only from a few people who will quibble with any criticism of the party. Nothing that could be called push back.

Instead you threw in a whole pile of grenades. Any one and all of them there are arguable cases for. But all together- AND explicitly linked to each other, its a massive slinging of grenades.

Given that, you should count yourself lucky anybody took the trouble to pick trough the mass of gratuitous hand grenades to talk about the hidden kernel.

Fri, 2010-03-26 16:54

#17

Kloch

I wonder how long until the NDP starts giving loyalty oaths...

Fri, 2010-03-26 17:06

#18

remind

good grief.....

Fri, 2010-03-26 17:45

#19

wage zombie

Computer chip implants will likely be more effective than loyalty oaths.

Sat, 2010-03-27 00:44

#20

arborman

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Sat, 2010-03-27 05:53

#21

KenS

Kloch wrote:

I wonder how long until the NDP starts giving loyalty oaths...

This follows immerdiately similar posts by me and wage zombie. But is it in response to what we said? And if so, you are referring to..... ?

Sat, 2010-03-27 06:39

#22

KenS

If loyalty trumping all is as pervasive among NDP members as is suggested, then there is utterly and absolutely no hope for things like the Ginger Project.