Are Canadians more conservative?

Who are you wrote:

 I believe Canadians are becoming less tolerant of those that abuse the system. 

I certainly hope so, because the only people who are abusing the system are the CONS and their sociopathic followers and the elite who control the CONLIBs and media hacks.

Quote:

Legal. justice, welfare, immigrancy etc.  They work all day to have what they have and they see others abusing the tax roll in any form for their own gain without having to earn it.

Most people I know are more than willing to help those in need through their taxes, but when they see the excesses and manipulation of others to get things that they have to work hard for to get; that drives them nuts. 

The liberal progressive phylosophy is starting to backfire.  People are tired of the bullshit of those that take advantage of the system.

Wow, just what in the fuck are you doing at this website, cause you are way outta line, hopefuilly a mod will be along shortly.

Truth as opposed to your lies:

Billion dollar give aways to banks and corps and you dare say what you say about welfare and immigrants, say nothing about the lies you are stating regarding the justice system, whereby the real truth is crime rates have been going down for decades. And imagine if the rich stopped running people down and killing them, and the cops stopped beating and killing people, the crime rates would be even lower.

Boom Boom wrote:

Why not just "vote splitting of the Opposition"? Simple, easy to type, and accurate. 

I think it's important to differentiate betweent "the opposition" and parties that have enough in common that they would be willing to merge in order to supplant the right-wing Conservatives. All of the opposition is not willing to merge together. The BQ will never merge with the NDP, Liberals and Greens. If it turns out the Conservatives have a lock on power because of FPTP, and that may not be the case, then the potential merging parties would be the NDP, Liberals and Greens, not "the opposition" because it is not in the interest of the BQ to merge with the other opposition parties.

I should add that I am not advocating a merger. I just think that people should understand where FPTP is leading us. Our undemocratic FPTP leads to two party systems. That's why electoral reform should be the NDP's top issue as it is an existential issue for the NDP. If the NDP, at the federal and provincial levels, does not make this issue it's primary objective, it should not be surprised if its very existence at the federal level is eventually imperiled within a FPTP system that establishes two-party systems. This means that the NDP's provincial cousins that benefit from FPTP  in places like BC, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba must start advocating for fair voting. If they don't, the NDP's role within Canada's political system will continue to be greatly weakened and an eventual merger might become a neccesary, albeit unwanted, reality.

Those discussions between Broadbent and Chretien will be even more serious in the future if FPTP keeps the Cons in power with just 1/3rd of the votes. Those types of discussions will be as serious as the discussions held just a few years ago between McKay and Harper.

You gotta love FPTP.

Speaking on mobilizing:

Maysie wrote:

KenS look at Egypt, look at Tunisia, look at Venezuela.

In Canada look at other movements directed by young people. No One Is Illegal, others.

My take is that it's time to allow other forms of leadership on the left, in the broadest sense of the words "leadership" and "left". And I ain't no young person, so I'm not talking about me.

And if such forms are not "allowed" then they will happen anyways, as time goes by.

Here in Canada, where is the 'not allowing'? Who or where or what? Is something on the left stopping, or is it just not [quite] happening? [Or something like that.]

If it really is just not happening, then what does "not allowing" have to do with anything.

You picked up Maysie on how the left persistently does not realize the opportunity inherent in the basic centre-left values of Canadians. And mobilizing is the answer.

Well it could be. And presumably that is why you pointed to nasceant forms like No One Is Illegal.

But we've been talking the various nasceant forms of mobilizing for decades now. 'This' is what is going to do what was not done before.

JKR wrote:

...then the potential merging parties would be the NDP, Liberals and Greens, not "the opposition" because it is not in the interest of the BQ to merge with the other opposition parties.

Can you honestly envision a time when the NDP would voluntarilly merge with the Liberals? I can't - and therefore the only feasible outcome for progressives in this country under FPTP would be a Liberal minority government strongly kept in check by either the NDP or the BQ, or, hopefully, both.

JKR the divide is not merely right/left it is about at least two separate issues.  The first is public versus private and the second is continentalism versus Canada first.  On those issues the hundred year old tradition of the Liberal party clearly show they are continentalist.  IMO continentalism was and still is the biggest threat to Canadian democracy. As for the public versus private the Liberals seem to be split down the middle with their governing history showing a clear favouring of the private.

It is time for all those multitudes of left liberals that supposedly are the backbone of the party to abandon Ignatieff and Rae and provide the NDP with new energy and resources to have a center left government.  A half dozen of the most progressive Liberal members crossing the floor would make me agree that a centrist message was the right one.  Running with the current Liberals is merely co-opting with the continentalist elite in this county.

Boom Boom wrote:

Can you honestly envision a time when the NDP would voluntarilly merge with the Liberals?

If progressives felt that the Conservatives had a lock on government due to FPTP, I think entering into a volunatary merger with the Liberals would be likely. But that's not currently the case and may never be. As it is, the Liberals currently have a shot at returning to government with the support of 1/3rd or even less via FPTP, so a merger is irrelevent at this point.

The only way to ensure that Canada is led by a government that represents the majority is through the establishmnet of fair voting. That's why the NDP should make electoral reform its top priority.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

It is time for all those multitudes of left liberals that supposedly are the backbone of the party to abandon Ignatieff and Rae and provide the NDP with new energy and resources to have a center left government.

The only way the NDP can ever become a player within FPTP is if most Liberals swith to the NDP. But if that were to happen, the addition of moderate centre-left Liberals to the NDP would make the NDP a lot more like the LIberals or like the provincial NDP in provinces like Manitoba, BC, and Saskatchewan. How is that so different from a NDP-Liberal merger?  Can a left-wing party ever prosper under FPTP?

KenS, I don't mean to tantalize. (*waves to bagkitty)

And I've said the following before on babble and it wins me no friends. 

The organized and unorganized Left in Canada has reproduced the power structures of the very systems it claims to want to dismantle, reform or challenge (depending on what kinda Lefty we're talking about).

How else can I say this? Whiteness and maleness dominates. This is neither natural nor inevitable, but it's an exact duplication of all the power structures that we rail against in practice but fail to change, and fail to mobilize the sentiments of the majority of Canadians.

For most folks who are not of either or both the social locations male and white, it's enough to make many back slowly away and form our own organizations, our own rallies and forms of resistance, welcoming allies of all sorts where appropriate. But most choose to not waste energy, in 2011, in pushing ourselves into organizations on various platforms such as "caucasses", "identity politics", "working groups" and other ways to continue to centre the interests of the (white male) leadership. Leadership that claims to speak on behalf of "everyone". Even with the best-intended good-hearted people in leadership, this simply isn't possible.

Imagine a left leadership in which there are no white men. Imagine a left leadership with nobody over 50 (which reflects the so-called radical politics of the 60s and 70s, by the way). Imagine a left leadership dominated by people of colour and white women. Imagine.

So, is something on the left stopping this from happening? Damn right.

Maysie wrote:

The organized and unorganized Left in Canada has reproduced the power structures of the very systems it claims to want to dismantle, reform or challenge.

Where on earth do you get all this stuff?  You're far too radical to fit in with the authorities of the anti-authoritarian movement.

As long as people imagine that there are two competing objectives here-- advancing equality and making progress, under the assumption that white men can do better than anyone else, we are screwed-- Once we actually recognize that this is the same objective and one that any future progress depends, we have a chance at progress and not till then. In the meantime that patronizing and presumptions of being the ones better equipped to make change by those holding power is the obstacle and also the reason we cannot command the respect of the people we claim to represent.

Maybe that is a better summary of what I was trying to say above. It cannot be said often enough and it speaks to a fundamental understanding or lack of about the challenges we face and how we are to overcome.

bagkitty wrote:

*scratching my head, wondering why on earth I was waved at in this particular thread*

In post 60 KenS accused me of tantalizing, and when I responded I felt the need to wave at you.  Nothing to see here, really. Please move along.

I worry that the Conservatives fear nobody, confident they can keep the game going with enough money, propaganda and dirty tricks.

I wonder what it will take to reach people and get them to realize we do not have to live this way.

Highlighting below is mine.

Maysie wrote:

Most Canadians presently and historically lean center-leftwards on social issues, economic issues, health care issues, justice issues, defense issues and foreign policy. This is something that the official and unofficial Canadian left has failed to capitalize on, presently and historically.

Maysie wrote:

The organized and unorganized Left in Canada has reproduced the power structures of the very systems it claims to want to dismantle, reform or challenge (depending on what kinda Lefty we're talking about).

How else can I say this? Whiteness and maleness dominates.  ....it's an exact duplication of all the power structures that we rail against in practice but fail to change, and fail to mobilize the sentiments of the majority of Canadians.

For most folks who are not of either or both the social locations male and white, it's enough to make many back slowly away and form our own organizations, our own rallies and forms of resistance, welcoming allies of all sorts where appropriate.

Imagine a left leadership in which there are no white men. Imagine a left leadership with nobody over 50 (which reflects the so-called radical politics of the 60s and 70s, by the way). Imagine a left leadership dominated by people of colour and white women. Imagine.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is not an issue that just resides in a discrete silo called fairness or being representative as it is often addressed-- when addressed at all. This misalignment-- retention of privilege is precisely what is in the way of progress across a very wide range of public policy. It is also fundamentally what is in the way of the left being "relevant."

.....

Now, I might be criticized for raising th issue of success and failure in a context of doing the right thing but the reminder ought to be out there nonetheless. A left that is unrepresentative, racist and sexist (even while paying lip service) will never make political progress, will never take political power and will always fail.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

As long as people imagine that there are two competing objectives here-- advancing equality and making progress, under the assumption that white men can do better than anyone else, we are screwed-- Once we actually recognize that this is the same objective and one that any future progress depends, we have a chance at progress and not till then. In the meantime that patronizing and presumptions of being the ones better equipped to make change by those holding power is the obstacle and also the reason we cannot command the respect of the people we claim to represent.

Maybe that is a better summary of what I was trying to say above. It cannot be said often enough and it speaks to a fundamental understanding or lack of about the challenges we face and how we are to overcome.

I not only agree with all main thrust of what Maysie and Sean are saying- I also agree on how essential it is. To wit: a Canadian left that fails as it has so far is not just 'failing in that department'.

But there is something else being said here that I disagree with. And it goes back to the first quotation of Maysie above, the thread title itself, and summarized in the part of what Sean said which I bolded.

Maysie's point follows up the studies referred to in the opening post: that Canadians are persistently centre-left in thier orientations, but the left persistently fails to realize that in organizational support- both in the ballot box and on the street.

I suggest that this failure is a different one than what Maysie and Sean are talking about.

Literally: we dont know how to talk to people. We dont know how to reach them. We reach those who come to us: come to and are open to the way we organize... captured in that word 'mobilize'.

And this failure cuts across the gender and colour and class lines. In fact, you can see it reproduced where women and people of colour give up on the white male dominated left "and form our own organizations, our own rallies and forms of resistance."

[And that last point should easily make me a rival for the unpopularity Maysie thinks she has. ]

KenS wrote:

Literally: we dont know how to talk to people. We dont know how to reach them. We reach those who come to us: come to and are open to the way we organize... captured in that word 'mobilize'.  And this failure cuts across the gender and colour and class lines. In fact, you can see it reproduced where women and people of colour give up on the white male dominated left "and form our own organizations, our own rallies and forms of resistance." 

The terms 'we' and 'them' are enough to perpetuate and validate the existing divisions and suspicions. This 'giving up' that you describe is not an act of 'giving up', so much as it is has to do with a withdrawal from what we might see all over again as 'what's good for them' along with a refusal to submit to the processes and structures which bear a striking resemblance to what we all claim to despise. I think it certainly has to do with the way we traditionally communicate, and the way we typically obscure the lines between ourselves and the people who are impacted the most by the corporate apparatus when it suits our innate desire to champion whatever cause we deem to be worthy of our attention. It's quite understandable when people decide to seek a different path than the road to nowhere. We would do well to listen when spoken to for a change, because when it comes to the negative effects of capitalism and its oppressive devices, it is one of the only times where we find ourselves at the end of the receiving line. It would appear that the key to more effective communication would involve an avoidance of ownership of the means of resistance, while being constructive toward that end based on the methodology of those who experience first hand the tyranny of corporatism's many facades.

If we do not acknowledge the reality of what people are thinking there is no way to combat it. 

Maysie wrote:

Who are you, have you forgotten where you are? 

Read this. And stay out of this thread.

Maysie what part of the policy did I abuse.  I did not attack, slander or trivialize anyone.  I expressed a thought.  Did I say that intolerance is acceptable, no.  I said people are frustrated with all the bullshit from everyside of the political scale including the progressive side.  People are saying/believing they are not getting full value for their tax dollar and that is making people question the current social political structure of the country.

I see an awful amount of personal attacks from the regulars here and no one seems to do anything about it.  Attack the idea not the person.

KenS wrote:

 Literally: we dont know how to talk to people. We dont know how to reach them.

The better way to have put that is that we on the left do not know, and seem to have never known, how to talk to people in a way that enough of them hear us.

There is plenty of evidence that the receptivity is there, but we persistently do not reach anywhere near far enough.

ETA: There was an earlier and extended version of this post. I meant to add this, not replace the old post. But maybe this much shorter version says everything. I know for sure that it says everything I can remember. And if the original post is forgettable to me.....

The part I do remember: Echoing Maysie, that I also "work with groups all the time, and organize, and help, and step back when others are leading." That collectively we do a good job of that. But that has to be stcaked up against the persistent history of not getting out the message.

So how do you engage the middle class majority? The people who pay the most in taxes and are frustrated at the value they get for that tax dollar.  How do you tell them it is worth it when they are asked to pay more and more?  If the country doesn't start to address this concern we will see more and more zenophobic motions like the kirpan banning in Quebec National Assembly as it is playing more and more on peoples emotions and frustrations.

alan smithee wrote:

This may not be scientific but today Jean Charest has promised $400 million on a new arena in Quebec City.

The story is carried on CTV Montreal's web page.

There are over 60 comments..Everyone is pissed,as they should be.

But almost all the comments,people are furious that this money is not being spent on social services (health care,education,poverty) and infrastructure (rightly so)

I don't think the selfishness of the Conservative agenda has poisoned popular values --- yet.

Has it been determined how this expensive arena is going to be paid for yet?

Who are you wrote:

So how do you engage the middle class majority? The people who pay the most in taxes and are frustrated at the value they get for that tax dollar.  How do you tell them it is worth it when they are asked to pay more and more?  If the country doesn't start to address this concern we will see more and more zenophobic motions like the kirpan banning in Quebec National Assembly as it is playing more and more on peoples emotions and frustrations.

There's certainly no monopoly on frustration, but this conservative inspired divisiveness which pits one demographic against another is not designed to lend itself toward identifying and understanding the nature of the common threat. Everyone is paying more across the board.  The cost of basic human existence has been rising for decades, because the burden of global capitalism continues to increase commensurate with the insatiable appetite for increased profit margins for the elite.  This inevitably leads to the appropriation of tax revenue for such dubious priorities such as F35 Fighters and genocidal wars that last for decades.  It's a typical ploy of an oligarchy that contributes nothing toward the common good to devise an ideology that manages to convince its followers through conditioning that others are coming to take what has been bestowed upon them through hard work.  Never mind how their own excessive standard of living was achieved in the first place, from the backs slaves and an indentured working class, and over the bodies of those around the world who are deemed expendable.  The sad reality for us is that there is no viable political representation in this country which is capable of effectively confronting the challenges presented to us by today's capitalism.

Maysie wrote:

KenS wrote:

 Literally: we dont know how to talk to people. We dont know how to reach them. We reach those who come to us: come to and are open to the way we organize... captured in that word 'mobilize'.

Who do you include in "we"? 

JKR wrote:

I thought the same thing when I read that.

KenS, specifically, who are the "we" you are referring to?

I was more explicit in the original post83 that I inadevertently erased. But I would hope even the shorter version makes it clear I am talking about the left in general. As an entirety, and its 'parts'. Read the post and tell me if thats not clear, and/or you do not understand the point.

The CBC At Issue panel talked briefly about the Quebec City arena, and concluded that Harper has probably written Quebec off entirely - and will try to get his election victory (majority?) in Ontario.

KenS wrote:

Maysie wrote:

KenS wrote:

 Literally: we dont know how to talk to people. We dont know how to reach them. We reach those who come to us: come to and are open to the way we organize... captured in that word 'mobilize'.

Who do you include in "we"? 

JKR wrote:

I thought the same thing when I read that.

KenS, specifically, who are the "we" you are referring to?

I was more explicit in the original post83 that I inadevertently erased. But I would hope even the shorter version makes it clear I am talking about the left in general. As an entirety, and its 'parts'. Read the post and tell me if thats not clear, and/or you do not understand the point.

I think the "we" that you were referring to, at the level of electoral politics, is the NDP.

The poll in the opening post clearly shows that the majority of Canadians support leftist ideas and policies but that doesn't translate into electoral support for the NDP. The Liberals get as much electoral support from people who generally support left ideas as the NDP does. In Quebec the BQ gets more support from these people then the NDP does and lately the Greens have been garnering more support from this group too.

In Canada I think the left, inside and outside of electoral politics, has done a good job selling leftist ideas to the public. That's why the poll at the top of this thread shows strong support for leftist ideas. But leftist ideas that are supported by the majority don't get implemented as much as they should in Canada because leftists votes are splintered  between different parties and under FPTP these votes don't get translated into the representation that their numbers warrant.

The solution to this, under FPTP, is for the NDP (the major party that best represents leftis ideas) to somehow garner the left-wing vote under its banner. But this is a very difficult task because the Liberals, BQ, and Greens represent themselves as being progressive and have progressive policies in their platforms. Under FPTP, the left in Canada will be marginalized as long as vote splitting continues. The only acceptable solution to this conundrum is electoral reform. That's why electoral reform should be the NDP's #1 priority, federally and provincially. It is especially important for the NDP to support electoral reform at the provincial level because this is the level where it gets elected to government.

When I say that the historical record shows "we" dont know how to talk to people so that anywhere enough of them hear us, I am definitely not just talking about the NDP

JKR wrote:

The poll in the opening post clearly shows that the majority of Canadians support leftist ideas and policies but that doesn't translate into electoral support for the NDP. The Liberals get as much electoral support from people who generally support left ideas as the NDP does. In Canada I think the left, inside and outside of electoral politics, has done a good job selling leftist ideas to the public. That's why the poll at the top of this thread shows strong support for leftist ideas.

Maysie started the discussion of what we might call the generalized 'gap' between support for values/ideas, and how much we see that realized in various manifestations in the body civic.

How that manifests in electoral politics and governance is only one measure. It rightly tends to get a lot of focus, and its also easier to get a handle on support involved. There are numbers- even if they require some significant interpretation.

Babblers and other lefties tend to view the NDP's historically lowish levels of support as a consequence of its failing to offer anything definitive. This is at least somewhat problematic to square with the fact that in any given election a goodly chunk of voters who have those centre-left values vote for very or somewhat right parties. You can blame that on the NDP too if you want. The discussion is endless.

But its also a distraction for the purposes of this discussion: how much concrete support the left in general, or any 'part', has among the population. Wherever you look you see that same gap between expressed values, and the persistently less manifestations of support.

When facing questions like that lefties tend- if they face the question at all- to talk about progress being made on the ground. What we are doing [now]... strides being made... the [latest] promising tendency, etc.

Of course there are any number of things going on at any time. But step back and take the longer view and we're back facing Maysie's observation:

Maysie wrote:

Most Canadians presently and historically lean center-leftwards on social issues, economic issues, health care issues, justice issues, defense issues and foreign policy. This is something that the official and unofficial Canadian left has failed to capitalize on, presently and historically.

Another way at the same point:

The failures of the NDP get much attention around here. Wherever individuals stand, they know that endless questioning.

Those failures are enough to make many lefties want to have nothing to do with the NDP. But I would suggest the failures of the NDP are a particular form or manifestation of the general failure of the left. Whatever you do as an activist, you are still part of that general failure of the left- it is just a form of failure that you are more comfortable with.