The Church of the NDP is Closed...

I guess I was never one of those fans of "indie" bands whose success made them pariahs ("You used to be about the [i]music[/i], man...") so this idea that someone is somehow being "thrown overboard" isn't really clear to me.  I hope the NDP listens to, and tries to represent, all of its members and supporters, but I hope they don't make the absurd mistake of thinking that some group has a special and unique "claim" to their ear.

And sometimes you have to add a little water to the wine.  C'est la vie.

I enjoy reading Climenhaga's work and the alternative take on Alberta politics he provides, but I am disturbed on 2 fronts. One is how it comes across as "gloating" that the "loonies" have been silenced. That is never good, and is the exact opposite of the strategy Layton used to earn people's trust. The second is that it makes church people out to be these crazy, unreasonable people. Yeah, giving the right an opportunity to say the left hates religion is a great way to go. That said:

Slumberjack wrote:

Does anyone else find the tone of this blog entry disturbing? Now that the NDP has hit the big time like some fringe rock band that inexplicably managed to score a measure of commercial success with a hit song, not only at the expense of their original fans base, but also at the expense of the substance of their original but lesser known works, the original following that sustained the band with loyalty in years past

I think in large part the NDP surge was fuelled by people coming back to the NDP, particularly in former NDP strongholds in BC and Saskatchewan (although in the latter case, not in large enough numbers for them to actually win), so I don't see any evidence that this victory came at the expense of the original fan base. I also noted that 2 of the big things the NDP talked about during the last campaign, health care and pensions, are traditional NDP staples. There is room to discuss how the NDP raised the issues or whether or not there were important issues that were neglected (which there were), but I think the above quote is simply not the case.

But Malcolm, at the same time, it's also not a good idea to fall into the all-or-nothing thinking that only winning the first place race matters. The NDP can be effective in any situation by having clearly defined solutions on an issue, fighting for those solutions, and convincing the broader public that these are the correct ones. The federal NDP under Jack Latyon's watch has been, to date, very effective in raising issues and proposing solutions as a fourth party. And in BC, 2 NDP MLAs and several other activists were more effective in opposing Gordon Campbell's atrotious government than Carole James was with a larger caucus. And here in Manitoba, the NDP has basically been in cruise control, not really making that many significant changes that will improve the lives of Manitobans.

Certainly electoral success matters, but at the same time, you have to have some principles which you are willing to defend at the expense of winning an election, otherwise the whole exercise becomes meaningless. I look at how the Douglas/Lloyd government courageously brought in health care, knowing that they would pay a political price, and I wonder if the NDP anywhere in Canada would dare try something that audacious today.

Malcolm wrote:

Many of us have maintained for years that the NDP was held back by a significant cadre of party activists who actually viewed electoral success as undesirable and who think that sniping from the sidelines is good enough.

Exactly, and how weird that was, eh?!

Slumberjack wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

It always strikes me as funny that some on the left talks about democracy in certain ways when attacking the right, but when it has to find ways to, you know actually be democratic in action in the political sphere by working with others who have different views -compromise is not viewed as trying to find solutions to problems, but rather the complete sell out of all that ever was. I have a bit of news for you young whipper snappers- finding common ground is the ONLY way to move issues forward in a democracy. 

Working with, compromise and finding common ground with whom? 

This is why people like you will never get it despite all your lofty call to ideals.  The answer to your question is people. 

Get as old as I am, or Bob Dylan and you will eventually realize everyone else is as full of shit as you are.  (That's the all-encompassing "you" not the singling out of you "you"

outwest wrote:

Malcolm, if you genuinely believe this, then why are you so opposed to doing politics differently now (i.e. via cooperation)?

Oh bullshit.

I'm quite prepared to cooperate with those who share values with us.

What I'm not prepared to do is roll over so the right wing Liberals can have their entitlements back.

My, what a pleasant discussion! Cooperation!

No wonder there is shouting and bolding.

So excuse me, but WHO EXACTLY CALLED FOR A WATERING DOWN OF PRINCIPLES????????????

Jaysus but this bullshit slander really pisses me off.

NO ONE IS CALLING FOR THE PARTY TO ABANDON A SINGLE FUCKING PRINCIPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, can we have a discussion that actually has some vague basis in reality?

Malcolm, you wrote: "I'm quite prepared to cooperate with those who share values with us."                            

Good; we agree then. I'm of the mind that the Liberals left standing who voted for their party and didn't capitulate to the Tories in the election are far more progressive than many here would like to suggest, and despite what pressure their back room boys bring to bear.   It's the former faction we need to strategize or push to merge with in order gain votes.  

Outwest, all a merger gets us is the rotting corpse of a discredited party tied to our backs.  There may be stupider ideas than formally merging with the Liberals, but I can't think of any.

Aristotle, what pisses me off is the assumption that wanting to win always and necessarily means being prepared to sacrifice principles.  It's complete bullshit, routinely offered up on this list by people who would rather be marginalized because they lack the moral courage to try and change things.

I don't want to win elections for the sake of winning elections.  I want to win elections because we have things to do - and doing them by "influencing" right wing parties will take too bloody long.

Sometimes electoral effectiveness means moving more slowly than we would like.  I remind you all that Tommy Douglas did NOT introduce universal, single payer health care in 1944.  That doesn't change the fact that he introduced univeral, single payer health care.  Nor does it alter the fact that, had he NOT won the elections of 1944, 1948, 1952, 1956 and 1960, it never would have happened.  Not in Saskatchewan, nor anywhere else in Canada.

There is absolutely no moral virtue in deliberately choosing electoral marginalization - as too damned many on the left frequently do.

Moral victories are neither.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The Douglas/Lloyd government was also the most uncompromising in terms of its social democratic principles, and was by far the most successful by any measure (duration of the term, average support during elections, and popular support upon the government's defeat) of any social democratic government ever elected.

They did always stick to their guns when governing once the course of action was set. But in setting that course of action they were cautious, deliberate, and very cognizant of the limitations of where they thought the people of Sasketchewan would go at a given time.

And it is plotting a course of action, not executing it, that is the question here. We are not talking about a federal NDP government.

Slumberjack wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

This is why people like you will never get it despite all your lofty call to ideals.  The answer to your question is people. 

Get as old as I am, or Bob Dylan and you will eventually realize everyone else is as full of shit as you are.  (That's the all-encompassing "you" not the singling out of you "you"

Anti-imperialism is a lofty ideal now is it?  As disturbing as this article is, I believe it described the situation accurately enough.  The people under NATO bombardment in Tripoli would likely thank you for your concern if they knew about all of this common ground seeking.  Or are we only talking about certain people.  BTW, I never did give a fuck about Dylan or his music.  It's as he described it later in his career, which is to say a bunch of meaningless words that anyone could make something from, like astrology, without all the thought that went into it.  The article should be summarized as such:  You'll never become a better NDPer than when you prove yourself capable of consigning relations and struggles to the past in order to maintain your place.  We're witnessing the birth of another form of liberalism.

Read much?  Lofty calls to ideals- not the same as lofty ideals?  For someone who is so caught up in semantics- you don't seem to bother with triflings like what people actually say much.

"GV left off" because he was sickened by this endless, vacuous crap peddled hereabouts and defended by the gutless PC, Sj. 

Layton gave a press conference when the caucus meeting wrapped up today, and he says he's still standing for seniors and working people, and against corporate tax cuts - I don't hear anyone else saying this.

Back on topic...

Layton gave a press conference when the caucus meeting wrapped up today, and he says he's still standing for seniors and working people, and against corporate tax cuts - I don't hear anyone else saying this.

Snert wrote:

But did he mention nationalizing all industry?  What about a $30 minimum wage, financed by a 99.9% capital gains tax?

Layton's not an idiot, which you would have to be, to advocate that stuff.

Slumberjack wrote:

As for corporate tax cuts, they can't get much lower without jacking up the deficit even more, and so Layton can stand pat on the current rate and still come across as a raving socialist.

Socialism? My-my aren't we ambitious today! 

The reason the NDP isn't pushing very hard for higher corporate tax rates is because it's chicken feed. What we can do in the mean time in between this neoliberalorama now in it's third edition of collapse in three decades and utopian socialism you insist the NDP is denying us  would be to raise overall federal tax revenues to just the OECD capitalist country average, which would mean roughly $35 billion more every year for social spending and infrastructure. 

SOCIALISM? lol! How about getting out of the blocks first and raising fed tax revs to at least the average level of 28 other capitalist countries spending more socially per capita on their citizens, and spending higher percentages of GDP on social spending overall than the very neoliberal practitioners in Ottawa have since 1993.

Inch by inch it's a cinch. But mile by mile, it's a pile. Steady as she goes there, Sparky. lol!

..all governments need an active/aggressive constituency that supports it during it’s term in power. without it not even harper could make substantive change.

..today there are very few governments in the world that could ever make real change like what happened with our medicare or that is so lauded in the scandinavian countries of europe. nor could they even protect them. capital has grown so concentrated..so powerful..so global that it has become almost impossible to get anything by them.

..without a doubt there is a need to have an active constituency that was ready to take on it’s opponents in the street. the most governments get in canada is around 40% popular vote more or less. and that is a soft vote. you can’t call on that vote to come out for you to take on capital so you need to build that support. the ndp leadership isn’t doing that work and the captains of labour won’t even come out to protect their own let alone for political actions that would threaten the status quo.

..so i ask in all sincerity what are we to do?