NDP Leadership Race #111

To reply to KenS's intelligent posts from the previous thread... I want to be clear I'm singling out a very specific kind of criticism of Mulcair, and not all criticism. I do think Topp's/Cullen's tax plan is more bold, more progressive, better policy, and better politics. I do think that Saganash's tax plan, even if it's the same as Mulcair's in spirit, is far more detailed in substance -- which is important for both feasibility and accountability. On policy, I prefer Topp. On trust, I prefer Nash or Ashton.

But the discussion that you and I are having is a far cry from "he's indistinguishable from Steven Harper" or "he's a center-right Liberal". That's grade-A unadulterated bullshit.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

But the discussion that you and I are having is a far cry from "he's indistinguishable from Steven Harper" or "he's a center-right Liberal". That's grade-A unadulterated bullshit.

Has anybody on Babble actually said that Mulcair is indistinguishable from Harper?  I don't recall seeing that.  If somebody said that Mulcair, in general, is indistinguishable from Harper, that's extraordinarily hyperbolic.

With that said, I think people are absolutely right to have serious concerns about Mulcair and other leadership candidates who are likely to move the party significantly to the right.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

KenS, I've heard you say a few times that you believe we'll end up getting "a move to the right" under Mulcair. But you don't believe he's promising a move to the right, and you don't think he's concealing a hidden agenda of a move to the right. Having an appreciation for nuance, I wanted to know what the third possibility is. In theory, how does Mulcair end up moving the NDP to the right?

The move to the right, or, better said, the move to the centre will be a political force, like gravity.  All candidates will experience a push to the centre, as part of the current political realignment and the goal of the OO to form government.  Whether or how much the party moves to the centre will depend in part on how the leader is prepared to address these political forces.

Both Topp and Cullen are being loud and clear on that.  Ashton has been very clear about her strong left wing stance, but she has not been all that clear on how she will engage with these political forces.  It's not just a question of resisting these forces...because simply resisting these forces builds up the pressure.

There will certainly be the idea that to win government we have to moderate our views on some issues.  This idea will be present under all candidates.  Candidates who are addressing that idea now are, IMO, answering some of the longer term questions.  Some candidates are saying we need to hold up those values and policies, and other candidates are saying we need to moderate those values and polcies.

There are a range of issues that will be making the cut and some that won't, and candidates are right now signalling which is which.

Ashton has said she is in favour of the party policy of mj decriminalization, would actively push to implement it, and views decrim as effectively putting control into the hands of the provinces, which means that bc or quebec could conceivably decide to go that route.

Topp and Mulcair will both say that they "support party policy" on cannabis, but neither of them will say a fourth word.  And I would not expect any movement while they are in power.  That is an issue they will drop in order to best navigate the political forces pushing them to the centre.

They are just not attached to the issue.  So, it's a prime candidate for an issue that they will drop once in power.  This is how "the move to the right" works.

Issues are changing all the time.  At one point queer rights were an issue that the NDP was willing to drop when in power and experiencing those political forces.  Now, that's changed.  Queer rights are firmly accepted by the centre.  On dailykos they are talking about how opposition to equal marriage in the US now would be an albatross for anyone running for the Dem nomination in 2016.

What about electoral reform?  I think it could go either way and that's why it's important to see what the candidates are saying.  Candidates that choose of their own volition to talk about their aggressive plans to implement PR are probably not going to drop the issue.  Candidates who will do no more than state when asked that they support party policy are NOT signalling that it's an issue that they would protect.  They're not exactly signalling that they would drop it...but these political forces are going to be a reality, not just once in power, but pretty much as soon as the leadership race is over.

This is why I am going on about the financial transaction tax.  We are not getting any kind of commitment.  Mulcair is not selling the issue to us, which means he is not demonstrating to us how well he would go about selling the issue.  And he's not putting the idea into the public space.  If he were doing all these things, then I would be optimistic.  Mulcair isn't willing to make the commitment to even talk about the FTT...so I'm not sure how likely he is to get one implemented.

Caving is a problem. We need a certain amount of moral and political courage from our leader.

Funny how Obama campaigned on a public health insurance option, with no mandate. But in the end, they got a mandate with no public option. Even if you think he was telling the truth about his promise during the campaign, when all was said and done, he wouldn't "go to the mat" for what he promised.

I think this is a legitimate and more nuanced concern about someone like Mulcair. I genuinely believe he feels more at home in the NDP than the Liberals -- there was an easier path to political power in any party but us. He's been willing to make social democratic promises, but the details on his website are only on a few areas, and whatever other details we only get when he's directly asked.

And other candidates do it too. I can appreciate the strategy of wanting to avoid the conservative attack machine, and even giving yourself room to take "half a loaf" to placate the mushy middle. But my opinion is the attacks are going to come anyway. Might as well be forthright with your policy, lest you get accused of a hidden agenda.

I think this is why I've been disappointed with the candidates. No one has really made their campaign about anything. Who is the jobs candidate? Who is the reform Ottawa candidate? Who is the environment candiate? We have 6 "stop Harper" candidates, and one pharmacare candidate.

If one candidate would really "go to the damn mat" on 2 or 3 core NDP issues and hammer them home, my trust and excitement level would skyrocket. It almost doesn't matter what those issues are.

Am I the only one who feels that way?

Arthur, I don't consider unions a part of the elites - considering the crap they go through and especially now and how they often act as backup for other social activism (eg. tents, supples for occupy) I think going easy here. Almost like buying into the right wing meme that unions are greedy and evil.

Yes, and very revealing too. First, in the assumption that by simply endorsing they're "telling people how to vote."  And that they're somehow "elite."  I mean it's not like they had anything to do with the forming of the NDP, right?  But, then again, Mulcair said he wouldn't be "beholden" to the unions.  Maybe this is what he meant.

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2011/10/26/mulcairs-accusation-th...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mulcair-dra...

josh wrote:

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2011/10/26/mulcairs-accusation-th...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mulcair-dra...

But he didn't really mean it.  Why don't you go to his next event and ask him what he really thinks?

Lord Palmerston wrote:

I thought Nash was overall disappointing in the Winnipeg debate, and Topp did pretty well.  I like Topp's taxation policy best although I think Nash is the strongest in terms of thinking about structural conditions of the economy.  But her reluctance to talk about taxes doesn't sit well with me. Too bad Topp wrote that article praising Papandreou's "responsible" social democratic approach (lol) and that he boasts about his role in the Romanow govt. and then runs against the Third Way!  Topp is a very smart strategist who can read the tea leaves and sees the discourse is moving left as income inequality has become a front and center issue. Nash wins my respect for unapologetically embracing the trade union movement (rather than distancing herself from it) and working class themes, but Topp has moved up.

Oh and the trolls come out.  Taking a modest donation does NOT in any way suggest that we are, or should be beholden to anyone.  I don't expect anything for my donations to the NDP than for us to try and win!

Why don't you go down Mulcair's list of supporters and find the hundreds of folks on there who are members of the labour movement?  Surely their combined "hypothetical influence" on Mulcair's donors list would be many scales times larger than these donors.

No, of course you wont.  Because you'll find that the VAST majority of donations to Mulcair's campaign is from rank-and-file New Democrats, donating what they can, because they believe in a better country.  

I have no problem with us taking money from rich corporate types if it is used to foster equality and a better Canada.  Why wouldn't you? 

Enough is enough.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

I don't think Mulcair has been "bought" by Onex.  But a lot of the corporate elite like what he says, which is unusual for a New Democrat.

I don't think he's been bought by anyone either, I just get the creeps by the optics of having those kinds of supporters. 

Mulcair may turn out to be a fine leader who speaks well to the aspirations of traditional New Democratic voters.  Or maybe not. 

Yeah, I don't think Mulcair can be bought for a few thousand bucks. But the ties to that charity that basically hires mercenaries creep me the fuck out.

Yeah, I'm not 100% comfortable with it, but I've made peace with it. I think it would be literally impossible for us to get 10 yards from Ottawa without big corporations starting to throw cash at us.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

I don't think Mulcair has been "bought" by Onex.  But a lot of the corporate elite like what he says, which is unusual for a New Democrat.

You need to identify what he's saying which the other candidates aren't saying that is music to the ears of the corporate elite. Otherwise, this is just innuendo.

Stockholm wrote:

In David Miller's mayoralty campaigns in Toronto - he had lots of developpers donating money etc...I still think he was a very good mayor.

I see a lot of similarities between Miller and Mulcair actually, both spoke the language of liberal reform and could appeal to the well-to-do in a way New Democrats generally can't.  Even in the Orange Wave, all that really happened was that the NDP won over the types of demographics that generally support social democratic parties in European countries.   

There are essentially two strategies in terms of electoral appeal for the NDP to take in order to form the government (this isn't to say both can't be done).  One is to do better among the traditional manual working class base, expand electoral appeals that are really working class as well (clerical/office workers etc.) and reach out to the 40% that aren't voting (not all are "left" but there are certainly many who would be open to a social democratic message).

The other is to make more "classless" appeals, hope to retain the traditional base because the NDP is better than the other parties, and appeal more to affluent professionals and a fraction of the capitalsit class and "enlightened" Bay St. types.  This is essentially the Obama coalition, which includes the social democratic universe but also the types of upscale demographics that have never voted NDP and now make up the core of what remains of the LPC base.

I think Leo Gerard is great and his personal endorsement is worth a lot. Then again, I agree with Unionist that the optics of an "International President" endorsing an NDP leadership candidate are not good. Leo Gerard's personal endorsement carries plenty of weight on its own.

As for the NGO that pays for mercenaries, I agree, it is frightening. That being said, part of the idea behind banning union and corporate donations is you want to restore power to the people. This standard has to be applied to all people, be they plutocrats or the homeless. The fact that Gerry Schwartz can at most donate $1,200 to Mulcair and can/has to make the donation come through the front door (where we can all see it), represents progress for me.

Don't worry. I've given Mulcair more than Schwartz has. I will tell him not to support any mercenaries.

You guys are aware, right, that to actually run the country, the party will have to foster ongoing and positive (as much as possible) relationships with a broad range of powerful people who have their hands on the levers of society, most of whom will be total bastards. Leadership is about compromises, sad but true. If the leader of the NDP becomes Prime Minister, they will be PM for the whole country, not just the NDP base. Any politician who says, "I don't associate with these business crooks. You won't catch me at their meetings." will never, never win power.

Once again, the tone of these conversations tend to indicate that babblers think that a party's leader sits in a shrouded room issuing decrees like the emperor of fuedal China. Like Topp's tax plan? me too. I just don't think he's the best spokesperson for it. The good news is that Topp's not leaving the party if Mulcair wins and he'll be there at the policy convention advocating for his tax plan. If you agree with him, you could do your part to advocate for it too, and if you convince enough people then it will become policy and Mulcair will be advocating it himself in the next election, despite his reasonable misgivings.

The party is still a community of individuals. The leader is not a dictator. Mulcair cannot "take the party to the right" all by himself. He could only do this with a large swell of NDP members who wanted to do the same, and if that's the case then you were just outvoted, weren't you? Time to find a new party, I guess. But until that happens, let's assume that the NDP will remain essentially what it is no matter who becomes leader, because that's the most rational stance.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

[

Of course if people want to view the US Democrats as the model for a "winning" NDP that is their prerogative.  

GOD FORBID.

very good discussion.

eta on the barack point: i'm a wealthy professional, and i'm also a 3rd generation ndper who lives in quebec (when he's not in sf or dc on assignment) and i fanatically support social democracy in canada, and stand four-square behind the leader whoever it is (though obviously if it's mulcair, we're vastly more likely to win).  we need an ndp government, we need it.  every small thing the conservatives do makes me more insane, i can't believe we've gone back to a royal canadian navy, i can't believe we no longer register human-killing weapons, i can't believe we have cut to the bone the promotion of canadian culture in the founding province of the country.  it's not something i was raised to do, but i've come to hate the cpc and harper, to the point where i'm losing objectivity.  we just need the ndp in there to save the country.

Very good point, sdm.  I don't want the LPC to disappear.  They serve as a useful boutique party for affluent professionals who are too wealthy to vote NDP and too educated to vote Tory (i.e. St. Paul's is the last Liberal riding in Canada!) 

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Of course if people want to view the US Democrats as the model for a "winning" NDP that is their prerogative.  

I don't know if you were ascribing that view to me when writing this, but I can tell you that is not the case.

I'm simply noting that (even) a campaign like Obama's, which you described as adopting a "classless" model of electoral appeal, has in fact recently incorporated significant class-rooted elements into its discourse.

As it happens, I'm rather surprised (and disappointed) to observe that on fiscal policy, most of the NDP leadership candidates are outflanked on the left by Obama.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Very good point, sdm.  I don't want the LPC to disappear.  They serve as a useful boutique party for affluent professionals who are too wealthy to vote NDP and too educated to vote Tory (i.e. St. Paul's is the last Liberal riding in Canada!) 

"Useful boutique party" - that's quite possibly the best description of the LPC I've heard.  Made me laugh too.

It's a totally unoriginal post, I agree.  A Liberal is too wealthy to vote NDP and too educated to vote Tory is from my friend and fellow babbler Stuart Parker.  

I will take credit however for the line that St. Paul's is the last Liberal riding in Canada.