Getting out of NAFTA is not either politically possible or a good idea. That does not mean that the deal was a good one-- in fact that is precisely why it was so bad. These trade deals are one-way streets and people need to understand why. They upset the way trade is done effectively helping those industries who might benefit and virtually killing off those who would not. To try to back out of a deal once in you don't bring back the jobs that have been killed off and instead kill off new ones.
This is why you need to try to alter the deals or bring emphasis elsewhere but given the distortion they create just ending them would create both short and long term damage while not helping anything other than the ghosts of what is already lost. Layton understood this and so have many others including the harshest critics: Marjorie Bowker whose book I published in 1988 and Maude Barlow who raises this warning every time a trade deal is proposed. A series of trade deals replaces normal trade with a series of dependencies after killing off much of what you had before.
As for boosters of Mulcair making strong assertions about what they know will happen. Honestly, I have not heard this. I think some people have decided their candidate is "the one." Many have found the choice much more difficult. I hoped Saganash was "the one" for me but he pulled out and I had to re-look at the field. My choice of Mulcair is based on my belief that he has the best chance at bringing the greatest benefit to the party and to Canada. This is not to say he does not have faults or I don't have concerns. However, I have seen him work on his style with people so he seems to know how to moderate and change which is a benefit. I worry about his personality, I don't like his mid-east policies and his personal views on many topics I care about are not as clear as I might like. However, the other also have not been crystal on the issues I care about and i have had to consider that a number of them simply were not going to be in a position for me to even find out (they would never have enough power to show their stuff anyway). I do like the idea that he at least talks about adapting, listening to people and changing our approach. I don't hear him say we will change our policies but changing the way we express them in my view is a good thing. I do consider him to be a team player and have no reason to believe the hype that he may not be. I think it is fairer to say that the bulk of Mulcair's supporters on this site are either Saganash supporters looking for the next best or people who have calculated who they thought would be able to put the party in a position to bring about any policies.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that we all agreed he was the most likely to lead the NDP to enough seats to form some kind of government, then even if he would support half the policies we would like-- those half would go some place while the other candidates may or may not do more and so would bring about nothing.
That said when you express things differently and bring more support to a series of ideas you might do a lot more. I am not convinced that he would shift the party to the right in terms of concrete policies. I do think he might drop some of the rhetoric that does not do anything for us except reduce our electoral strength. I don't think he is a Blairite but I also don't think he will repeat the mistakes that have marginalized us in the past. Rather, he may well express things that we hold dear in very new ways while drawing on the support that exists expressed differently on the ground for things we want to do. In the end he may not be seen as the great visionary but he might be the vehicle that gathers and brings what is out there up. I also believe that he is committed to the environment and will do this in a way that could give our future hope. While we talk about many aspects of this candidate seldom do we recognize not only his environmental credentials but also his success in making them happen often in the context where he had to being a reluctant Liberal team to the table. We talk about his issues with Charest but seldom do we take a moment to remember that he received the praise and endorsement of Greenpeace because of the work he was doing.
So yes, he is a candidate with risks and I don't think people are drinking koolaid or seeing through rose-coloured glasses.
While I don't think the other candidates are the best choice, several have impressed me and there is hope for what kind of government the NDP could offer. And I don't think any of them will split the party.
