No More Tom Foolery?

Unionist wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

But I'm not arrogant enough to say that Mulcair's views are unjustified in a social democratic tradition.

Questions:

Is helping the French operation in Mali democratic socialist or social democratic?

Is selling oil left wing or right wing?

Does it become left wing if we refine it first?

Does it become more left wing if we then use it to manufacture finished consumer products?

Does it become incredibly left wing if we sell them in the domestic market?

Or was all the above really right wing??

Suggestion:

What if we stopped, just for a moment, using terms like "socialist" and "social democratic" and "democratic socialist" and "left" and "right" (which lead only to semantic disputes of Biblical dimensions) and talked instead about whether particular policies were good or bad for the vast majority of the Canadian people, people around the world, the environment, etc.?

 

 

 

Errr ... promoting fossil fuel expansion certainly isn't environmentalist, but there have been leftwing governments that have used oil development as a key part of their economic policies. The late Hugo Chavez comes to mind.

KenS wrote:

"Solving" it is certainly not a matter of changing our positioning to what we THINK [more like assume] will get more NDP leaning non-voters to the voting booths. And if you want to get more than a dribble of people voting, one necessary start is to empty the rubbish bin of notions like "natural constituency".

Positioning shifts in themselves always have gains and losses in the outcomes. So there is literally no basis in the idea that what stops the NDP vote from growing is it's persistent centrist positioning. And plenty of evidence to the contrary.

I would suggest that many non-voters have had their fill of the center left anyway, which is just another way of saying we can be anything to anyone given the chance, and have come away empty, in many cases with tightened belts to show for their trouble.  It's not non-voters that the NDP are trying to appeal to after all, because appealing to them means one has to be a little more specific when it comes to the business of making promises.  In politics natural constituencies are only as good as the traction they are able to provide when stepping on or over them.  Why waste time and effort trying to convince people who know this already, and who won't be fooled again, as the familiar chorus goes?  The shift of the NDP toward the centrist voter is entirely understandable in that respect.  They're the only ones listening, and any signal at all that appeals to them will do.

there was a post here that dissapeared.  

???

part of it is quoted in # 107

Aristotleded24 wrote:

So Ken, what do you make of declining voter turnout levels? It's well known that people of lower socio-economic status tend to vote in lower numbers, which presents a challenge for the NDP since this is also the natural constituency of the NDP.

KenS wrote:

"Solving" it is certainly not a matter of changing our positioning to what we THINK [more like assume] will get more NDP leaning non-voters to the voting booths. And if you want to get more than a dribble of people voting, one necessary start is to empty the rubbish bin of notions like "natural constituency".

Positioning shifts in themselves always have gains and losses in the outcomes. So there is literally no basis in the idea that what stops the NDP vote from growing is it's persistent centrist positioning. And plenty of evidence to the contrary.

but I don't see the rest of it 

??

Slumberjack wrote:

I would suggest that many non-voters have had their fill of the center left anyway, which is just another way of saying we can be anything to anyone given the chance, and have come away empty, in many cases with tightened belts to show for their trouble.  It's not non-voters that the NDP are trying to appeal to after all, because appealing to them means one has to be a little more specific when it comes to the business of making promises.

Speaking of delusionary bubbles...

The notion that non-voters are typically/characteristically that way out of a discerning essentially rational choice.

Only a slice of non-voters- even of those that could be called the NDP's "natural constituency- are generally left in some way. And only a slice of those are not voting because the NDP [and Greens] are not left / alternative enough.

KenS wrote:

The notion that non-voters are typically/characteristically that way out of a discerning essentially rational choice.

You're not exactly being clear, but from what I can gather this is part of the alienation, the casual contempt on display form all parties toward the population.

We don't know much about non-voters and non-voting.

You know some non-voters for who and what they are. You make inferences about a whole lot more from that, and a grab bag on other clues.

I know some non-voters for who and what they are. I make inferences about a whole lot more from that, and a grab bag on other clues.

That amounts to sweet fuck all.

I infer that many non-voters have better things to do with their time, that much at least is clear.  I find this encouraging, something to expand upon in our respective lanes, to the extent that I see no reason to quibble as to the individual and innumerable reasons for this phenomena.  At the same time it is well understood that corporations and their political parties will simply invent legitimacy at need, which may run the gamut between simply carrying on as per usual, vying amongst one another for the attention of those who remain emotionally attached to the political machinery, or if all else fails, to introduce mandatory voting edicts with accompanying threats for non compliance, which is the only conceivable way they can entice more people out to the polls.  As I recall from previous discussions, mandatory voting and punitive measures were supported by several NDP partisans.  In any event it’s safe to say that increased voter turnout certainly won’t come about as a result of better ideas being introduced into the public consciousness.

A good idea for fascists.

Australia?  

Even if you force people to vote it doesn't mean they are going to vote the way you think they should.

Slumberjack wrote:

I infer that many non-voters have better things to do with their time, that much at least is clear.  I find this encouraging, something to expand upon in our respective lanes, to the extent that I see no reason to quibble as to the individual and innumerable reasons for this phenomena.

It would only be encouraging if you expect disengagement from the politics we have as a precursor to 'better things'.

Maybe its a precondition. Maybe its just a sign of decay.

Do you have a coin to toss?

Boom Boom wrote:

Huh? It's an exercise in citizenship.

Does this model of citizenship come with an exercise yard?  Time off for good behaviour?

Again, it's not to say the NDP would get more disengaged voters by moving "left". It's also not to say that they'll gain more disengaged voters than they'll lose engaged voters who think they're focusing on strange or fringe issues.

I always take it with a huge grain of salt when someone says "a truly ---ist party would win more votes." It's the last argument of someone who has replaced their thought process with pure ideology. (See American Republicans.)

I tend to think that it's a lot of intangible, non-left-right things that lead to sudden sea changes in politics. Save the "too left" "too right" stuff for the poly sci majors, who haven't puled their head out of their ass and talked to real people.

After all, how is it that so many people in Toronto voted NDP in the Federal election, then moved Rob Ford a few months later?

I think having strong, clear principles -- even dumb right-wing ones -- have a way of exciting the electorate. One thing that a lot of people liked about George W. Bush (at his peak) is "you know where he stands". He practiced a kind of non-politics. It was shrewd and cynical in a lot of ways, but a section of the electorate took it as "authentic" for a while, and it was effective for a few years.

Do you think you can stop with the CBC?

Are there enough lamposts?

What does that mean?

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I tend to think that it's a lot of intangible, non-left-right things that lead to sudden sea changes in politics. Save the "too left" "too right" stuff for the poly sci majors, who haven't puled their head out of their ass and talked to real people.

After all, how is it that so many people in Toronto voted NDP in the Federal election, then moved Rob Ford a few months later?

I think having strong, clear principles -- even dumb right-wing ones -- have a way of exciting the electorate. One thing that a lot of people liked about George W. Bush (at his peak) is "you know where he stands". He practiced a kind of non-politics. It was shrewd and cynical in a lot of ways, but a section of the electorate took it as "authentic" for a while, and it was effective for a few years.

FPTP causes huge sea changes in who gets elected even when voting preference and ideology changes very little. The stats seem to show that political preference is actually pretty static along a left-right paradigm. On the Republican side, GW Bush received 48% in 2000 [less than Gore], and 50% in 2004. McCain received 46% in 2008, and Romney received 47% in 2012. On the Democratic side Gore received 48% in 2000, Kerry received 48% in 2004, and Obama received 52% in 2008, and 51% in 2012.

The election results between the 2011 federal election and Toronto's 2010 municipal election are also not that different along a left-right paradigm. Rob Ford won with 47% support in 2010, a lot of that coming from the suburbs that elected Conservatives federally in 2011. Most people vote for their personal self-interest. Many people vote to keep their taxes as low as possible. These people like politicians like Rob Ford and are not about to vote for the NDP federally.

Here in BC the BC NDP is likely going to win with a huge landslide in May but the NDP's current polling numbers are similar to the numbers they have had when they have lost elections. The BC NDP's range of numbers over the decades has been between roughly 37 - 45%. The BC NDP is likely going to win in a landslide in May because some previous BC Liberal voters are switching to the BC Conservatives.

Federally the Conservatives are sitting pretty holding onto government needing only approximately 35% of the vote because centre-left voters votes are divided amongs 4 parties, the NDP, Liberals, Greens, and BQ.