The So Called "Progressive" Liberals

Debater wrote:

Oh, please.  No one in the press considers Mulcair to have been a real NDPer until he ran for the NDP in Outremont in 2007.

You're the one that is trying to claim that Mulcair has a long history with the NDP which isn't really true.  His only career as an *elected* politician prior to running for the NDP in 2007 in Outremont was as a provincial Liberal MNA.  From 1994 to 2005.  It's misleading to claim he was an NDPer before that because he briefly may have had an NDP membership a couple of decades earlier.  He never had a major role within the party or an elected position until 2007.

And all you're doing by arguing the contrary is making Mulcair look like even more of a party switcher and back & forth opportunist who changes sides with the winds.

Actually if you check post 134 under the thread "Not Your NDP Candidate" you will find that I speculated that he let his membership lapse. I never claimed he had a long history but that as a youth he was interested in the NDP. Which incidentally happens to be the same political trajectory I have followed. NDP-lLPC-NDP.

The other interesting thing about this is that July 26 was when I first pointed out that you were spewing false information about Mulcair and yet after you continued to simply repeat this false information.

Why is that?

Debater complains that I have questioned his veracity.

I think I have been gentle with him.. I could have said about him what Mary McCarthy said about Lillian Hellman:

"Every word she writes is a lie, including and and the"

But I refrained.

nicky wrote:

I have never seen any evidence that Mulcair was ever a member of the FEDERAL Liberal Party. The Provincial Quebec Liberal Party is an entirely differnt entity.

Do you have such evidence Debater? Not that you need it to spin your falsehoods.

Exactly the point I made to the OP who started this thread.

Provincial Liberals are completely different than Federal Liberals.

And not for the better.

I think that the Liberals that Mulcair shared a Cabinet room with were the same kind as the BC Liberals.  Some of them are federal Liberals and some of them are federal Conservatives however all of them are fumdamentally neo-cons bent on dismantling the social safety net one piece at a time. It is that fact more than any that makes me not trust Mulcair's politics. Either he was a naive 50 some year old who ddn't understand ecomomics or he knew exactly what kind of government he was joining. Since I respect Tom's intellect and political skills I have to presume he knew full well that he was playing with the devil and did it anyways for some unknown motive. Its not like he could have thought he was going to sit in a progressive government.

Pondering wrote:

Geoff wrote:

While it's interesting to speculate about the "progressive credentials" of either Mulcair or Trudeau, I think it's worth evaluating the performance of the last Liberal government under Chretien/Martin.  When the rubber hit the road, how progressive were they?

Progressive enough to get elected over and over again. I vote based on policies not on who is supposed to be the most "progressive".

Pondering, seriously, cutting the Social Safety Net to 1950 levels, signing Corproate friendly Free Trade deals, and making harder for the unemployed to get EI qualifies the LPC as Progressive? Really? Go and take a look at what it said in the Red Book. Why would the LPC trot that out over and over if they didn't expect people to believe it? And not withstanding how and why people vote, stop throwing around progressive as a word with any meaning if it means that the LPC can be as reactionary, nasty, and spiteful and Conservatives. You are talking out of both sides of you mouth. The way you use that word and toss it around here shows just how meaningless the word "Progressive". really is.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I seem to recall reading that there were one or two of Mulcair's colleagues in the Charest cabinet who were well known as federal NDP supporters. If true, it would add credibility to the hypothesis that "good NDPers" could participate in a QLP government. Does anyone know whether this is true, or just something I imagined?

Of course good NDPers can serve in the Liberal party, provincial or federal, and vice versa; good Liberals can serve in the NDP because they are all politicians and a good politician can work for any party.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

The way you use that word and toss it around here shows just how meaningless the word "Progressive". really is.

I have never called the Liberal party progressive. Neither is the NDP.  Parties have some policies which are progressive and some which are not.

In response to MM's question above, FWIW, Henri-Francois Gautrin was leader of the provincial NDP in Qc through most of the 1970s and then joined the provincial Liberals. For whom he subsequently won a seat and served in cabinet alongside Mulcair (retiring only this year).

My own take on this phenomenon is that there are some people who are more ideologically driven (left or right) and are determined to remain 'true' to their principles and partisan allegiances no matter the odds or implications (viz. provincial  Conservatives in BC, provincial Liberals in Alberta, provincial NDP in Qc some years back, all Greens pretty much everywhere). 

And there are other people who are less purist in nature who place greater value on political pragmatism - and perhaps are more careerist in nature ("What is my best chance of actually getting elected?"; "What is my best chance of sitting in Gov't and actually driving change in the direction I seek to influence?") 

Did Trudeau Snr have greater impact on Cndn politics because he left behind the NDP and joined the Liberals? Probably so.  And would Tommy Douglas still be considered 'The Greatest Canadian' if he had chosen to join the Liberals when moving to the federal stage?

Personally, I have huge respect and appreciation for Mulcair's personal decision to throw his lot federally in with Jack and the NDP. He clearly comes from the pragmatist / careerist side of the political spectrum (ie not so ideologically driven). but at that time, it was not at all obvious that he would win - or that the Orange Crush would soon follow. It was his own version of 'le beau risque' - it succeded, and has made a huge difference in the current Canadian poliitical terrain.

It's interesting how quickly the scope of a conversation can change - from whether the federal/BC Liberals are different to Mulcair's suitability to lead the NDP.  Clearly the latter seems to be a sensitive issue for similar reasons to the former.

One thing I will inject into here is the sad fact (from my perspective) that all three main parties have shifted significantly to the right compared to where the were a generation ago, and this shift has only been picking up steam in recent years.  Where we should really be focusing our energy is on creating the environment which can turn that around.

Personally, I think 2015 may already be a lost cause.  The fact that despite Mulcair's centrification of the party and his laudable interrogation skills, Trudeau is far ahead in popolarity even in the absence of policy distinguishments is rather shocking in my opinion, but it is nonetheless the case.  The ONDP's recent electoral stagnation in the face of similar leader-driven centrification only reinforces for me the squandered opportunity that the current federal Official Opposition stint will likely become.  Hopefully I am wrong, but even if against all odds we have some kind of NDP-coalition in 2015, what difference will that make when it has ruled out social democracy in advance both economically (e.g. the tax increases required to pay for a social democratic system), or socially (e.g. consider the silence on Gaza)?  Would we not be fighting the neoliberal shift only in pace?

Hence the need, I think, to think longer term.  This will require the popularizing of alternatives to neoliberalist thought, and the expansion of political discourse that results.  It will also require a coherent vision which can capture the imagination, and a media landscape favourable enough to this vision in order to get it out there.  The Conservative genius has been its fox-in-the-henhouse character, which has allowed it to creep into power as a supposedly moderate force (compared to Reform, maybe) and once there, take a wrecking ball to any societal pillars which do not back up its ideology, making the prospects even more difficult.  There will be a lot of work ahead of us in order to turn things around.

fiddling wrote:

One thing I will inject into here is the sad fact (from my perspective) that all three main parties have shifted significantly to the right compared to where the were a generation ago, and this shift has only been picking up steam in recent years.  Where we should really be focusing our energy is on creating the environment which can turn that around.

Personally, I think 2015 may already be a lost cause.  The fact that despite Mulcair's centrification of the party and his laudable interrogation skills, Trudeau is far ahead in popolarity even in the absence of policy distinguishments is rather shocking in my opinion, but it is nonetheless the case.  The ONDP's recent electoral stagnation in the face of similar leader-driven centrification only reinforces for me the squandered opportunity that the current federal Official Opposition stint will likely become. ...

....  Would we not be fighting the neoliberal shift only in pace?

Hence the need, I think, to think longer term.  This will require the popularizing of alternatives to neoliberalist thought, and the expansion of political discourse that results.  It will also require a coherent vision which can capture the imagination, and a media landscape favourable enough to this vision in order to get it out there.  The Conservative genius has been its fox-in-the-henhouse character, which has allowed it to creep into power as a supposedly moderate force (compared to Reform, maybe) and once there, take a wrecking ball to any societal pillars which do not back up its ideology, making the prospects even more difficult.  There will be a lot of work ahead of us in order to turn things around.

Exactly. Political parties are vying to run the country and focus on promising that they will be conservative stable economic managers that won't rock the boat. Change through electoral politics is very limited.

Personally I think the left gets too distracted by the needy and righteous causes and fails to make the most important arguments that it improves everyone's standard of living when people become contributing members of society rather than drags on it. Housing the mentally ill in prisons isn't just horrible, it's also more expensive than treating them in a health care setting. School breakfast/lunch programs pay off in better learning outcomes in low income areas which leads to lower levels of drop outs and incarcerations etc. Businesses gravitate to cities that have educated populations, good infrastructure and low levels of pollution. We need to make the economic arguments for socially progressive policies.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

i don't think I bullied you at all. OK, I apologize.

I both appreciate and accept your apology.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

... I have never heard anyone who said they voted New Democrat use typical LPC supporter talking points and arguments in the manner that you do, and beleive that they ever voted NDP.

Political parties create talking points in the hopes that they will be convincing and that voters will remember and share them. I also have my own memories and interpretation of events that contribute to my opinions.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I am a committed, and life long, Social Democrat, who has always voted NDP, and woulds stay at home before I would EVER vote Liberal.

Parties need hardcore supporters like yourself to keep them alive when they falter. It's people as devoted as yourself that kept the Liberals alive while the leadership imploded and have rebuilt the party since then. For me the members of a party and the head honchos are two separate entities. The Liberal party is the same way, members have limited control, but it's a matter of degree of deafness, of giving too little of what members want. You post as if all the Liberal voters to voted for Jack had seen the light therefore were henceforth NDP voters.

I wasn't an NDP voter when I voted NDP or a Liberal voter when I vote Liberal. I'm just a voter listening to what the politicians are offering and determining which I think will do the best job for the next four years.

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

i don't think I bullied you at all. OK, I apologize.

I both appreciate and accept your apology.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

... I have never heard anyone who said they voted New Democrat use typical LPC supporter talking points and arguments in the manner that you do, and beleive that they ever voted NDP.

Political parties create talking points in the hopes that they will be convincing and that voters will remember and share them. I also have my own memories and interpretation of events that contribute to my opinions.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I am a committed, and life long, Social Democrat, who has always voted NDP, and woulds stay at home before I would EVER vote Liberal.

Parties need hardcore supporters like yourself to keep them alive when they falter. It's people as devoted as yourself that kept the Liberals alive while the leadership imploded and have rebuilt the party since then. For me the members of a party and the head honchos are two separate entities. The Liberal party is the same way, members have limited control, but it's a matter of degree of deafness, of giving too little of what members want. You post as if all the Liberal voters to voted for Jack had seen the light therefore were henceforth NDP voters.

I wasn't an NDP voter when I voted NDP or a Liberal voter when I vote Liberal. I'm just a voter listening to what the politicians are offering and determining which I think will do the best job for the next four years.

Thank you for your reply, and for accepting my apologiy. I am sincere when I say that is kind of you and I appreciate it. Thanks again.

Debater wrote:

When you look at the current front bench of the NDP it really is quite interesting:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/ParlBusiness/House/SeatingPlan/SeatingPlan.pdf

Not only is there Mulcair, a former provincial Liberal who is now NDP Leader, but just a few chairs down from him is the NDP Justice Critic, Francoise Boivin, a former FEDERAL Liberal MP.  So the NDP has 2 former Liberals on its front bench!

And yet the NDP partisans on Babble like to claim that the NDP is so much more left-wing than the federal Liberals.  In reality, they are much more interchangeable than ever before.

Just DESPERATE to convince people there is no difference between the NDP and the Liberals, aren't you, Debater?

Debater wrote:

AC, why not actually try to respond to or address the facts above, rather than attacking all the time?  Is it because you can't argue against the facts?  It's a fact that there are already 2 former Liberals on the NDP front bench.  Address that.

OK, OBVIOUSLY they realized the LPC is NOT a left leaning party in any way, has sold itself to Corproations, and wants Canadians to be led by whomever is Bay Street's preferred Corproate mouthpiece. Realizing that, they realized that if they were going to be true to themselves, the needed to join the NDP.

Try addressing THAT, Debater.

fiddling wrote:

It's interesting how quickly the scope of a conversation can change - from whether the federal/BC Liberals are different to Mulcair's suitability to lead the NDP.  Clearly the latter seems to be a sensitive issue for similar reasons to the former.

One thing I will inject into here is the sad fact (from my perspective) that all three main parties have shifted significantly to the right compared to where the were a generation ago, and this shift has only been picking up steam in recent years.  Where we should really be focusing our energy is on creating the environment which can turn that around.

Personally, I think 2015 may already be a lost cause.  The fact that despite Mulcair's centrification of the party and his laudable interrogation skills, Trudeau is far ahead in popolarity even in the absence of policy distinguishments is rather shocking in my opinion, but it is nonetheless the case.  The ONDP's recent electoral stagnation in the face of similar leader-driven centrification only reinforces for me the squandered opportunity that the current federal Official Opposition stint will likely become.  Hopefully I am wrong, but even if against all odds we have some kind of NDP-coalition in 2015, what difference will that make when it has ruled out social democracy in advance both economically (e.g. the tax increases required to pay for a social democratic system), or socially (e.g. consider the silence on Gaza)?  Would we not be fighting the neoliberal shift only in pace?

Hence the need, I think, to think longer term.  This will require the popularizing of alternatives to neoliberalist thought, and the expansion of political discourse that results.  It will also require a coherent vision which can capture the imagination, and a media landscape favourable enough to this vision in order to get it out there.  The Conservative genius has been its fox-in-the-henhouse character, which has allowed it to creep into power as a supposedly moderate force (compared to Reform, maybe) and once there, take a wrecking ball to any societal pillars which do not back up its ideology, making the prospects even more difficult.  There will be a lot of work ahead of us in order to turn things around.

 

Well. Finally. Some food for thought and realistic analysis.

Thanks for that intervention, fiddling. Pop in more often, why don't you?

jerrym wrote:

My initial posts simply doucmented the connections between the federal and provincial Liberals. Subsequent posts did not in any way deny these connections.

The B.C. provincial Liberals are a strange breed.  They are an amalgamation of Liberals & Conservatives and Social Credit, etc.  But they are not directly related to the Federal Liberals - not even close.  Justin Trudeau did not endorse Christy Clark last year, neither did Joyce Murray.  This was commented on by the press at the time.

The B.C. Liberals are full of Conservatives.  Why do you think Harper wanted them re-elected, and why do you think Stockwell Day and Alise Mills and other Conservatives were helping Christy Clark?

Since many "progressive" Canadians don't support the NDP, I think it's important that "progressives" of all political stripes, those that support the NDP, Liberals, Greens, and BQ, and progressives who are non-affiliated with any party cooperate with each other more. I think the NDP has many natural partners who support the Liberals, Greens, and BQ. I think opening up channels of cooperation and dialogue between all these like-minded people would be in the interest of the NDP and more importantly in the interest of Canada.

JKR wrote:

Since many "progressive" Canadians don't support the NDP, I think it's important that "progressives" of all political stripes, those that support the NDP, Liberals, Greens, and BQ, and progressives who are non-affiliated with any party cooperate with each other more. I think the NDP has many natural partners who support the Liberals, Greens, and BQ. I think opening up channels of cooperation and dialogue between all these like-minded people would be in the interest of the NDP and more importantly in the interest of Canada.

Nope, you want change, vote NDP, As McCauliffe said, "co-operation? Nuts"..

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Since many "progressive" Canadians don't support the NDP, I think it's important that "progressives" of all political stripes, those that support the NDP, Liberals, Greens, and BQ, and progressives who are non-affiliated with any party cooperate with each other more. I think the NDP has many natural partners who support the Liberals, Greens, and BQ. I think opening up channels of cooperation and dialogue between all these like-minded people would be in the interest of the NDP and more importantly in the interest of Canada.

I agree, the mortal enemies thing is unproductive.

No, it isn't a question of mortal enemy. I don't supported a mushy middle with a perennial LPC led government stop righ wingers. That would be a death by a thousand cuts! McCaullife was right, "Nuts". Or should he have surrenered and just gone along to get along?

Debater wrote:

jerrym wrote:

My initial posts simply doucmented the connections between the federal and provincial Liberals. Subsequent posts did not in any way deny these connections.

The B.C. provincial Liberals are a strange breed.  They are an amalgamation of Liberals & Conservatives and Social Credit, etc.  But they are not directly related to the Federal Liberals - not even close.  Justin Trudeau did not endorse Christy Clark last year, neither did Joyce Murray.  This was commented on by the press at the time.

The B.C. Liberals are full of Conservatives.  Why do you think Harper wanted them re-elected, and why do you think Stockwell Day and Alise Mills and other Conservatives were helping Christy Clark?

A point that should be made with equal strength about the Quebec Liberals, who are are not directly related to the Federal Liberals - not even close

Like maybe that the shoe fits.

I don't consider alan smithee scum, though he has been vocally announcing his support for the Liberal party (I do think he is greviously mistaken in his political caculations), because I believe that he is honest in his posts. The complete lack of respect I have for you has nothing to do with your politics and everything to do with your character.

Mulcair has made it clear that he is willing to cooperate with the Liberals after the next election.  Trudeau has made it clear that he will not cooperate with the NDP.  I'm assuming then that he supports Conservatives instead.

addictedtomyipod wrote:

Mulcair has made it clear that he is willing to cooperate with the Liberals after the next election.  Trudeau has made it clear that he will not cooperate with the NDP.  I'm assuming then that he supports Conservatives instead.

This is what is so disingenious about some of the posts here.

You are totally re-writing Mulcair's statements & history over the past 2 years.

When Mulcair ran for the NDP leadership, he said he had no interest in engaging in electoral co-operation or working with the Liberals, in direct contrast to NDP contender Nathan Cullen.

Then Mulcair said the following year while he was on tour in the Maritimes that the Liberals were 'on their way to the graveyard'.

It was only after Justin Trudeau arose to the top of the polls and was consistently beating Mulcair that earlier this year he flip-flopped and said he was open to working with the Liberals after a potential election.  I already linked a piece by Rex Murphy here last month denouncing Mulcair for his ambiguous positioning on this issue.

Trudeau was clear from Day 1.  Since the NDP & Mulcair had shown no desire to work with the Liberals and were wishing for the downfall of the Liberal Party, Trudeau said he didn't want to merge or co-operate with the NDP before an election.  He made it clear he opposed the electoral co-operation plan of Joyce Murray.

alan smithee wrote:

Too bad politics are a selfish bunch.

It would be for the best interest of the country for the Liberals and NDP to merge.

Unfortunately,that would not be in the interest of either party.

Everybody wants to rule the world...

What is in the best interest of the country is a matter of opinion, and my opinion is different than yours. I believe that a merger between the Libs and NDP would be a hugely negative development for Canada. But that's just my opinion, not some sort of objective truth.