#
Where Has the Left Gone Right?
Thu, 2014-11-27 23:55
#1
Where Has the Left Gone Right?
Fri, 2014-11-28 01:47
#2
Good topic. Structural change is permanent change.
Where the left went right was in entrenching a progressive taxation system into the very fabric of governance, in the early to mid-20th century, in most of the western world. This structural change meant that regardless of the policy of the government of the day, at its base policy, however enacted was founded on a progressive financial foundation.
"What" is being paid for is one aspect of policy, but at the heart of a progressive agenda, who is paying for "what" is arguably more important. It makes little sense for the poor to be paying for their own "social welfare" system.
Moreso, because the system of progressive taxation was so firmly entrenched in the root financial core of governance, it has been very difficult to dislodge from the government financial picture. In Canada, it has taken nearly 35 years of successive Conservative and Liberal governing factions to root out the fundamentally progressive nature of the tax system to the point where the debt ridden, nearly bankrupt carcass of government must be hived off bit by bit to the private sector, just in order to keep government functioning at all, as it is today in Ontario, with Kathleen Wynne selling off what remains of Ontario Hydro for Fifty cents on the dollar value.
Let us not forget that what has been most successful about the Mike Harris "common sense revolution" has been its ability to entrench structural changes that centralize and eliminate accessible democratic structures, through such devices as appropriating "Education Tax" revenue from the local school boards, and making them part of the general provincial revenue, while eliminating democratic access "to the people" by amalgamation of local civic instruments of governance, such as school boards and municipal governments. These structural changes, not only have never been reversed but built upon by successive Liberal Party administrations that use their financial leverage to force sale of publicly owned properties through chronic underfunding and through instruments such as Bill 122 that centralize all negotiations with employees under aegis of fewer and fewer hands at the highest level of government, outside of the purvue of local representative boards.
These structural changes have real impacts and implications, as as we see the next natural anti-democratic step as advised by Greg Sobara and Toronto Star pundit Regg Cohn, will be the elimination of the oldest democratic bodies in Ontario: the public school boards: democracy is just too much trouble and costly as well. Redundant even: Dump our trustees, dissolve our school boards: Cohn
Needless to say, once the boards are out of the way, it will be a simple matter to sell off individual schools to the highest bidder using a privatized charter P3 school model, an event that will happen shortly after to be made selling off Ontario's legacy assets at Hydro One, Ontario Power Generation and the LCBO.
Kathleen Wynne seems proud of saying "There is no more money!" given how often she repeats the phrase, almost like a mantra. And she is right. But why is this so? Simply put: the final demise of the system of "progressive taxation" and large scale corporate taxation that ensured well funded government had the ability to spend on "redistributive" programs such as free public education for all.
The watch word is that the most successful changes are always deep structural changes, not cosmetic policies that can be simply be reversed at the whim of the government of the day, and the most successful thing that "the left" got right was progressive taxation.
Fri, 2014-11-28 02:11
#3
There has been a lot of discussion on why the left has failed but it hasn't unless you envision some future where mankind has reached the height of progressiveness so "left" no longer need exist. The left has lost some ground in economic policy but there is a window of opportunity open for a backlash. The tide is turning. People like Elizabeth Warren are being heard.
It is good to dissect failure but clues also lie in successes.
We are facing three primary challenges in the 21st century. Climate change, democratic erosion, and income redistribution to the wealthy. Everything else, even feminism, racism, etc. is secondary to but part of those three primary challenges. All three primary challenges are linked so affecting any one of them impacts the others.
So where are we on the three primary issues?
Climate change, the news is discouraging but the tide has turned. The progress on blocking pipelines has been nothing short of phenomenal. No amount of insistence that we have no choice and must accept pipelines as safer than rail has managed to convince people that we have no choice. B.C., Ontario, and Quebec are all dead set against Energy East. They can't be bought. It's not a matter of money anymore and it's not just climate change.
Success breeds success can be true. Even if people don't realize it consciously the environmental movement's success proves that both corporations and governments can be defied and it doesn't destroy the economy.
On environmentalism, the left is now mainstream therefore no longer "left". That's a huge success.
It would have been better if it had happened sooner but "the left" should still be enormously proud of having become the center on this issue.
How has the environmental movement been so successful in their fight against the most powerful multi-national corporations in the world? Why that movement rather than others? Maybe if we breakdown the components it can lead to ideas on how to progress on the other two primary challenges.
Income inequality is on the agenda. Occupy illustrates there is a well of discontent that can be tapped into with the right messages.
Democratic reform is under discussion and the battle over data control and access is in full swing. Digital warriors are doing a pretty good job. Social media has become a valuable tool for progressives. Topics can go viral so the mainstream media doesn't have as tight a hold. In my daughter's generation many have never bought a TV. Social media levels the playing field a lot in getting the news out.
Fri, 2014-11-28 06:57
#4
Le Printemps québécois.
Fri, 2014-11-28 07:01
#5
Leaving aside the quality of the posts in this thread, which I have not read yet....
Opening a new thread is dumb and counter-productive. I found the existing one mildly interesting enough to check in on it occassionaly. That is because of the range of opinions- including ones I have very little in common with.
You dont like the title of the existing thread, and it's centre of gravity.
What is wrong with staying in the existing thread? With the same approach, go off in a different direction. ?
Fri, 2014-11-28 07:30
#6
Perhaps, but I found the other thread ridiculously negative. I'm sick of self-flagellation. Obviously my ideas as to what or who constitutes the left are not at all the same as the OP's, but the other thread starts out from a particular, defeatist thesis.
Fri, 2014-11-28 12:25
#7
Leaving aside the quality of the posts in this thread, which I have not read yet....
Opening a new thread is dumb and counter-productive. I found the existing one mildly interesting enough to check in on it occassionaly. That is because of the range of opinions- including ones I have very little in common with.
You dont like the title of the existing thread, and it's centre of gravity.
What is wrong with staying in the existing thread? With the same approach, go off in a different direction. ?
Criticizing a thread you haven't bothered to read is dumb and counterproductive. The other thread is about what the left is doing wrong, how it is alienating people.
This thread is intended to explore the successes of the left, to dissect how and why the left has been successful on various issues.
If you had bothered to read Rokossovsky's post it spoke of the permanence of structural change and the move to progressive taxation. Personally I fould it very interesting and thought-provoking. Progressive taxation is so mainstream it's taken for granted as the right thing to do. It's a great example because it didn't occur by revolution but through democratic progress. This is a battle the left won.
How did that happen? Didn't the oligarchs try to prevent it? Did a politician run with that in his platform? How did it spread?
I have appreciated the quality of your thoughts in some of your recent posts so if you want to participate in this thread you are very welcome to do so. I have no doubt that you have valuable thoughts to share.
If you aren't interested participation is non-compulsory.
Fri, 2014-11-28 23:50
#8
autoworker
What has the Left done right?
Sat, 2014-11-29 00:55
#9
What has the Left done right?
Read posts 1 and 2.
Sat, 2014-11-29 03:14
#10
autoworker
What has the Left done right?Read posts 1 and 2.
I'm not so sure that environmentalism has gone mainstream. It seems to me that the economy, and concern about jobs, has pushed the issue aside, again, in favour of falling oil prices, and the boost it will give to an ailing global economy. If the Left had succeeded at convincing the mainstream of the benefits of energy conservation, after the Global 2000 report, it might have re-elected Jimmy Carter, instead of the greatest actor of our time. That, IMO, may have been one of the first death rattles of post-war Liberalism. So much for all the 'restructuring' that the Left takes credit for. If the Koch Bros., and the Duck Dynasty crowd (authentic Americana), can manage to convince an increasingly desperate working class that trees cause pollution, and coal powers the American Dream, they'd have the makings of winning ticket in '16-- Quack!
Sat, 2014-11-29 11:43
#11
I'm not so sure that environmentalism has gone mainstream. It seems to me that the economy, and concern about jobs, has pushed the issue aside, again, in favour of falling oil prices, and the boost it will give to an ailing global economy. If the Left had succeeded at convincing the mainstream of the benefits of energy conservation, after the Global 2000 report, it might have re-elected Jimmy Carter, instead of the greatest actor of our time. That, IMO, may have been one of the first death rattles of post-war Liberalism. So much for all the 'restructuring' that the Left takes credit for. If the Koch Bros., and the Duck Dynasty crowd (authentic Americana), can manage to convince an increasingly desperate working class that trees cause pollution, and coal powers the American Dream, they'd have the makings of winning ticket in '16-- Quack!What has the Left done right?Read posts 1 and 2.
So what you are saying is we have nothing to learn from the successes of the left because the left has never succeeded at anything.
Sat, 2014-11-29 19:52
#12
There is something interesting and counter-intuitive about environmentalism... or maybe it is best called environmental activism.
"Green capitalism" gets talked about all the time. And how environmentalists are so often duped into believing that various forms of market incrementalism is our best ticket. Etc, etc.
As in all such generalizations, there is at least some truth to it, But environmentalists have always been heavily wieghted towards those with am ideological prediliction that sees government intervention favourably, probably as necessary. It is not that you could not be an environmentalist neo-con, but it has never been common. Neo-liberals that believe in both the magic of markets AND the need for some govt intervention, those have always been common.
My observation is that over the last several years, possibly the last decade, environmentalists have become increasingly anti-capitalist. The movements and most of the organizations have shifted their centres of gravity as it becomes clear to everyone how difficult the path is to achieve even necessary minimums of change. This includes even some pretty conservative folks I know of [ho end up in a kind of funny place].
"Green is the new red" generally refers to the demonization of environmentalists as the contemporary equivalent of 'communist'. But I think there is a polarization of environmentalists as well.
'Tired of screwing around you know.'
Sat, 2014-11-29 21:53
#13
autoworker
I'm not so sure that environmentalism has gone mainstream. It seems to me that the economy, and concern about jobs, has pushed the issue aside, again, in favour of falling oil prices, and the boost it will give to an ailing global economy. If the Left had succeeded at convincing the mainstream of the benefits of energy conservation, after the Global 2000 report, it might have re-elected Jimmy Carter, instead of the greatest actor of our time. That, IMO, may have been one of the first death rattles of post-war Liberalism. So much for all the 'restructuring' that the Left takes credit for. If the Koch Bros., and the Duck Dynasty crowd (authentic Americana), can manage to convince an increasingly desperate working class that trees cause pollution, and coal powers the American Dream, they'd have the makings of winning ticket in '16-- Quack!What has the Left done right?Read posts 1 and 2.
So what you are saying is we have nothing to learn from the successes of the left because the left has never succeeded at anything.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't resonate with the people it claims to represent-- France being a current example, where the far right is more in tune with the working class than either parties of the left.
Sat, 2014-11-29 22:05
#14
Well sorry, that is called "false consciousness" or in more populaire speak, "un raciste est quelqu'un qui se trompe de colère (ou d'ennemi)". People are right to be pissed off, but their targets are wrong.
Idem with autoworkers or other proletarians in ecocidal jobs: in the case of car manufacturers, it would be easy to shift production to various forms of public transport (and bicycles) needed in lieu of cars, and retrofitting fucking suburban sprawl.
Sat, 2014-11-29 23:33
#15
How do you retrofit suburban sprawl? In Toronto its fine(transit actually not bad compared to other municipalities) but the suburbs around it? Horrible horrible sprawl, nothing nea rby unless you have a car and transit unreliable unless you are retired and have no time crunches to get anywhere
Sun, 2014-11-30 09:07
#16
Unfortunately, the way it is being "retrofitted" in some of the suburbs is the work of speculators who are building lots of tall condos in Etobicoke and Scarborough (those are the places where I've seen them). I'd think the main means is preventing further expansion, via a green zone. Densification (though low-rise buildings are more sustainable than either high-rises or single-family homes with oversized, unused yards) and of course improving public transport. I've never been to Vaughan. I'd be curious to visit the huge Asian (mostly Chinese) shopping mall in Markham north of Toronto. See that there is also a South Asian mall in Scarborough.
Globe and Mail writer Dakshana Bascaramurty thinks those have reached "peak ethnic mall": http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-eth... as East and South Asian immigrants and their children integrate the "mainstream".
Sun, 2014-11-30 09:13
#17
So, should food stores in malls be allowed to sell a wider range of alcoholic beverages?
Sun, 2014-11-30 09:20
#18
I'm of two minds about that. I've spent a lot of time in various European countries for studies and work, and it is certainly pleasant to be able to pick up decent wine at the supermarket. Many sell hard liquors as well, but I very rarely buy or drink those. But of course, while many supermarkets are unionized, supermarket workers don't have conditions as good as those workers at the SAQ, LCBO and other provincial liquor boards have achieved.
Perhaps the real solution is fighting for decent wages and working conditions for all workers; unfortunately not where things are heading these days.
There are many articles on densifying or retrofitting suburbia: http://www.livablecities.org/articles/reshaping-suburbia In some places it is happening, but usually at the cost of accessibility to people of all incomes.
Sun, 2014-11-30 14:25
#19
So what you are saying is we have nothing to learn from the successes of the left because the left has never succeeded at anything.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't resonate with the people it claims to represent-- France being a current example, where the far right is more in tune with the working class than either parties of the left.
I suppose I should have said progressive but I don't want to get caught up in semantics. I'm trying to get a bird's eye view. Over the past 100 years, social justice, in Canada at least, has advanced tremendously.
Tommy Douglas is praised as the father of medicare. Was medicare his idea or was it like pharmacare or daycare is now, an idea whose time had come waiting for a politician to pick it up.
People emphasis learning from mistakes of the past but it's important to learn from successes too. We often look at what tactics worked but not why they worked. Why does one movement work but another not?
Now that I think about it we can learn from the successes of the right as much as we can from successes of progressives or the left.
Mainstream media is a powerful tool that the right or oligarchs have a great deal of control over so that is a tool they have used, but what "truths" have been adopted because of it?
For example, "every man for himself" "it's a dog eat dog world" "you eat what you kill" "everything has a price" "it's a zero sum game" is percieved as our natural way of being when it isn't. Humans are pack animals. We survived by banding together and working towards the common good.
Individual rights and freedoms are important but we are all dependent on one another and on our collective society for our present and future well-being.
That is one of the major keys I see to the advancement of causes. Appeal to people's self-interest rather than their altruism. Together we stand, divided we fall, has never been more true.
That works in large things and small. An example of a small success is Vancouver's Insite. It has managed to survive the Harper government not because it is kind and merciful to addicts, but because it works. It saves money, lives, and improves the environment. Housing first is also spreading as a more successful and cheaper way to manage the homeless. So that is a second key, focus on the real economics. Follow the money and actual outcomes.
A third key is to tell the truth. The Oligarchs have used propaganda to shape our desires and our understanding about how the world works. They were able to do it easily through mass media. The best weapon progressives have is the truth. Exageration is easily ridiculed but truth is difficult to get around. Part of the success people have had in blocking pipelines is because oil spills are too frequent and too damaging to deny and climate change is a fact of life. Same goes for marijuana, the truth is that it is relatively harmless and has many benefits. That is what is defeated the propaganda.
The slick advertisments of oil workers explaining how they have state of the art systems to detect spills and automatic shut offs and how proud they are of the industry's advancements are falling on deaf ears. It's like the boy who cried wolf. It doesn't matter if they are telling the truth or not. Nobody believes a word they say anymore. Promises of jobs and economic benefits are immaterial.
So three keys so far, appeal to self-interest, address the economics, be truthful.
Tue, 2014-12-02 13:36
#20
There is something interesting and counter-intuitive about environmentalism... or maybe it is best called environmental activism.
"Green capitalism" gets talked about all the time. And how environmentalists are so often duped into believing that various forms of market incrementalism is our best ticket. Etc, etc.
As in all such generalizations, there is at least some truth to it, But environmentalists have always been heavily wieghted towards those with am ideological prediliction that sees government intervention favourably, probably as necessary. It is not that you could not be an environmentalist neo-con, but it has never been common. Neo-liberals that believe in both the magic of markets AND the need for some govt intervention, those have always been common.
My observation is that over the last several years, possibly the last decade, environmentalists have become increasingly anti-capitalist. The movements and most of the organizations have shifted their centres of gravity as it becomes clear to everyone how difficult the path is to achieve even necessary minimums of change. This includes even some pretty conservative folks I know of [ho end up in a kind of funny place].
I find environmentalism so interesting as a model. Crossing the political boundries of left, right and centre has contributed to its successes. It's also formed a bridge with First Nations peoples.
I think most people, certainly in Canada, agree with a mix of capitalism and socialism. Canadians are not philosophically against social programs or crown corporations.
Tue, 2014-12-02 13:46
#21
I find environmentalism so interesting as a model. Crossing the political boundries of left, right and centre has contributed to its successes.
I'm not so sure about this. I actually do not think so, but I could not systematically support that opinion.
I think it is definitely true about the initial appeal, the outreach.... that environmentalism appeals to a very braod section of folks' starting points.
As far as it oges for people who at least to a degree self-identify as environmentalist, I think they are increasingly also becoming self identifying lefties of some kind.
A sort of polarization taking place at the grassroots.
(But then maybe, I just want to see it that way.)
It's also formed a bridge with First Nations peoples.
That is very, very true, and new, at this depth at least. Probably the first really strong bond like that.
Tue, 2014-12-02 13:50
#22
The Left has gone right in parliamentary parties almost evey chance they have gotten.
Tue, 2014-12-02 14:35
#23
I have wondered whether that thread title was deliberate, in that sense.
Tue, 2014-12-02 21:04
#24
Tommy Douglas is praised as the father of medicare. Was medicare his idea or was it like pharmacare or daycare is now, an idea whose time had come waiting for a politician to pick it up.
Hey there, Pondering. I'm not looking to flame you, because I don't think you are intending to be provocative with this comment.
I know for me this is the kind of thing that you post sometimes that bugs me. Medicare was not an idea whose time has come. They don't even have it in the states yet. It had to be fought for. The Saskatchewan doctors went on strike to try to prevent it. The campaign against it used racist imagery of people being stuck with foreign doctors. The RCMP spied on Douglas as a suspected communist form the 1930s to the 1980s.
Maybe you would like to read more about Tommy Douglas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas
So what bugs me is that you make these posts sometimes where you question whether something is known, because you don't know whether it's true or not, and then you imply that its objective truth is ambiguous.
Was Tommy Douglas just an opportunist with no vision or sense of social responsibility who was in the right place at the right time and accidentally established Medicare? Who can say? We'll never know! Unless we are actually interested in the topic enough to do some token research.
I understand that not everyone is obsessively interested in political history and I don't expect that to be a requirement to post here. I see the advantage of having babblers who aren't that focussed on politics. But it almost seems sometimes like you use your lack of knowledge as an argumentative tool. You don't know much about Tommy Douglas...and you use that lack of knowledge to imply that his implementation of medicare wasn't actually an accomplishment.
What do you think? Can you see what I'm talking about? Is this something you do intentionally?
ETA: Not looking for thread drift here, I would've PMed you but figured it might take you a while to see it.
Tue, 2014-12-02 22:45
#25
Tommy Douglas is praised as the father of medicare. Was medicare his idea or was it like pharmacare or daycare is now, an idea whose time had come waiting for a politician to pick it up.
Hey there, Pondering. I'm not looking to flame you, because I don't think you are intending to be provocative with this comment.
I know for me this is the kind of thing that you post sometimes that bugs me. Medicare was not an idea whose time has come. They don't even have it in the states yet. It had to be fought for. The Saskatchewan doctors went on strike to try to prevent it. The campaign against it used racist imagery of people being stuck with foreign doctors. The RCMP spied on Douglas as a suspected communist form the 1930s to the 1980s.
Maybe you would like to read more about Tommy Douglas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas
So what bugs me is that you make these posts sometimes where you question whether something is known, because you don't know whether it's true or not, and then you imply that its objective truth is ambiguous.
Was Tommy Douglas just an opportunist with no vision or sense of social responsibility who was in the right place at the right time and accidentally established Medicare? Who can say? We'll never know! Unless we are actually interested in the topic enough to do some token research.
I understand that not everyone is obsessively interested in political history and I don't expect that to be a requirement to post here. I see the advantage of having babblers who aren't that focussed on politics. But it almost seems sometimes like you use your lack of knowledge as an argumentative tool. You don't know much about Tommy Douglas...and you use that lack of knowledge to imply that his implementation of medicare wasn't actually an accomplishment.
What do you think? Can you see what I'm talking about? Is this something you do intentionally?
ETA: Not looking for thread drift here, I would've PMed you but figured it might take you a while to see it.
I wasn't trying to imply anything. I was asking a question. I have known forever that he is credited for bringing it in. This thread is about how progressives succeed in changing public opinion. Medicare is treasured by Canadians when at one time it was "leftist". Now it's an institution. So, this is a good example of the population shifting left so to speak. I wasn't thinking at all about who does and doesn't get credit. It's not material to the discussion.
My intention is to explore the core elements that come together to create change, particularly to the left. There should be some commonality whether it is 1814 or 2014.
Tue, 2014-12-02 23:02
#26
I have wondered whether that thread title was deliberate, in that sense.
It's a bit of a play on words. It's a take-off on the other thread, but has multiple meanings.
There is going to the right in the sense of becoming more moderate or centrist as a movement, but it is more that the ultimate success for the "left" or "progressives" is when an issue they have championed isn't leftist anymore. The ultimate success for the left is not to move to the centre but to become the centre.
Tue, 2014-12-02 23:25
#27
Medicare is treasured by Canadians when at one time it was "leftist". Now it's an institution. So, this is a good example of the population shifting left so to speak.
The National Medical Care Insurance Act was adopted on December 8, 1966. All three parties (Liberal minority government, PCs, and NDP) supported it. The vote was 177 to 2. It provided (roughly speaking) for equal cost-sharing with any province that set up a plan that was universal, public, and met the basic criteria of coverage. This process was completed by all provinces in 1971.
So... the population didn't "shift left". It took decades of struggle by the "population" to get the politicians of all stripes to temporarily overcome their anti-socialist instincts and resist the business and professional lobbies. In that struggle, the CCF played a major role.
But look carefully. Long before medicare had become an "institution", it was already supported by everyone.
These measures are not gifts by liberal do-gooders (in which I include all those parties) which the "population" ultimately gets used to. It's exactly, always, the other way around.
Wed, 2014-12-03 00:19
#28
These measures are not gifts by liberal do-gooders (in which I include all those parties) which the "population" ultimately gets used to. It's exactly, always, the other way around.
In some cases. Not always.
The population does change over time - left, and right - and while much of it is the product of grassroots initiative, there are also plenty of examples of government being an equal partner, or the driving force. The initial fight for medicare, and for rural electrification here in Saskatchewan are just two examples.
Would official bilingualism be an accepted part of our culture in English Canada, particularly in parts of the west, were it not for a top-down effort by government? I don't think so.
I get that we have to keep a healthy mistrust of politics and politicians. And I already said I agree with you about not supporting parties for their own sake. But there are sometimes when they actually do make a difference.