Thoughts on Canada's 'divided' left

[GirlinContempt]

The Liberals are called "Canadas Party" for a reason. They're centrist, moderate, good at balancing budgets and maintaining the status quo while still keeping at least half an eye open for changes in the political ideology of the average Canadian. Every leader of the Liberal party has served as Prime Minister. The Liberals have taken 22 elections since 1867, compared to 16 wins by right-of-center incarnations. (of those, each had four minorities. There was also one coalition).

By comparison, the American Democrats have won 20 elections, and lost 26 since 1828. Why do I bring up the Democratic Party? Because, some have suggested that due to the recent Liberal loss, the opposition parties should either fold into the Liberals or just disappear entirely. Why? Some claim that the parties (usually NDP and Liberal) are the same. Often, accusations of vote splitting are thrown around, and scary buzzwords like neocon are added to the mix. Some say that Canada is headed down the path of US style conservatism.

Reality check.

To begin with, the histories of the countries are totally different, and I have yet to see any valid comparisons. Even just looking at election wins VS losses speaks VOLUMES about the Canadian political ideology on a historical scale.

Then we move on to the fact that, even WITH the sponsorship scandal staring us in the face, and with gay marriage fresh in our minds, the Conservatives STILL only managed to pull off a minority win. Think about that. A huge scandal, millions of dollars, plus a conservative hot button issue, and they STILL can't take the house?

Addressing the idea of the parties being 'the same', I say this. The NDP and the Liberal party a very different. The NDP (formerly the CCF) is not the liberal party, it is a leftist socialist labour party. Anyone who cannot see that needs to hit the history books and troll the internet a bit more. Essentially what I'm hearing is, we're all left of Harper so we all believe the same things. That's like saying we're all left of that guy so we're all purple. It doesn't make any sense. Now, can/should the parties work together while dealing with a con. minority government? Totally different issue altogether.

Another thing to bring up on the 'merging' topic is the fact that, people are using this fear of American style neoconservatism to promote... an American style system. Wait, that can't be right, can it? We all see how well a bi-chromatic political view works south of the border, why would we encourage that here? Think the left would be 'united'? Take a look around Democratic Underground to see how 'united' a one-party left is.

Canadians, in my personal experience, are issue voters, not party voters. An example:
My father is very economically and somewhat socially right wing. He, however, dislikes the Conservative Party (their stance on gays bothers him, as well as other things), would NEVER vote liberal, and the idea of him voting NDP is hysterical. Last election, he voted Green. He likes their stance on the environment, and they're also very conservative.
My Aunt in California votes Republican. If you TALK to her (and her high school teacher husband) they're left of center. Not extreme leftists, but certainly not Republicans. Ask her about any key issue (taxes, welfare, gay rights, education, health care) and she'll give you a Democratic answer. But she's always 'been' a Republican, seen herself as a Republican.

If the NDP wasn't a viable party, it would have joined the Party graveyard by now. If the Liberal party was the same as the NDP, it would enjoy less votes and less seats. If the two were to somehow merge, it would alienate voters and silence the voices of 17-20% of the Canadian population. Do we really want to put all our eggs in one shaky basket? Do we really want to abandon a functional multi-party system to emulate our neighbours and paint everything black and white?

[Bragi]

1. CCOM Comment

All of your recent postings have made the same point: that having multiple parties on the centre-left is a good thing because it allows for free expression by individuals at the ballot box, and the fact that this results in electing conservative governments that don't reflect majority sentiment, and that can enact policies that most Canadians oppose, is of little consequence. What really matters is that the electoral marketplace offers voters a wide range of centre-left choices vying for Opposition status.

Interesting.

- B

[Lautremont]

2. All of your recent postings have failed to grasp the same thing:

that the centre-left you describe is not, should not be and will never be the homogeneous entity you purportedly think it must become. Asking NDP supporters to vote Liberal is no different than asking them to vote Conservative. This state of mind, which you no doubt regard as delusional, is known as "political conviction."

You must understand that there is faith in the current Canadian system at work here, and that this faith is based on a hundred and thirty years of things working more or less as they were designed to and as the citizenry would wish. We have a system that, while imperfect and unable to fully prevent such creatures as Harper from, say, embroiling us in an overseas misadventure, at least won't allow him to do it for very long.

Globbing the "centre-left" together, if it were even possible (Centre here. Left there. Two different things.) isn't a good idea in the long run. Maybe you're not taking the long view; maybe Harper has you in such a panic that you're willing to do any and everything necessary to defeat him now, now, now! If so, calm yourself. Twist up a fatty or whatever you need to do. Semi-devoted NDP voter that you claim to be, you'll no doubt be willing to do the work necessary to make them a viable party once again and a real threat to the threat on our right flank.

[GirlinContempt]

5. All I have to say is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=190&topic_id=12927&mesg_id=13322

[GirlinContempt]

7. Actually, I guess I have more to say than just that.

Of my last 4 postings, 2 have been about this issue. Not all.

And of the things you claim I say, here's what I didn't:
that having multiple parties on the centre-left is a good thing because it allows for free expression by individuals at the ballot box, and the fact that this results in electing conservative governments that don't reflect majority sentiment, and that can enact policies that most Canadians oppose, is of little consequence. What really matters is that the electoral marketplace offers voters a wide range of centre-left choices vying for Opposition status.

I'd post what I did, but you don't happen to mention it. The problem with message boards is, when you decide to put your own spin on someones reply, people can go back and see what the other person actually said.

[Canuck55]

14. Which would you prefer?

A 2 party Left/Right style or if the Right was fragmented into roughly the same style as our Left with, say, 3 left of - and 3 right of - parties? Having different options left of centre is what draws more Canadians left imo.

[IntravenousDemilo]

3. Edward Blake, Liberal leader between Mackenzie and Laurier,

was never PM.

[GirlinContempt]

4. True, i forgot him

Thanks. However, he was offered the position of Prime Minister, and he turned it down, did he not?

[IntravenousDemilo]

15. I'm wondering who would have offered it to him.

The Tories, including Sir John A, were in power throughout his tenure as Liberal leader, and they'd be the ones offering. This is interesting; I hadn't read about his being offered the job. Where did you find this out? Point me there. I must do more reading...

[GirlinContempt]

16. Hmmmm

No he wasn't directly offered it:

In March 1873 the federal Reformers settled on Mackenzie as their leader. It seems likely that if Blake had wanted the position it could have been his, but he begged off. Mowat’s return to politics had led Sir John A. Macdonald to appoint Samuel Blake to a vice-chancellorship in the Court of Chancery, leaving the Blake firm in some disarray. Edward’s own nervous debilitation in the latter half of 1872, the death of an infant daughter, and the drawn-out consequences of his father’s death in 1870 had led to his retreat from provincial politics and his unwillingness to undertake direct leadership at the federal level. Thus, while he fully participated in the massive assault on the Macdonald government over the Pacific Scandal, an attack that let him exercise his powerful forensic skills and sense of moral outrage to the full, it was Mackenzie whom Governor General Lord Dufferin asked to form a new government in November 1873. Blake felt, perhaps only in retrospect, that he might have been asked. The failure to take on the Reform leadership in March 1873 was the premier error of his political career.

http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=41335

[Bassic]

6. The root of the problem is that

in an electoral system like ours, which simply elects MP's by plurality of vote with no consideration for other votes, voters are bound to favor a small number of parties. That is why a merge or at least an alliance would be viable.

I do agree with your point however. I believe that we should change the electoral system to integrate an element of proportional representation that would allow parties to get seats based on the percentage of votes (like in Europe, yes). Parties would then have to create coalitions, yes, but I for one think that is a good thing.

[GirlinContempt]

8. proportional representation is something

I would support too. And if the parties want to work together toward whatever common goals they may have, that's also fine with me. But a merge is not something I can see as a viable option, because I think that the parties exist for a reason and any sort of merge would only further stifle the voice of Canadas left wing. If the NDP were to merge with the centrists, then who do I vote for... the marxist-Leninist guy who doesn't even sound like he read a book in his life? ;)

[Bassic]

9. Yes you are right.

More parties mean more ideas, and I'm all for that. I don't see progressive representation coming any time soon though, and that's too bad.

[GirlinContempt]

10. We were so close before!

At least, I think so ;) Layton was pushing for it, and hard, and was like, one seat short of having a sway in the last Liberal Min.

[Bassic]

11. Indeed. There is still hope.

The Québec government, for example, has been playing with the idea for many years. In recent months, ministers have commented that it might soon be coming. If it does, I'm hoping it will inspire other provincial governments and the federal to do it as well. I think it alows much more room for democracy than our current system.

[MrPrax]

12. It's endemic to the Machine...

Consolidation, homogenity and managed efficiencies have the standard tools of a neo-liberal capitalism for the past couple of decades.

So there is no surprise that this trend to eliminate the diversity of the public's role in all socio-economic spheres is deemed 'necessary' by elites to produce some tangible benefit.

A single party system is obvious the most desired, but a 'two party' approach produces a sense of efficacy in the host population that translates into higher productivity. Moreover it provides the illusion to the democractic pretensions of western moral belief systems whose ideologies are ,at their core, globalist acquisition.

Multi-party systems are hated because they give too much input by too many actors and distracts from the politicians' role of 'lobbying' on behalf of these elites. PR systems were highly popular after WW2 in that they were seen as ways of defeating large and unified 'left' parties, by allowing the disorganized 'right'/former fascists to coalesce around religion and anti-communist platforms financially underwritten by Allied victors, in particular, the Marshall Plan.

Today the average person has bought into the idea that TOO many opinions/parties in government are inefficient and could, if formalized, lead to economic stagnation and social disorder.

So as such western political parties in the English speaking world seem rather similar with the only noticeable differences being their stance on 'culture wars'--since most western governments have consigned their economic duties to the private sector (central banks, think tanks, economists, financial institutional committees, NGOs, trade agreements), they have left themselves with little else to differentiate one set of inter-related issues for another.

The classic and necessary role of a Third party (whatever it is) is to hopefully bring forward questions and perspectives the TWO insitutionalized parties can't or won't due to ideological constraints, popular trends or the need to secure campaign funding.

My two cents...

[GirlinContempt]

17. To quote Jon Stewart

"That, to have a democratic strategist and a republican strategist is not debate, that's coke and pepsi discussing beverage supremacy."

[TrogL]

13. It's not a zero-sum game

Americans are stuck with the Republicans for four years at a time. We are in a Parliamentary system. A government can fall on something so ridiculous as an issue about taxi-cabs (it happened in Italy). I doubt the Conservative government will survive their first Budget unless that budget is so Liberal-like their own supporters will trash them next election.