Elections are for pundits. They aren't really *for* them except in the sense that pundits love them. Their can be -- and is -- endless hours of meaningless speculation about who is doing well or saying what or who has gaffed, etc. Sports metaphors -- most unfortunately -- abound. There are, as well, endless polls on which to speculate, sometimes trials or data that can convolute matters, and all this occurs daily, as if what pundits said, daily, was important. But, if you were to ask these pundits why what was going on -- why is this election -- important, my bet is that most of them would stall out. And, what they would repeat to us is the standard stuff that a high school student might ape back on their civics test: democracy, choosing the prime minister, leadership for the next X years, where the country is going.
These are not inherently bad answers, even if they are trite. The problem is that they don't get us past trite and because of that, what might be important in this election is not being discussed, at least in the mainstream media. What I want to suggest is that there are several "storylines" (to use the jargon) that are important and are being under-reported, but to which we should pay attention because they signal a transition -- or, a potential transition -- in Canadian politics and public life. In addition, there are strong potential continuities that also bear comment and, potentially, concern. What are these storylines?
First, oil, taxes, energy and the environment. The Conservatives made hay again Stefan Dion by preaching the gospel of the tar sands. All Canadian federal governments have been, more or less, committed to the tar sands since their development started. The Liberals developed a practiced ambiguity that worried big oil and alienated some Albertans, but in practice they did nothing to stop the flow of oil from the Alberta tar sands to the US. The Conservatives hyped up this agenda by trying to build the northern gateway, lobbying relentlessly for Keystone, and sending the Minister of Natural Resources on tours of Europe to try to encourage European governments to not call tar sands oil "dirty oil" because this label would create (a) bad PR, and (b) potential lost sales. In other words, the Tories upped the Grits public indifference and practical non-interference policy to one of unmitigated support, branding anyone who suggested that the tars sands were anything but good as a wrecker of the economy, jobs, the future, family security, personal income, etc. And, this plot line was good enough to sway some voters and maintain a solid base of support in western Canada (well, more than solid) because unmitigated support for the oil industry could be rebranded as support for the west. To flip the old Reform Party saying: the west was finally in.
This plot line began to change some time ago, in slow almost unnoticeable ways. I think I noticed it on campus when it became evident that the Divest movement was picking up support and was going to eventually force serious rethinking of institutional investment priorities. It has not had this effect yet at Mount A, but it certainly has at other schools and, I think, eventually, even Mount A will realize that it cannot continue unethical anti-environmental investments (even if they do make money).
But, Divest was just a small sign. The bigger signs were the provincial elections in NB and Alberta. The NB election was about energy and, in particular, it was about fracking. The provincial Tories focused on one issue and one issue only (in the process determining the scope of public discussion and making a mockery of an election in which there were other issues to discuss). And, they secured a certain amount of support through this focus. They argued this: environment be damned (although they said it nicer than this) because "we need jobs" and so we are going to frack regardless of what the science says and regardless of environmental harm and (as it turned out) regardless of whether or not that fracking is on aboriginal land. Acknowledging that the Tories were unpopular going into this election, what one can say is that this strategy did not work. The Conservative vote dropped by something like 13 or 14%, they lost government, and key ministers responsible for promoting fracking went down to defeat. The Green Party scored an historic victory in Fredericton and provincially captured something like 6.5% of the vote with strong areas of support on the Northumberland coast (where fracking would have occurred). In my riding, the Greens captured 15% of the vote. This followed a 2013 BC provincial election in which the Greens took a seat and won over 8% of the vote (which was actually not an historic high) and preceded another historic win of a single seat in PEI.
Now, no one is about to argue that we are going to get Green governments. Here is what I want to point out. This movement in the vote is a minority movement. But, it has an effect because it is indicative of a broader trend -- just like Divest is. The easy acceptance of environmental destructive energy production/job creation is no longer so easily accepted. The Liberals won the provincial election in NB by maintaining the same studied indifference of their federal cousins in this election with regard to dirty energy production; that is: they were neither for it, nor against it. Instead, they proposed a moratorium on fracking that gave scientists time to study the issue and make better informed determinations.
And, that is good enough for most people because (a) it means that there will not be fracking in the short term and (b) the government (ideally) will be lead by science in terms of the effects of fracking (something rejected by provincial Tories who claimed that the scientific verdict was already in and that it was safe) and ignored by the feds, who pulled Canada out of Kyoto and made the country into an international laughing stock by virtue of their environmental policies.
What this shows us is a couple of things. #1) The times have changed. What worked four and eight years ago in terms of swaying votes with the promise of riches while ignoring the environment no longer works. Those people who are going to vote for parties that support environmentally destructive policies have already made that decision. They have already decided that short term profits are more important than long-term sustainability or they simply don't believe the science that they read with regard to environmental degradation. I suspect that this group was already voting Conservative. Non-aligned voters who had been swayed by this argument no longer seem as easily swayed. They seem better informed about environmental issues, less willing to accept the idea that "disaster will fall" if environmentally destructive policies are not followed, and more willing to trust in the science of the matter, as opposed to ignore the science in favour of supposed economic gains. What we have, then, is a better informed electorate -- or, what we might more accurately call a section of the electorate -- that is unwilling to easily accept environmental destructive policies and is looking for an alternative.
#2) The Tories have not realized this. It could be argued -- or, at least this is an argument I try to make in a course I teach -- that oil made Stephen Harper. It did not make him. He's not some Gollum called forth from the ground, but it clearly played a role in his victory and he's reluctant to abandon it despite the signs that Canadians want some other policy. Hence, Harper and crew have stuck to their guns and ignored this plot line or tried to tell us that it does not exist. This is the reason that they have made war on the provincial NDP government of Alberta, a very new government. Harper's argument was, of course, silly and no one fell for it even if he and his followers (I have no doubt) believed it with every fibre of their being. His attack on provincial premiers -- particularly trying to blame ones who had been in office for a matter of months -- for economic woes that he himself was blaming on international trends went looked at federally seemed ... well ... let's call it ... odd. But, the attacks on the NDP make sense from the perspective of energy politics. They failed, and in this sense did not make sense, but they were consistent with federal Conservative views.
What was the Alberta NDP's high crime: to suggest that the oil economy had was now past its best before date. The Alberta NDP -- let us be clear -- is pretty darned far from a radical party. Its policies are basically centrist and that was the key, one might argue, to their electoral success. They went to Albertans and said "folks, we need to diversify our economy. There are a whole bunch of reasons why the oil economy is not good for us, including environmental issues, and because of this we really do need to get our butts in gear and do something about it. That is going to take a reorganization of provincial finances. It may involve changes in taxes, but if we don't do it, we really will just get ourselves deeper and deeper into both economic and environmental trouble." That was the message and, you know what, a large section of Albertans said "hmmm ... that might make sense. I didn't think that way a few years ago but now ... knowing more, looking at the instability of the oil economy, and looking at the science of the tar sands ... well, hmm, this might be a step we need to take."
That was the crime and that was why Harper and crew were up in arms. The oil industry, they told us in the federal election campaign, hates the NDP. Canadians replied "we knew that already, but that does not mean that the idea that we need -- both economically and environmentally -- to do something about oil is incorrect." There is a reason why Harper and crew didn't get this message that is something, I think, a bit more than ideology and bit more than politics. I'll blog on that in the future. Right now what we can say is that the plot of energy politics changed -- a new storyline developed -- and that storyline is important for Canada.
There was a moment, early in the election campaign when I think I first realized that the plot was shifting. I think it was on CBC but it might have been CTV. I don't really remember which news network I was watching. Linda McQuaig, running for the NDP, very carefully and very precisely explained that Canada would likely need to leave oil in the ground if we were to meet any reasonable environmental commitment. The Tories railed. They had, I suspect they thought, their smoking gun against the NDP, then doing fairly well in the polls. It was, I think they thought, an "a-ha" moment, perhaps akin to Dion's carbon tax. A high profile NDP candidate had explained that full and complete development of the oil sands might not go ahead. Canadians would be ... well, I don't know what they Tories thought Canadians would be but they clearly were not well prepared for what Canadians actually were: generally in agreement. The plot lines of this election runs through that moment. It runs back to the NB provincial election to Divest and the increased popularity (marginal though it is) of Green candidates. It will run forward past this next election.
Let us be clear: Canadians have not embraced the environment as their cause. They will elect one Green MP in this election but the discourse has changed. A larger section of the middle and working classes are better informed and less willing to sanction environmentally destructive policies. They may not vote Green but they won't vote Tory either. And this is a storyline to which we should pay attention because it is optimistic. Its a good news story ... unless you are a Conservative. Canadians don't know which way they want to go into the future, but they know which way the don't want to go. And that is one of the things we can learn from this election.
Showing posts with label New Democratic Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Democratic Party. Show all posts
Monday, October 19, 2015
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Reconfiguring Progressive Politics Part III: Something Other than Socialism
Recent efforts to the NDP to define and mobilize what we might call a "progressive" political coalition is not simply politics. It is not, for instance, just a political party looking to find some way to appeal to voters. I am sure that there are a few NDP partisans whose intentions might be less than noble but, by and large, the NDP is both part of and helping to organize a redefinition of the Canadian left, or what Ian McKay once called a "left formation." This begs two questions: what is a left formation and how does it affect Canadian public life?
A left formation represents an effort to define an alternative politics. It mobilizes a certain language the identifies problems and ways of responding to them. It involves political education: asking people to think about particular issues and raising questions for them. It involves political organization in an effort to win election (or, at least secure representation) that is intended to build a coalition that can challenge socially, economically, and politically powerful interests that otherwise organize state policy in their interests or, at the least, ignore issues that need to be addressed if the country is to improve.
There can - and should -- be a debate about what the word "improve" means. I have come of late to understand it means radically different things to different people and different political perspectives. (This is an important issue that I will address later.) But, in the case of the NDP and other "progressive" thinkers, there are specific considerations they take into account.
1) Society is riddled with inequalities that break down on a number of lines: gender, race, class, sexual orientation, disability, etc. These inequalities translate into various forms of social, economic, and political marginalization that deprives people of an equal voice in public affairs, imposes undue restrictions on equality of opportunity, and impedes the natural growth and development of people. For instance, it serves to perpetuate poverty over time. One goal of government is to address these inequalities in ways that break cycles of poverty or marginalization and which broaden access to the public sphere.
2) Inequalities also affect the character and scope of democracy. Because some people have an undue influence (by virtue of inequalities) on government, they misdirect government policies away from their proper end. Government should, for instance, be assuring high quality education, living and improving wages for workers, proper access to health care, and other like matters. It should not be providing tax cuts to already wealthy corporations or cutting needed and necessary public goods in order to balance the books.
3) The environment is important and we cannot have a false "jobs versus the environment" debate. The effect of this debate is to lead us to make decisions as a society that are not in the public interest. In particular, it leads us to continue to pollute the environment when there are alternatives that don't cost jobs. Canada needs to plan its move away from a carbon-based energy economy and toward a greener economy that provides for the future.
4) Canada is not playing a constructive role in international affairs. It used to. Its blind support of Israel, come what may, for instance, has led it away from its former ability to play the role of the honest broker and get a few things done. Canada did not bring peace to the middle east, but it is not doing that now. In fact, its stance is more of an impediment to peace. But, its older approach was more humane and did positively affect people's lives. We need to find a way to regenerate that positive role.
5) There is a place for public goods in our economy. Whether it be roads, schools, science, or R and D, the state can and should play a role in society because it evens out the inequalities. There are financial constraints; no one says that there are not. But, we need to also acknowledge that there is more than one way to get things done and that some ways might have more social benefits than others. Everyone, for instance, benefits from higher levels of formal education, better roads, less waiting time for health care, and the like.
Now, we need, as always, to be careful. Conservatives, for instance, might not disagree that there are problems with health care wait times. What they disagree with is solution to this problem. Their solution is (more or less) to expand privatization. We reduce health care wait times not by providing hospitals with the funding they need, but by allowing some people to buy their way to the head of the cue. This is a philosophical point. One either agrees with it or disagrees with it. Those who agree will say "why should I wait in line when ....?" Those who disagree say "why should a rich person have a small problem addressed, say plastic surgery, before a poor person's life is saved?" In other words, the "progressive" perspective favours need over wealth. It is, oddly, a very Christian perspective because it is about an ethics of care and priorities. Christians are (supposedly, at least) to be "their brother's keeper." One is supposed to be concerned about other people, their lives, their futures, their children, etc. One does not go in and boss them around, but one should help out if one has the chance. If it comes to a choice between the convenience of the wealthy and the health of the poor, we need (Christians say) to side with the poor.
What the NDP is part of, then, is an effort to build a specific vision of the country that will, in the event of a successful federal election, be implemented through policy. This is what the NDP is trying to do right now in Alberta. Where it does not do this -- develop ideas that can be implemented as policy as part of a vision for the future -- the NDP runs into problems, if it wins elections. It was, for instance, successful in Saskatchewan for a fair piece of time precisely because it knew what it was doing and where it wanted to go. Same thing in Manitoba (although there seems to be a bit of a loss of direction of late). In Ontario under Bob Rae and more recently in NS, the opposite was the case. The NDP won elections, but actually did not have a direction in which it clearly wanted to move. It had a bunch of ideas, philosophies, etc., and there were complicating factors (in the case of Ontario, an international economic downturn), but in both of those cases the party ended up alienating its own supporters.
I am not certain that these points I have articulated above amount to a "revolutionary" philosophy although I do think they are a reform agenda of serious importance that merits consideration. I can think of worse things that redefining Canada's role on the world stage to make the country more relevant. I can think of worse things that lower health care wait time as opposed to providing wealthy people with easier access to services that the rest of us will not be able to afford. What the NDP is attempting to do is to build a basis of support for these ideas by talking to people who, more or less, already favour them ... the ideas; not the party. The NDP, to be sure, reaches out to all types of voters as we saw provincially in Alberta. But, it particularly is interested in people who might share these ideas but who don't vote or don't support the NDP. The language of progressiveness is a rubric that both represents their ideas and defines a philosophy, a way to approach policy and public life.
This is, in my view, not socialism. Let me say that clearly: progressive politics is not socialism. If the CCF and the NDP were once socialists, the current NDP no longer is. A capitalist economy will continue to exist under the NDP. There will continue to be big business; markets will function. The stock market will not close down. If the CCF called for capitalism to replaced by the cooperative commonwealth, that was a long time ago. Those were ideas articulated as part of a transition to an industrial society and in the midst of a the great depression. If the NDP once thought about "industrial democracy," it gave up on that idea (for good or ill) over a generation ago. The type of progressive politics is different. And, that is not a bad thing. As I said in a previous blog, politics changes over time. Political philosophies and visions of nation should not be creatures of fad, but they also have to be right for the times. No one would hold any political movement to the ideas of the 1920s and rightly so because we do not live in the 1920s.
Other groups are attempting to politically organize "progressive" people as well. Here in NB, and also from what I can tell in PEI, the Green Party fishes in the same lake. While many Green supporters are people who, in fact, were not previously politically active, their message is a message that NDP supporters also like (particularly, in NB, owing to changes in the provincial party). In Quebec, QS supporters are more leftish, to be sure, but also reach out to a similar demographic. I do not know for sure, but I suspect the BQ will, as well, in the next federal election in Quebec. NGOs, coalitions, lobby groups, and others may also be operative in the same political space. This is not unusual, but it does raise questions about how to proceed and whether or not people are willing to cross political boundaries or form temporary political alliances.
I do not know. What I do know is that the NDP has been far more successful so far than I imagined it would be, say, a number of years ago. Four years ago, in fact, NDP success was more or less laid at the feet of Jack Layton and, no doubt, he deserved a lot of credit. Regardless of what one thinks of progressive politics, his commitment should be admired. But, it is also clear that something other than a "we love Jack" movement was going on. It is evident that the success of the NDP represented a new coalescences of leftism, a potentially evolving new left formation. Where it goes from here ... is something that remains to be seen.
A left formation represents an effort to define an alternative politics. It mobilizes a certain language the identifies problems and ways of responding to them. It involves political education: asking people to think about particular issues and raising questions for them. It involves political organization in an effort to win election (or, at least secure representation) that is intended to build a coalition that can challenge socially, economically, and politically powerful interests that otherwise organize state policy in their interests or, at the least, ignore issues that need to be addressed if the country is to improve.
There can - and should -- be a debate about what the word "improve" means. I have come of late to understand it means radically different things to different people and different political perspectives. (This is an important issue that I will address later.) But, in the case of the NDP and other "progressive" thinkers, there are specific considerations they take into account.
1) Society is riddled with inequalities that break down on a number of lines: gender, race, class, sexual orientation, disability, etc. These inequalities translate into various forms of social, economic, and political marginalization that deprives people of an equal voice in public affairs, imposes undue restrictions on equality of opportunity, and impedes the natural growth and development of people. For instance, it serves to perpetuate poverty over time. One goal of government is to address these inequalities in ways that break cycles of poverty or marginalization and which broaden access to the public sphere.
2) Inequalities also affect the character and scope of democracy. Because some people have an undue influence (by virtue of inequalities) on government, they misdirect government policies away from their proper end. Government should, for instance, be assuring high quality education, living and improving wages for workers, proper access to health care, and other like matters. It should not be providing tax cuts to already wealthy corporations or cutting needed and necessary public goods in order to balance the books.
3) The environment is important and we cannot have a false "jobs versus the environment" debate. The effect of this debate is to lead us to make decisions as a society that are not in the public interest. In particular, it leads us to continue to pollute the environment when there are alternatives that don't cost jobs. Canada needs to plan its move away from a carbon-based energy economy and toward a greener economy that provides for the future.
4) Canada is not playing a constructive role in international affairs. It used to. Its blind support of Israel, come what may, for instance, has led it away from its former ability to play the role of the honest broker and get a few things done. Canada did not bring peace to the middle east, but it is not doing that now. In fact, its stance is more of an impediment to peace. But, its older approach was more humane and did positively affect people's lives. We need to find a way to regenerate that positive role.
5) There is a place for public goods in our economy. Whether it be roads, schools, science, or R and D, the state can and should play a role in society because it evens out the inequalities. There are financial constraints; no one says that there are not. But, we need to also acknowledge that there is more than one way to get things done and that some ways might have more social benefits than others. Everyone, for instance, benefits from higher levels of formal education, better roads, less waiting time for health care, and the like.
Now, we need, as always, to be careful. Conservatives, for instance, might not disagree that there are problems with health care wait times. What they disagree with is solution to this problem. Their solution is (more or less) to expand privatization. We reduce health care wait times not by providing hospitals with the funding they need, but by allowing some people to buy their way to the head of the cue. This is a philosophical point. One either agrees with it or disagrees with it. Those who agree will say "why should I wait in line when ....?" Those who disagree say "why should a rich person have a small problem addressed, say plastic surgery, before a poor person's life is saved?" In other words, the "progressive" perspective favours need over wealth. It is, oddly, a very Christian perspective because it is about an ethics of care and priorities. Christians are (supposedly, at least) to be "their brother's keeper." One is supposed to be concerned about other people, their lives, their futures, their children, etc. One does not go in and boss them around, but one should help out if one has the chance. If it comes to a choice between the convenience of the wealthy and the health of the poor, we need (Christians say) to side with the poor.
What the NDP is part of, then, is an effort to build a specific vision of the country that will, in the event of a successful federal election, be implemented through policy. This is what the NDP is trying to do right now in Alberta. Where it does not do this -- develop ideas that can be implemented as policy as part of a vision for the future -- the NDP runs into problems, if it wins elections. It was, for instance, successful in Saskatchewan for a fair piece of time precisely because it knew what it was doing and where it wanted to go. Same thing in Manitoba (although there seems to be a bit of a loss of direction of late). In Ontario under Bob Rae and more recently in NS, the opposite was the case. The NDP won elections, but actually did not have a direction in which it clearly wanted to move. It had a bunch of ideas, philosophies, etc., and there were complicating factors (in the case of Ontario, an international economic downturn), but in both of those cases the party ended up alienating its own supporters.
I am not certain that these points I have articulated above amount to a "revolutionary" philosophy although I do think they are a reform agenda of serious importance that merits consideration. I can think of worse things that redefining Canada's role on the world stage to make the country more relevant. I can think of worse things that lower health care wait time as opposed to providing wealthy people with easier access to services that the rest of us will not be able to afford. What the NDP is attempting to do is to build a basis of support for these ideas by talking to people who, more or less, already favour them ... the ideas; not the party. The NDP, to be sure, reaches out to all types of voters as we saw provincially in Alberta. But, it particularly is interested in people who might share these ideas but who don't vote or don't support the NDP. The language of progressiveness is a rubric that both represents their ideas and defines a philosophy, a way to approach policy and public life.
This is, in my view, not socialism. Let me say that clearly: progressive politics is not socialism. If the CCF and the NDP were once socialists, the current NDP no longer is. A capitalist economy will continue to exist under the NDP. There will continue to be big business; markets will function. The stock market will not close down. If the CCF called for capitalism to replaced by the cooperative commonwealth, that was a long time ago. Those were ideas articulated as part of a transition to an industrial society and in the midst of a the great depression. If the NDP once thought about "industrial democracy," it gave up on that idea (for good or ill) over a generation ago. The type of progressive politics is different. And, that is not a bad thing. As I said in a previous blog, politics changes over time. Political philosophies and visions of nation should not be creatures of fad, but they also have to be right for the times. No one would hold any political movement to the ideas of the 1920s and rightly so because we do not live in the 1920s.
Other groups are attempting to politically organize "progressive" people as well. Here in NB, and also from what I can tell in PEI, the Green Party fishes in the same lake. While many Green supporters are people who, in fact, were not previously politically active, their message is a message that NDP supporters also like (particularly, in NB, owing to changes in the provincial party). In Quebec, QS supporters are more leftish, to be sure, but also reach out to a similar demographic. I do not know for sure, but I suspect the BQ will, as well, in the next federal election in Quebec. NGOs, coalitions, lobby groups, and others may also be operative in the same political space. This is not unusual, but it does raise questions about how to proceed and whether or not people are willing to cross political boundaries or form temporary political alliances.
I do not know. What I do know is that the NDP has been far more successful so far than I imagined it would be, say, a number of years ago. Four years ago, in fact, NDP success was more or less laid at the feet of Jack Layton and, no doubt, he deserved a lot of credit. Regardless of what one thinks of progressive politics, his commitment should be admired. But, it is also clear that something other than a "we love Jack" movement was going on. It is evident that the success of the NDP represented a new coalescences of leftism, a potentially evolving new left formation. Where it goes from here ... is something that remains to be seen.
Monday, July 13, 2015
Reconfiguring Progressive Politics Part II: Something Other than Socialism
Last blog I argued that it would be a mistake to see the NDP and Liberals, historically, as the "left" and that the discursive linking of socialism with liberalism is, in fact, politics and bad analysis. I think, however, that the chances of a greater connection between the NDP and the Liberal Party is better now than it has ever been. This is not a product of learning to cooperate. This is the result of a political reconfiguration through which both parties and Canada have passed. The Conservative Party of Canada was, in fact, a product of this reconfiguration. Whatever conservatism has come to mean, what became evident some time ago is that the variants of conservatism that had existed historically in Canada did not work in the sense that neither had the capacity to create a national political movement that could challenge an ascendant liberalism. Does the same thing apply to the NDP and to the Liberal? Are we in a different historical moment?
I will argue yes. This does not mean that the parties will merge. I actually think that unlikely. But, it does mean that both parties are working on a very similar policy groundwork. The NDP's movement -- which has been underway for some time -- away from socialism and toward "progressive" politics is a case in point. Likewise, the Liberals have not abandoned civic nationalism but find that last generation's reform agenda is no longer a winning formula. The issue, however, involves more than winning. Political parties want to win. Let's take that as an assumption. But, political parties (as I've explained before) are not just vote getting machines. Yes, there are people in parties who don't really care too much about ideology. (I have a theory that these increase over time and I'll articulate that in a different blog.) But, by and large there are reasons why some people are Liberals and others Conservatives; some people are NDPers; others Bloc or Green. And that reason, I as suggested in my last blog, is that the ideological space of each party is not the same as the others. There may be moments compatibility or spaces of commonality, but by and large parties are different because the people who organize, staff, and maintain them are think differently about public issues. Hence, the supporters of political parties want to win but they are also drawn together out of common cause. Political re-organization occurs when that common cause is rethought. It could fracture a party (the PCs in the 1990s); broaden it (the CCF's transformation to the NDP). See its demise (the movement of progressive into the Liberals, what became the CCF, and the Tories) or its project defeated (Labour-Farmer in NS). Often, however, parties retool internally, shifting their focus through policy congresses, leadership, the weight of circumstances. This, I would argue, is what has gone on with the NDP over a fairly long period of time.
Retooling the NDP
The NDP has retooled at different point in its history ... and failed to retool. Originally, the NDP started as the CCF, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, a social gospel inspired form of socialism that called for the democratic displacement of capitalism and the development of a different type of government and economy ... you guessed it: the cooperative commonwealth. The CCF was only one of a series of leftist political parties in Canada at the time it emerged in the 1930s and, in fact, was fairly late on the scene. There is a great deal of very good scholarship on this subject so we don't need to go into it in detail but socialist parties and movements of various sorts had existed in Canada for a couple of generations by the time the CCF arrived on the scene. Some of these were revolutionary; others milder, but all believed that capitalism was an odd an a-moral economic system that created deep social divisions, economic dysfunction (poverty), and social conflict. In other words, a capitalist economy was a socially bad type of thing that promised conflict, divisions, dysfunction, and social harm. What the CCF did was pick up on this idea, firmly link the displacement of capitalism to democratic processes, and connect the problems of farmers and other small producers to working class conflicts. In effect, if you worked ... you were in the same boat. Being a socialist did not require one to be revolutionary, except perhaps in one's vision of the future. Fundamental reforms could be won through the regular institutions of electoral democracy by contesting and winning elections.
Exactly what a non-capitalist economy looked like is challenging to both describe and, in this day and age, to envision. For CCFers, however, it took the form of de-commodification. The objective was to progressively expand the range of services and goods, etc., that were not subject to the logic of the market. This is an important consideration because the logic of the market is different than most people think it is. We live, today, with a feel good view of capitalism that is not really what capitalism is all about (which is why people are often dissatisfied with it). If you want a quick refresher about the character and nature of capitalism as an economic system, you might want to have a look at the "myths of capitalism" series of blogs I penned a while ago. A good example of commodification might medical care, because it is one with which Canadians are familiar.
De-commodification does not mean that no one gets paid. People still do. What it means is that the value of the product and its provision is not determined by the market. Thus, for instance, in a market-driven health care system, one pays for a service by negotiating a price. Don't like the price demanded by the provider, you don't get the service. From the perspective of health-care providers, the issue is who offers more for the service. You could, for instance, treat person X but since they can't pay, you treat person Y and person X goes without care, regardless of the relative severity of the illness in question. A de-commodified service organizes payment differently and prioritizes care differently. It prioritizes care, for instance, not be ability to pay but by need. It organizes payment not through a market by via non-market mechanisms. Underlying this system is a basic value: the a-morality of capitalism (whoever pays the most gets first in line) is not good enough in dealing with people's lives. Individuals should not be bankrupted after a lifetime of hard work because they, their partner, or child becomes ill. The lives of poor or middle class children are just as valuable as the lives of children who happen to be born into rich families.
We de-commodify other things in our society, too. This does not make them perfect. Attaining a de-commodified non-market basis for the provision of goods and services does not mean that history ends. We can still improve things, but we have found that some things are better provided on this basis. Education, for instance, is less expensive to provide on a de-commodified basis and fairer. Most roads do not charge fees or public parks or beaches. We don't have the competitive provision of police services or fire protection. In other words, there are many things that, over time, we have agreed to a socialist logic for. The objective of the CCF was to extend this logic by using the stage to organize the provision of goods and services.
How far would the CCF have gone? That is not clear. The CCF, for instance, does not seem to have harboured any animosity toward small business people (particularly but not exclusively farmers) who, it believed, were harm by the logic of capitalism, too. There were, then, matters of debate and discussion. The cooperative commonwealth was likely never intended to displace all market transactions but to ensure fairness, impede conflict, and promote an alternative idea of a de-commodified approach to goods and services where this saved money, ensured higher levels of fairness, and improved society.
The NDP
The development of the NDP, which replaced the CCF in 1961 by linking it more directly to organized labour, represented an effort to broaden the base of the CCF. In addition to a more direct connection to organized labour (which it hoped would provide votes for the party), the NDP also hoped to made inroads into progressive members of the middle class. Exactly how this would be attained, however, was not clear. The most innovative idea was industrial democracy. Exactly what this entailed is difficult to specify and whether it ever would have worked in practice is unknown. But, it was an effort to rethink the economy and what a leftist economy would look like. If de-commodification addressed issues of the provision of goods and services, industrial democracy approach the economy from the other direction. Was it possible to organize a workforce in a large industry on other grounds. Could one create workers control, a long-time ideal of socialism, by having the same people work and run the business in which they work?
For one reason or another this idea just did not fly. As I will indicate, later, I think it might be time to rethink it. But, its failure left the NDP with good rhetoric, popular leaders, but something less than a platform that could appeal broadly in Canadian society. The NDP periodically garnered support for opposition to globalization, but had less success in translating that support into an agenda that they could carry into government. They also fell afoul of the identity politics that plagued Canada in the late 1980s and 1990s. Generally, NDPers were sympathetic to the concerns of Quebecers, but this sympathy harmed them in the charged atmosphere that produced the Reform and the Canadian Alliance. Likewise, NDP support for tolerance, diversity, and immigration did not "play well" in that climate. Moreover, those who opposed reactionary policies tended to rally under the banner of the Liberals, viewed as the only party that could actually maintain national unity and maintain traditional values (such as support for diversity), in the face of rising intolerance in other sectors of society.
Finally, the NDP did not necessarily score well with the general population on economic issues. This was not just anti-leftist ideology. The truth of the matter was that the NDP had a strong record of opposition to neo-liberal economic "reforms" that reintroduced some seriously harmful economic measures, but they actually had little idea of how to proceed if they were to attain power. The recent NDP government in NS is a good example. I don't think the NS NDP represents national trends. I think, in fact, they represented an older iteration of the NDP. After winning election ... they simply did not know what to do with the economy. Their policies, to be sure, were better than some of the alternatives but their inability to forge a leftist direction for the economy led them back into a peace alliance, of course, with the same large scale enterprises they were elected to oppose. In other words, in the absence of a clear policy, the NS NDP fell back on the ideas of other political parties.
Progressivism Today
The federal NDP is, I think, different because it has had longer to rethink its direction and longer to plan its and the country's future. I won't necessarily be voting NDP. OK, who am I kidding, we all know I won't be voting NDP, but the current shift to a language of progressivism -- again, a while in developing -- represents a step toward formulating a serious alternative to neo-liberalism. What does progressivism entail? Well, this blog is getting too long, to be sure. There are, I think a number of parts to it and so I'll save those for the next entry I make.
I will argue yes. This does not mean that the parties will merge. I actually think that unlikely. But, it does mean that both parties are working on a very similar policy groundwork. The NDP's movement -- which has been underway for some time -- away from socialism and toward "progressive" politics is a case in point. Likewise, the Liberals have not abandoned civic nationalism but find that last generation's reform agenda is no longer a winning formula. The issue, however, involves more than winning. Political parties want to win. Let's take that as an assumption. But, political parties (as I've explained before) are not just vote getting machines. Yes, there are people in parties who don't really care too much about ideology. (I have a theory that these increase over time and I'll articulate that in a different blog.) But, by and large there are reasons why some people are Liberals and others Conservatives; some people are NDPers; others Bloc or Green. And that reason, I as suggested in my last blog, is that the ideological space of each party is not the same as the others. There may be moments compatibility or spaces of commonality, but by and large parties are different because the people who organize, staff, and maintain them are think differently about public issues. Hence, the supporters of political parties want to win but they are also drawn together out of common cause. Political re-organization occurs when that common cause is rethought. It could fracture a party (the PCs in the 1990s); broaden it (the CCF's transformation to the NDP). See its demise (the movement of progressive into the Liberals, what became the CCF, and the Tories) or its project defeated (Labour-Farmer in NS). Often, however, parties retool internally, shifting their focus through policy congresses, leadership, the weight of circumstances. This, I would argue, is what has gone on with the NDP over a fairly long period of time.
Retooling the NDP
The NDP has retooled at different point in its history ... and failed to retool. Originally, the NDP started as the CCF, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, a social gospel inspired form of socialism that called for the democratic displacement of capitalism and the development of a different type of government and economy ... you guessed it: the cooperative commonwealth. The CCF was only one of a series of leftist political parties in Canada at the time it emerged in the 1930s and, in fact, was fairly late on the scene. There is a great deal of very good scholarship on this subject so we don't need to go into it in detail but socialist parties and movements of various sorts had existed in Canada for a couple of generations by the time the CCF arrived on the scene. Some of these were revolutionary; others milder, but all believed that capitalism was an odd an a-moral economic system that created deep social divisions, economic dysfunction (poverty), and social conflict. In other words, a capitalist economy was a socially bad type of thing that promised conflict, divisions, dysfunction, and social harm. What the CCF did was pick up on this idea, firmly link the displacement of capitalism to democratic processes, and connect the problems of farmers and other small producers to working class conflicts. In effect, if you worked ... you were in the same boat. Being a socialist did not require one to be revolutionary, except perhaps in one's vision of the future. Fundamental reforms could be won through the regular institutions of electoral democracy by contesting and winning elections.
Exactly what a non-capitalist economy looked like is challenging to both describe and, in this day and age, to envision. For CCFers, however, it took the form of de-commodification. The objective was to progressively expand the range of services and goods, etc., that were not subject to the logic of the market. This is an important consideration because the logic of the market is different than most people think it is. We live, today, with a feel good view of capitalism that is not really what capitalism is all about (which is why people are often dissatisfied with it). If you want a quick refresher about the character and nature of capitalism as an economic system, you might want to have a look at the "myths of capitalism" series of blogs I penned a while ago. A good example of commodification might medical care, because it is one with which Canadians are familiar.
De-commodification does not mean that no one gets paid. People still do. What it means is that the value of the product and its provision is not determined by the market. Thus, for instance, in a market-driven health care system, one pays for a service by negotiating a price. Don't like the price demanded by the provider, you don't get the service. From the perspective of health-care providers, the issue is who offers more for the service. You could, for instance, treat person X but since they can't pay, you treat person Y and person X goes without care, regardless of the relative severity of the illness in question. A de-commodified service organizes payment differently and prioritizes care differently. It prioritizes care, for instance, not be ability to pay but by need. It organizes payment not through a market by via non-market mechanisms. Underlying this system is a basic value: the a-morality of capitalism (whoever pays the most gets first in line) is not good enough in dealing with people's lives. Individuals should not be bankrupted after a lifetime of hard work because they, their partner, or child becomes ill. The lives of poor or middle class children are just as valuable as the lives of children who happen to be born into rich families.
We de-commodify other things in our society, too. This does not make them perfect. Attaining a de-commodified non-market basis for the provision of goods and services does not mean that history ends. We can still improve things, but we have found that some things are better provided on this basis. Education, for instance, is less expensive to provide on a de-commodified basis and fairer. Most roads do not charge fees or public parks or beaches. We don't have the competitive provision of police services or fire protection. In other words, there are many things that, over time, we have agreed to a socialist logic for. The objective of the CCF was to extend this logic by using the stage to organize the provision of goods and services.
How far would the CCF have gone? That is not clear. The CCF, for instance, does not seem to have harboured any animosity toward small business people (particularly but not exclusively farmers) who, it believed, were harm by the logic of capitalism, too. There were, then, matters of debate and discussion. The cooperative commonwealth was likely never intended to displace all market transactions but to ensure fairness, impede conflict, and promote an alternative idea of a de-commodified approach to goods and services where this saved money, ensured higher levels of fairness, and improved society.
The NDP
The development of the NDP, which replaced the CCF in 1961 by linking it more directly to organized labour, represented an effort to broaden the base of the CCF. In addition to a more direct connection to organized labour (which it hoped would provide votes for the party), the NDP also hoped to made inroads into progressive members of the middle class. Exactly how this would be attained, however, was not clear. The most innovative idea was industrial democracy. Exactly what this entailed is difficult to specify and whether it ever would have worked in practice is unknown. But, it was an effort to rethink the economy and what a leftist economy would look like. If de-commodification addressed issues of the provision of goods and services, industrial democracy approach the economy from the other direction. Was it possible to organize a workforce in a large industry on other grounds. Could one create workers control, a long-time ideal of socialism, by having the same people work and run the business in which they work?
For one reason or another this idea just did not fly. As I will indicate, later, I think it might be time to rethink it. But, its failure left the NDP with good rhetoric, popular leaders, but something less than a platform that could appeal broadly in Canadian society. The NDP periodically garnered support for opposition to globalization, but had less success in translating that support into an agenda that they could carry into government. They also fell afoul of the identity politics that plagued Canada in the late 1980s and 1990s. Generally, NDPers were sympathetic to the concerns of Quebecers, but this sympathy harmed them in the charged atmosphere that produced the Reform and the Canadian Alliance. Likewise, NDP support for tolerance, diversity, and immigration did not "play well" in that climate. Moreover, those who opposed reactionary policies tended to rally under the banner of the Liberals, viewed as the only party that could actually maintain national unity and maintain traditional values (such as support for diversity), in the face of rising intolerance in other sectors of society.
Finally, the NDP did not necessarily score well with the general population on economic issues. This was not just anti-leftist ideology. The truth of the matter was that the NDP had a strong record of opposition to neo-liberal economic "reforms" that reintroduced some seriously harmful economic measures, but they actually had little idea of how to proceed if they were to attain power. The recent NDP government in NS is a good example. I don't think the NS NDP represents national trends. I think, in fact, they represented an older iteration of the NDP. After winning election ... they simply did not know what to do with the economy. Their policies, to be sure, were better than some of the alternatives but their inability to forge a leftist direction for the economy led them back into a peace alliance, of course, with the same large scale enterprises they were elected to oppose. In other words, in the absence of a clear policy, the NS NDP fell back on the ideas of other political parties.
Progressivism Today
The federal NDP is, I think, different because it has had longer to rethink its direction and longer to plan its and the country's future. I won't necessarily be voting NDP. OK, who am I kidding, we all know I won't be voting NDP, but the current shift to a language of progressivism -- again, a while in developing -- represents a step toward formulating a serious alternative to neo-liberalism. What does progressivism entail? Well, this blog is getting too long, to be sure. There are, I think a number of parts to it and so I'll save those for the next entry I make.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Electoral Cooperation (or, the NDP and the Liberals Part Two)
A blog or two ago I suggested that electoral mergers are not flags of convenience. They occur for specific historic reasons that involve more than people in opposition saying "hey, let's get together to win an election." Instead, they occur because the differences that organized people into different political perspectives are no longer relevant, because people come together for a new reason (say, as did Harper and his crew to fundamentally alter Canada). There may be other reasons but my point is that we need to treat politics seriously. We can't see it just as bunch of win-the-election by hook or by crook; the one is the same as the other Ottawa soap opera. (Spin doctoring is important for politics, to be sure, but spin doctoring is part of how an historic bloc functions and has changed over time.)
The possibility of an NDP/Liberal merger or electoral coalition, I suggested, might be one of those "time is right" ideas not in the sense that it would ensure defeat of the Conservatives. It wouldn't. I won't predict who will win the Stanley Cup next year; I'm not going to predict who will in an election in three years time! Instead, the time is right because of historic changes. There has been a great deal of talk about these historic changes and, frankly, my own view is that they are easy to overestimate. In all the talk about changes (communications, technology, education, jobs, media), we might think about the things that have remained the same. We might get an oddly long list.
Historic change, then, is not some vague type of thing ("everything changes"). Instead, it is specific set of changes in the organization of society, the place of Canada in the global capitalist order, gender relations, etc. The rise of the CPC is one element of this change. It represents the views of a particular set of ideologues (what Gramsci called "organic intellectuals") and a specific organization of society. It signals the rise to power of a specific historic bloc (a particular formation of social classes) that imagines Canada's future in a specific way and looks to use government to attain that imagined future. It involves the articulation of the aspirations of subject classes through a dominant class. I need to do more work on this to be even more specific but you get the point. The rise of the CPC both is and is not the historic change to which the NDP and the Liberals need to respond. It is not an historic change in the sense that losing an election is not necessarily an historic change. The PCs lost a bunch of elections in the 1960s and 1970s (1963, 1965, 1968, 1972, 1974, 1980); the NDP lost even more if you add in 1979 (won by Clark's minority PC gov.). These defeats were not historic because the structure and nature of Canadian politics did not change as a result of these defeats. Being on the losing side in an election might demonstrate, for instance, a balance of forces in a particular historic bloc.
On the other hand, some electoral defeats (which, of course, are wins for others) do signal changes. The 1921 election of King's Liberals signaled a wider shift in the nature of Canadian liberalism and Canada, for instance.
The Harper electoral victories, on the other hand, can be an historic change if they represent the development of a new historic bloc; that they signal a transition in the organization of Canadian society (both domestically and in terms of how Canada relates to the world). I have been suggesting that this is precisely the case. Mulroney's 1984 victory was of "historic proportions" but did not really change the character and nature of Canada. Indeed, his efforts to do so by and large failed in the face of opposition from Canadians who were willing to "turf out" the Liberals but who remained committed, with lot of caveats here, to liberal ideas. In effect, in 1984, Canadians tried to opt for liberalism without the Liberals. Mulroney's failure was that he misunderstood this and, wrongly, believed that his victory meant that Canadians were turning their back on Trudeauvian liberalism. They weren't. They turned their backs on the Liberal Party, but not the ideas and image of the country it inspired.
Harper's victories can be seen as something else. I don't think Canadians have ditched the ideals of liberalism but I do think that Harper and his crew are setting out, in a more thorough and careful way, to alter the fundamental conception of the country. Unlike Mulroney, Harper seemed to understand that he did not have a mandate to change Canada and that part of his job, as a Conservative, was to lead Canada in a new direction though without actually saying that was what he was doing. He understood, in other words, that there is a difference between wanting to change things and having a mandate to change things. You can change things, if you don't have a mandate, but it requires a different type of politics. This is what Harper is up to.
If this is the case, the Liberals and NDP face a number of possible options for the future. If they are facing an historic change, they may indeed want to reconsider the character and nature of their parties. If they are facing an historic change, their task in opposition, is to articulate a vision of Canada that can serve as a realistic option to Harper's conservatism. This might require a new party. Indeed, I'd be so bold as to suggest it will. But, if Harper's victories do not represent the development of a new era, as it were, in Canadian public life, then something less than a merger will work. Indeed, branding alone might be a good reason to maintain different parties. The Liberals, for instance, retain regional bases of strength (anglophone Quebec, middle class Ontario, parts of Newfoundland) that might not go for a new party. In this case, an electoral coalition of sorts that would allow each party to win seats without having to devote resources to competing with the other - useful in the face of the Tory war chest - would certainly have an appeal.
So … to conclude: losing an election is something that requires analysis. For neither the NDP, Liberals, nor the old PCs or Reform, is an election loss a reason to "jump ship." One needs to carefully analyse what is going on with that loss, why it occurred, etc. before one decides on a response to it. Abandoning an ideology one holds dear (say, liberalism or socialism or conservatism) is not easy. Precisely because it is not easy, no party can assume that its followers will, in fact, follow it into a new political party. We know that a lot of PCs did not follow their leaders. Losing an election might indicate simply that one lost an election. This happens in a democracy. It might, however, mean something else. I will bet we will only see a merger if members of the NDP and Liberals have decided that their loss in the last election means something else.
The possibility of an NDP/Liberal merger or electoral coalition, I suggested, might be one of those "time is right" ideas not in the sense that it would ensure defeat of the Conservatives. It wouldn't. I won't predict who will win the Stanley Cup next year; I'm not going to predict who will in an election in three years time! Instead, the time is right because of historic changes. There has been a great deal of talk about these historic changes and, frankly, my own view is that they are easy to overestimate. In all the talk about changes (communications, technology, education, jobs, media), we might think about the things that have remained the same. We might get an oddly long list.
Historic change, then, is not some vague type of thing ("everything changes"). Instead, it is specific set of changes in the organization of society, the place of Canada in the global capitalist order, gender relations, etc. The rise of the CPC is one element of this change. It represents the views of a particular set of ideologues (what Gramsci called "organic intellectuals") and a specific organization of society. It signals the rise to power of a specific historic bloc (a particular formation of social classes) that imagines Canada's future in a specific way and looks to use government to attain that imagined future. It involves the articulation of the aspirations of subject classes through a dominant class. I need to do more work on this to be even more specific but you get the point. The rise of the CPC both is and is not the historic change to which the NDP and the Liberals need to respond. It is not an historic change in the sense that losing an election is not necessarily an historic change. The PCs lost a bunch of elections in the 1960s and 1970s (1963, 1965, 1968, 1972, 1974, 1980); the NDP lost even more if you add in 1979 (won by Clark's minority PC gov.). These defeats were not historic because the structure and nature of Canadian politics did not change as a result of these defeats. Being on the losing side in an election might demonstrate, for instance, a balance of forces in a particular historic bloc.
On the other hand, some electoral defeats (which, of course, are wins for others) do signal changes. The 1921 election of King's Liberals signaled a wider shift in the nature of Canadian liberalism and Canada, for instance.
The Harper electoral victories, on the other hand, can be an historic change if they represent the development of a new historic bloc; that they signal a transition in the organization of Canadian society (both domestically and in terms of how Canada relates to the world). I have been suggesting that this is precisely the case. Mulroney's 1984 victory was of "historic proportions" but did not really change the character and nature of Canada. Indeed, his efforts to do so by and large failed in the face of opposition from Canadians who were willing to "turf out" the Liberals but who remained committed, with lot of caveats here, to liberal ideas. In effect, in 1984, Canadians tried to opt for liberalism without the Liberals. Mulroney's failure was that he misunderstood this and, wrongly, believed that his victory meant that Canadians were turning their back on Trudeauvian liberalism. They weren't. They turned their backs on the Liberal Party, but not the ideas and image of the country it inspired.
Harper's victories can be seen as something else. I don't think Canadians have ditched the ideals of liberalism but I do think that Harper and his crew are setting out, in a more thorough and careful way, to alter the fundamental conception of the country. Unlike Mulroney, Harper seemed to understand that he did not have a mandate to change Canada and that part of his job, as a Conservative, was to lead Canada in a new direction though without actually saying that was what he was doing. He understood, in other words, that there is a difference between wanting to change things and having a mandate to change things. You can change things, if you don't have a mandate, but it requires a different type of politics. This is what Harper is up to.
If this is the case, the Liberals and NDP face a number of possible options for the future. If they are facing an historic change, they may indeed want to reconsider the character and nature of their parties. If they are facing an historic change, their task in opposition, is to articulate a vision of Canada that can serve as a realistic option to Harper's conservatism. This might require a new party. Indeed, I'd be so bold as to suggest it will. But, if Harper's victories do not represent the development of a new era, as it were, in Canadian public life, then something less than a merger will work. Indeed, branding alone might be a good reason to maintain different parties. The Liberals, for instance, retain regional bases of strength (anglophone Quebec, middle class Ontario, parts of Newfoundland) that might not go for a new party. In this case, an electoral coalition of sorts that would allow each party to win seats without having to devote resources to competing with the other - useful in the face of the Tory war chest - would certainly have an appeal.
So … to conclude: losing an election is something that requires analysis. For neither the NDP, Liberals, nor the old PCs or Reform, is an election loss a reason to "jump ship." One needs to carefully analyse what is going on with that loss, why it occurred, etc. before one decides on a response to it. Abandoning an ideology one holds dear (say, liberalism or socialism or conservatism) is not easy. Precisely because it is not easy, no party can assume that its followers will, in fact, follow it into a new political party. We know that a lot of PCs did not follow their leaders. Losing an election might indicate simply that one lost an election. This happens in a democracy. It might, however, mean something else. I will bet we will only see a merger if members of the NDP and Liberals have decided that their loss in the last election means something else.
Monday, July 18, 2011
History doesn’t bear out Harper’s hopes for brief NDP honeymoon in Quebec - The Globe and Mail
The analysis is this article is a bit simplistic but interesting:
If I had to guess ... I wouldn't. There are other examples that might be listed of failed honeymoons (United Farmers in Ontario, the ADQ in QC) and near miss honeymoons (the Liberal "resurgence in MN under Carstairs, COR in NB, Farmer-Labour in NS) and successful ones (United Farmers in Alberta, UN in QC) or near miss (the Creditistes hung on for 15 years, I'd need to check, as a minority group in QC). The issue is complex, but the author's overall point is correct. The history of the NDP -- when looked at dispassionately -- does not suggest that people elect them and run away shortly thereafter. Bob Rae was the exception; not the rule.
I don't necessarily see why, Quebecers would back away from the NDP. Public opinion surveys suggest that Quebecers are as divided on political issues as other Canadians, but that the Quebec political spectrum (overall) is more amenable to the NDP then the Conservatives. And, Quebecers are aware that they have elected an opposition party. They are not looking for the NDP to "deliver the goods" but to represent a particular perspective. I expect the NDP will be able to do this and I suspect that phalanx of Quebecers elected under their banner will help them.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
NDP keeps door open for merger talks with Liberals - The Globe and Mail
NDP keeps door open for merger talks with Liberals - The Globe and Mail
Is there a good reason for the NDP to merge with the Liberal Party? My gut level reaction is no for three reasons. First, the NDP and the Liberal Party historically occupy different positions on the political spectrum and with regard to political ideology. There is some overlap between so-called "social liberals" and what we might call a "reformist" wing of the NDP. Both would be based in the middle class and both would look to address issues relating to poverty, inequality, social justice, and the environment. But ... well ... who doesn't believe in these things. The Conservatives? OK, yes, but is a broad agreement on common sense issues (say, the need to protect the environment) enough for a merger. Traditionally, there have been significant differences in the ways in which Liberals and NDP have looked at Canada. Traditionally, they have had different views on federalism, capitalism, and the national debt as well as national defence. For a merger to go forward, these differences would need to be addressed. Traditionally, for instance, Liberals have subscribed to a federalism in which their is a more pronounced role for a strong central government and little interest in "special status". The NDP argues for a strong role for the state but has had less interest, frankly, in a strong central government since the mid 1980s. They have also supported "special status" (or, whatever we call it). Liberals have show that on this issue, at least, there are sizeable numbers of them who are willing to "fight to the death."
Are these technical issues that disappear? I don't think so. I don't think the constitution and the division of powers -- however dry it may be to some people -- is a silly issue or so much academic talk. It was, according to some studies, the root of the divisions between Turner and Trudeau and Chretien and Martin and those divisions end up polarizing what was then a functioning party. Moreover, I would argue (I won't here!) that they are important and likely should not be dismissed. My point, of course, is this. Those people who see no differences between the NDP and the Liberals don't know very much about either.
Second, the NDP are in competition with the Liberals on the provincial level in a number of places. The ties between the federal and provincial Liberal Parties are not hard and fast, unlike the federal and provincial NDP parties. Officially, in fact, federal and provincial Liberal Parties are usually (always?) separate parties. Yet, there is an appreciable overlap. (This is the reason right wingers are trying to change the name of the BC Liberal Party, precisely because there is an overlap and they are trying to break it). The NDP and the Liberals are in competition provincially in NS (the NDP seems to have won for now reducing the Liberals to a rump but not necessarily a disappearing one), ON, and BC. The NDP has no provincial precise in QC, PEI, NB and Newfoundland so there is no real competition there. And the Liberals are dead in the water in MN and SK so no trouble there. And, of course, neither does very well in AB. Even in those areas where the NDP does not have a strong traditional vote (NB, Newfoundland, for instance, and AB), my bet is that they will be looking to increase their vote, bringing them into direct competition with provincial Liberals.
Why mention this? Well, this is reason two why the NDP might not want a merger: that merger would be difficult. The Liberals have little interest in signing onto an NDP in NS and ON, PEI and likely NF and NB, among other places. They have a reasonable chance of doing well politically by themselves and even winning (I don't expect the NS Liberals to win the next election but ... perhaps the one after that?).
Finally, why would the NDP want to merge with the Liberals if they had to take over the federal Liberals record? Why would they want, in other words, to take over part (even a small part) of a bad brand? This does not make sense. At the federal level one has to ask: do the benefits outweigh the costs of absorbing some bad history? I won't make that calculation right now but that is not my point. My point is that it is not a lock sync that it does.
So, put all this together and a merger does not look all that smart from an NDP perspective. The NDP needs to take on people with whom they have ideological disagreements, who will support provincial parties with which they are in competition, and who have a bad brand. This does not mean that there will not be a merger. It means that I'd recommend a different strategy to growth for the NDP.
Are these technical issues that disappear? I don't think so. I don't think the constitution and the division of powers -- however dry it may be to some people -- is a silly issue or so much academic talk. It was, according to some studies, the root of the divisions between Turner and Trudeau and Chretien and Martin and those divisions end up polarizing what was then a functioning party. Moreover, I would argue (I won't here!) that they are important and likely should not be dismissed. My point, of course, is this. Those people who see no differences between the NDP and the Liberals don't know very much about either.
Second, the NDP are in competition with the Liberals on the provincial level in a number of places. The ties between the federal and provincial Liberal Parties are not hard and fast, unlike the federal and provincial NDP parties. Officially, in fact, federal and provincial Liberal Parties are usually (always?) separate parties. Yet, there is an appreciable overlap. (This is the reason right wingers are trying to change the name of the BC Liberal Party, precisely because there is an overlap and they are trying to break it). The NDP and the Liberals are in competition provincially in NS (the NDP seems to have won for now reducing the Liberals to a rump but not necessarily a disappearing one), ON, and BC. The NDP has no provincial precise in QC, PEI, NB and Newfoundland so there is no real competition there. And the Liberals are dead in the water in MN and SK so no trouble there. And, of course, neither does very well in AB. Even in those areas where the NDP does not have a strong traditional vote (NB, Newfoundland, for instance, and AB), my bet is that they will be looking to increase their vote, bringing them into direct competition with provincial Liberals.
Why mention this? Well, this is reason two why the NDP might not want a merger: that merger would be difficult. The Liberals have little interest in signing onto an NDP in NS and ON, PEI and likely NF and NB, among other places. They have a reasonable chance of doing well politically by themselves and even winning (I don't expect the NS Liberals to win the next election but ... perhaps the one after that?).
Finally, why would the NDP want to merge with the Liberals if they had to take over the federal Liberals record? Why would they want, in other words, to take over part (even a small part) of a bad brand? This does not make sense. At the federal level one has to ask: do the benefits outweigh the costs of absorbing some bad history? I won't make that calculation right now but that is not my point. My point is that it is not a lock sync that it does.
So, put all this together and a merger does not look all that smart from an NDP perspective. The NDP needs to take on people with whom they have ideological disagreements, who will support provincial parties with which they are in competition, and who have a bad brand. This does not mean that there will not be a merger. It means that I'd recommend a different strategy to growth for the NDP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)