Whither Goest The NDP?

In his column today, Rick Salutin offers a withering assessment of the NDP that I fear is all too accurate. In a phrase, what most ails the party is what might be termed ideological abandonment:

You start noticing what they’re not, and haven’t been for a while. At their start, in the Depression of the ’30s, as the CCF, they knew they had the answer to the questions the country was asking: How did we get into this mess and how do we get out? The answer was something like socialism or co-operation.

The allure of power has corrupted that ethos:

They’re more like: “We’re a grown-up party too and dammit, we deserve our turn.”

That was the tone of Thomas Mulcair’s 2015 campaign. When candidates in the recent leadership race were asked what distinguishes their party from the Liberals, none said: We have the answer to what the country needs — as Elizabeth May surely would have. Their responses were pathetic. “We mean what we say … We follow through … We have principles … They just want power …” Pathetic, and laughable.

Then Mulcair, who vowed not to run deficits — at which point Liberals say they knew they’d won. It was crazy. The NDP’s main appeal had been their perceived fealty to principle — whether it was true or not. Leader Tommy Douglas even bucked many of his own members to oppose military rule in 1970.

On a personal note, when I attended an NDP rally leading up to the last election, what I noticed most about Mulcair was his use of a teleprompter (I know they all use one, but it does dampen any illusion of passion and spontaneity) and the way he worked the room - a rather plastic smile/grin on his face that didn't reach his eyes as he shook people's hands without looking them in the eye.

This is not to say that the party's ideological abandonment began with Mulcair. No, it was the revered Jack Layton who led the charge on that front:

He was serious about power, helping purge “socialism” from their constitution. His first three elections achieved little though the last, due to Quebec’s unique way of deciding to vote tout ensemble, made him opposition leader.

All of which amounts to a massively-missed opportunity:

The desertion of past principle is ironic since the “left” position has surged back, especially among the young. They aren’t prey to the mythos of private property for good reasons: they won’t have much. They don’t expect to own houses, cars or even bikes — and have decided it’s fine to share. Not just socialism but a “co-operative Commonwealth” — the CC in CCF — might make sense to them.

Mulcair's replacement, Jagmeet Singh, fails to impress. His late-stage advocacy for the environment, surely of vital concern to millenials, once again smacks of political opportunism. If the young are to be a force in the next election, my guess is they will go with the party that has been most consistent and has its eyes on the long-term, not just the next political cycle: The Green Party.

I know that's where my vote is going.

Is Left-Wing Populism The Answer?

While I personally don't see anything on the horizon to resurrect the fortunes of the federal NDP, Avi Lewis thinks he has a winning strategy: embrace populism, something he thinks could galvanize Jagmeet Singh's leadership. The key, he says, is to keep things simple:

“Why go for something that you have to explain? What populism tells you is that there are simple truths about our economy that can be communicated with great power,” said Lewis, who co-authored the environmental and social democratic treatise, the Leap Manifesto, with his wife, author and activist Naomi Klein.

While populism today seems to be the purview of the extreme right, exemplified by Trump's presidency, it is important to remember that the left has had its own practitioners:

Jan-Werner Mueller, a politics professor at Princeton University, told the CBC last week that populists can come in different ideological shades, so long as they trade in a rhetoric of divisiveness that questions the legitimacy of those who don’t share their views. “It’s always about excluding others,” he said.

For that reason, Mueller considers Hugo Chavez, the late Venezuelan socialist strongman, a populist of the left. He doesn’t use the label for U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.K. Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn — politicians who rail against inequalities perpetuated by unbridled capitalism, for instance, but who don’t necessarily vilify their opponents as illegitimate contenders for power.

According to David Laycock, a political science professor at Simon Fraser University, the essence of populism is the division it sees in society:

He said one of populism’s central tenets is an argument that the fundamental division in society is “between the people and some sinister elite.”

For right-wing leaders, that elite tends to be heavy-handed government bureaucrats, a media maligned as progressive and out of touch, or groups that benefit from the largesse of state handouts, Laycock said. On the left, it is the corporate elite or the wealthy few who abuse their power at the expense of the wider populace.

Laycock believes Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives are gently experimenting with populist messages, including recent statements about how the media is biased against their party. He said the NDP could do something similar with more aggressive arguments for distributing wealth or slashing subsidies to big corporations.

Michael Adams, president of the Environics Institute, questions the enthusiam wth which such an approach would be met, given how different we are from other countries:

Canadians are more likely to be union members than Americans, for instance, while people here have universal health care and more generous social programs than south of the border, he said. At a time of relatively robust economic growth and low unemployment, all this could dampen the prospects of a left populism about a corporate elite ripping off the general population.

Avi Lewis' idea is a provocative one, but I find myself made uneasy by the prospect of left-wing populism. While the right under Harper and Scheer have not been shy about 'dog-whistle politics,' all-too obvious attempts to manipulate and control their base, the suggestion that the same techniques can redound to the left's benefit suggests to me the adoption of the same kind of political cynicism that the other parties are all too happy to practise, a politics that, at its heart, sees the electorate, not as people to respect and lead, but rather to be exploited for the sole purpose of acquiring power.

We have surely had enough of that already.

The Tyranny Of Conformity

Yesterday, KirbyCairo wrote another of his thought-provoking posts, this one on the current plight of the federal NDP and its search for renewal. That prospect is dim, Kirby says, unless the party can break free from what he calls the top-down party structure and its inability to address issues that matter to Canadians. It is a plaint that was also echoed, but with a different emphasis, in a piece by Thomas Walkon in yesterday's Star. And now, the former NDP candidate for Toronto Centre, Linda McQuaig, writes about the tyranny of conformity imposed upon political candidates.

First, some background. You may remember this moment of frankness from the last federal campaign, (start at the five-minute mark on the video) and the fireworks that ensued:



In her column today, McQuaig discusses why she entered the political arena:

I ran (unsuccessfully) as the federal NDP candidate in Toronto Centre in the 2013 byelection and again in 2015, with the dream of putting into action progressive ideas I’d championed as a journalist. In jumping into politics, I realized I was giving up some of the freedom I’d enjoyed as a columnist and author to become part of a team with a collective message.

What conclusions did she draw from those experiences?

... it strikes me that the iron hand of party discipline — by which all three of our major political parties keep tight control on their messaging — can also have the effect of limiting debate and discouraging independent thinking, to the detriment of our democratic system.

It was a fact brought home to her by her experience depicted in the above video showing how her honesty was used against her:

Out of the blue, ... [Michelle] Rempel was trying to goad me into saying something negative about the oilsands.

I knew I was supposed to “pivot” — that is, deftly switch to something in line with party messaging.

Host Rosemary Barton sided with Rempel and pushed me for an answer.

So — to pivot or not to pivot? If I didn’t pivot, I knew I’d be stepping into a trap laid by Conservative strategists to portray the NDP as anti-development. But if I did pivot, I felt somehow I’d be betraying the planet.

After a split second in which I saw my political life pass in front of me, I decided to side with the planet, saying “a lot of the oilsands oil may have to stay in the ground if we’re going to meet our climate change targets.”

The ensuing ado included being predictably pounced upon by Harper, as well as other Conservatives and Liberals, including future prime minister Justin Trudeau, who denounced my “extreme” position.

Others recognized it as a mere statement of fact, but, of course, facts seem to have little relevance or value in political campaigns.

Citing Susan Delacourt, McQuaig says the experience

seemed to reinforce the case for tight political messaging based on the rule, as reported by Susan Delacourt in her book Shopping for Votes: “Do not talk of sacrifice, collective good, facts, problems or debate.”

In other words, avoid complexity and controversy — or anything else that assumes the voter is capable of accepting the responsibility of citizenship.

Much to her credit, the journalist questions whether this is the right way to go.

The pressure to conform and adopt a 'group-think' mentality is one of the chief reasons I have avoided being involved in groups for most of my life. I am glad that Linda McQuaig recognizes that such constraints are not for her. Her voice is much stronger, more appreciated and more effective as a journalist seeking to be a constructive contributor to some much-needed national debate than as a mouthpiece for a political party. We are all the better for it.

Rex Murphy Praises Thomas Mulcair's Stand on Bill C-51

Regular readers of this blog will know that I have no particular use for Rex Murphy. Yet last night I found myself in total agreement with him as he offered an eloquent rebuke of Harper's Bill C-51 by praising NDP leader Thomas Mulcair's opposition to it. You can watch his reasons below:

More On Our Opposition Leaders

Two posts I recently wrote were highly critical of both Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair for their apparent embrace, for political purposes, of Bill C-51, the bill that will serve only to further erode our civil liberties in the chimerical hope of containing terrorists threats to Canada. I expressed my disgust over the fact that both leaders seem ready to abandon the broader interests of Canada for the sake of their own quest for power, fearful of being labelled by the Harper machine as 'soft on terrorism.'

I may have been too quick to judge Mr. Mulcair.

According to Tim Harper in today's Star, Mulcair is preparing to diverge from Trudeau's acquiescence:

Voters will decide whether Opposition leader Tom Mulcair is brave or foolhardy, but the official Opposition is preparing a case to oppose the bill — not simply by working around the fringe on oversight or sunset clauses, but by questioning the guts of a bill that gives the country’s spy agency radical new powers, allows longer and easier preventive detention and would criminalize the “promotion” of terror from a naif in a basement.

The oppositions leaders' non-performance on this issue thus far has bothered me for a number of reason, their refusal to safeguard our liberties being only one of them.

Their timidity also bespeaks a jaundiced view of Canadian voters, one that says we are easily fooled and manipulated, a contemptuous philosophy found at the core of Harper strategies these past nine years. And while I have frequently expressed genuine concern on this blog about the general level of political engagement of my fellow citizens, political leaders who capitulate to the lowest common denominator essentially preclude the possibility of establishing vision and real leadership.

It would seem that Mulcair is mindful of this to some degree:

Mulcair will likely announce his opposition when the House returns later this month.

Is he filling an opening left by the Liberals? Yes. Is he ensuring he responds to his base? Surely.

There may be cold feet in the caucus, but opposition MPs must raise the questions, provide the skepticism and, ultimately, oppose a law if that is their view. They’re not supposed to flee from a wedge issue.

Mulcair will have to stand and explain that keeping Canadians safe does not mean sacrificing civil liberties. He will have to fend off the inevitable attacks that he is a weak-kneed terrorist-hugger.

But he will stand and oppose a bill he believes is flawed, meaning we will have one opposition leader doing his job.

To me, an opposition leader doing his job, despite the inherent political risks, commands respect; playing it safe, as is Justin Trudeau, does not.

The Illusion Of Choice

I know that I am but one of millions who long for the day the Harper regime is electorally deposed. That day cannot come soon enough. Yet, along with countless others, I am also aware that merely electing a Liberal or NDP government may only mean a change in style, not substance, given the many positions they hold in common with Dear Leader.

The anti-terror measures of Bill C-51 is one very worrisome case in point.

In today's Star, Thomas Walkom makes the following observations:

Both New Democratic Party Leader Tom Mulcair and Liberal chieftain Justin Trudeau danced warily around the substance of Bill C-51.

They had nothing to say about measures that would criminalize speech the government deemed pro-terrorist.

They had no views on proposals that would give 17 security agencies access to any information in any government department on any Canadian.

They said nothing about a section of the bill that would permit the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to engage in illegal and unconstitutional dirty tricks.

Indeed, the only criticism of Bill C-51 levelled by the Liberals and New Democrats to date is that it doesn’t provide parliamentary oversight of security agencies that have been given these new powers.

Which is another way of saying to Harper: We don’t mind if you erode civil liberties, as long as you let a few of us in on what you’re up to.

Wary of being labelled 'soft on terrorism,' the leaders of the two parties vying to replace Harper are revealing once more that the quest for power takes primacy over what is best for Canadians. No questions about why such measure are needed. No queries about what the inadequacy of existing laws might be. Only silent consent with a soupçon of carping at the periphery.

Contrast that cowardice with the brave and consistent integrity of Green Party leader Elizabeth May:

She said Monday in the Commons that it would turn CSIS into a “secret police force.”

She also asked if the bill’s remarkably broad definition of crimes against the security of Canada included anti-pipeline protests (and got no answer).

And so the charade goes on.

But where are the rest of us on this issue? Despite a very compelling warning by Edward Snowden as well as objections by The Canadian Civil Liberties Union and others, far too many of us seem content to shrug our shoulders and dismiss concerns with a simple, "I'm not a terrorist, so why should I worry?" an attitude fraught with pitfalls.

But I guess there is at least one undeniable inference to be drawn from all of this: Human beings are remarkably consistent in their ability to ignore the lessons of history.

Thomas Mulcair Speaks

Noted recently is the widespread criticism that both Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair have earned by either their silence or their very timid comments about the slaughter in Gaza. While most Canadians have probably come to expect the reflexive uncritical endorsement of all things Israeli by the Harper regime, many have been disappointed to see that the opposition leaders, save for Elizabeth May, seem cut from the same cloth.

But whether due to political opportunism, political expedience in reaction to that criticism, or a late blooming of a conscience, Thomas Mulcair has finally said something that sets him somewhat apart from Trudeau and Harper.

Although a modest foray into the world of principle, Mulcair's piece in today's Toronto Star, entitled Canadians want balanced and principled approach to Mideast conflict, tries to establish his party's bona fides in the following way:

When four children playing soccer on a Gaza beach were killed by Israeli shells, like so many other Canadians I was touched personally and thought of my own grandchildren. No child — Israeli or Palestinian — should have to live in fear of such violence.

As Canadians, we don’t want our country sitting on the international sidelines — unwilling to help and marginalized by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives’ one-sided approach.

Mulcair treads very carefully in his piece, working to provide a very balanced narrative:

During the current conflict in Gaza, we have criticized the indiscriminate rocket fire and breaking of ceasefires by Hamas — and have been clear that Israel, like all countries, has the right to defend itself from attacks.

Israel’s right to defend itself comes with the responsibility to protect civilian lives — and we have criticized the unacceptable number of Palestinian civilian casualties from Israeli Defense Force attacks during this conflict. The horrifying shelling of a United Nations facility sheltering refugees in Gaza was completely unacceptable and a clear violation of that responsibility.

Although not much in evidence in recent weeks, Mulcair talks about the party's beliefs:

As NDP leader, Jack Layton argued that Canada must engage partners for peace in the region and take a balanced and principled approach. This is a vision I share. New Democrats — committed to social justice — understand that we must actively work for peace, not simply talk about it.

New Democrats have long been committed to a policy of supporting peaceful coexistence in viable, independent states with agreed-upon borders, an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, and an end to violence targeting civilians.

So, take his words for what they are worth. A long-time political cynic, it will take more than an op-ed piece to convince me there is a genuine difference between the 'people's party' and the other two.

A Needed Voice

For those interested in a broader public policy discussion than has been permitted by our political 'leaders' thus far, the NDP nomination of journalist Linda McQuaig yesterday in Toronto Centre, Bob Rae's old riding, is an auspicious beginning. No stranger to progressives, McQuaig has exposed the iniquities of gross income inequality in her writing for many years, trenchantly challenging the increasingly obdurate notion that nothing can be done about the ever-widening gap between those who have and those who do not.

While it is still anyone's guess as to when Stephen Harper will call the byelection for the riding, without question we can expect a vigorous debate on the important issues, especially given that another journalist, Chrystia Freeland, received the Liberal Party nod. While the leaders of their respective parties have hewed to either a very close-mouthed or conventional approach to the economic questions that plague our country, given what I know about Ms. McQuaig, the byelection campaign will see these issues front and centre, and I strongly doubt that McQuiag will be happy to utter the conservative platitudes that Thomas Mulcair has recently been given to uttering.

Are we entering a new era of exciting and dynamic politics? Having one knowledgeable, passionate and outspoken candidate will not likely change the political landscape, but at the very least, it is a hopeful beginning.

Scrutinizing the NDP

I am well past the age where I expect very much from our politicians, especially given the current level of disengagement among the Canadian electorate; because of that disengagement, the notion of electoral accountability has become merely a quaint and rather remote ideal. While I hate to admit it, for me the practice of voting, which I shall never abandon as long as I have both my faculties and my life, has become an exercise in trying to choose the party that will do the least damage to the country.

It is from this perspective that I look skeptically at all of the parties, not the least of which is the NDP, which I shall likely vote for in the next federal election, despite grave misgivings over its drift toward the centre (perhaps even the centre-right?)

This morning's Star editorial cartoon is worth pondering:

Also worth consideration is this letter from Michael Dale, of Stratford Ontario:

NDP removes socialist language in its constitution, April 15

The recent choice by the NDP to discard the word socialism from its constitution comes as no surprise to those of us who genuinely strive for a better, more equitable system.

The NDP was born an opportunistic party and now it has openly shed any pretense of principle. I applaud this move. Now perhaps socialists within the party who have long made excuses for its behaviour will come to their senses and leave.

Some issue was made of the appearance of U.S. Democratic party functionaries at the recent NDP convention. This should not have been a surprise. The NDP derived its very name from that American institution as it opportunistically attempted to catch the wake of another flashy young U.S. president who lacked substance. History does repeat itself.

I ask only one thing of the NDP. Please stop claiming a lineage from the CCF. That historic party was a socialist party. The NDP in no way shares its goals or ideals.

It shows a lack of respect for the women and men who risked all to stand up against the established political and financial power of Canada. Let the CCF remain a noble historic symbol of working class determination. And may its torch someday be raised again by socialists across the country.

Pondering Pandering Political Parties

I am long past the age where I expect very much from politicians of any stripe. While it is easy to target (and I frequently do!) the Harper-led Conservative Party as the party of the corporate agenda, it is also sadly true that both the Liberal Party and the NDP have as their greatest priority the acquisition of power, frequently at the expense of principle. For example, putative messiah of the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau, is shockingly shallow when it comes to policy pronouncements, the better, I assume, to form them closer to the next election according to perceived public preferences, the reflection of which could lead to victory at the polls. The NDP, with their frequent references to 'the middle class' and their middle-of-the-road policy orientations under Thomas Mulcair are no better.

There is an excellent piece by Glenn Wheeler in this morning's Star that reminds us of these political realities. Entitled Liberal party and the labour movement need each other; the author, a lawyer for the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union and a member of the Liberal Party’s National Policy and Election Platform Committee, reflects on the fact that while the union he works for is trying to discourage the public from flying Porter Air due to the fuel-handlers' strike, the Liberal Party is pushing discount rates it has negotiated with the carrier for the upcoming Liberal Leadership gathering in Toronto.

This situation, he suggests, is emblematic of the abandonment/downgrading of union concerns by the aforementioned parties at a time when labour is under unprecedented attack both by the Harper regime federally, and the Ontario Progressive Conservatives who are championing 'right-to-work' legislation that would essentially be the death knell of the union movement.

Because I am experiencing some Internet problems right now, I will end with a strong recommendation that you read the full article to see why Wheeler believes that strong unionism and a healthy political climate are complementary, not contradictory objectives. One can only hope that in their race/lust for power, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair bear that fact in mind.

Egomania, Not Trudeaumania: Updated

Checking my Twitter feed this morning, I came upon a link to a story appearing in Sun News, an organization for which I usually refuse to spare the time of day, given its rather robust roster of strident, often hysterical voices desperately seeking to emulate the tone of Fox News. Nonetheless, I can recommend something that strikes me as balanced and fairly reasonable, terms I never thought I would use to describe anything emanating from the lair of people like Brian Lilley and Ezra Levant.

Writing on the subject of a merger between the Liberals and the NDP, a subject upon which I have previously posted in its more benign form, a co-operative pact for the next election, Warren Kinsella reminds us that a year ago, Justin Trudeau seemed open to the possibility of working more closely with the NDP. However, that has now all changed:

A year later, Trudeau doesn't talk like that anymore. He and his team dismiss any talk of cooperation between Liberals and New Democrats. The only Liberal leadership candidate who favours one-time cooperation is Liberal MP Joyce Murray, and she is routinely dismissed as a defeatist crackpot for her trouble.

Ditto for the NDP:

The same thing happened to Nathan Cullen when he ran for the NDP leadership - he favoured bringing together the progressive majority, too. The front-runner, Thomas Mulcair, didn't. End of Cullen's idea.

Kinsella goes on to predict the consequence of this intransigence - another Harper victory in 2015, after which, he wonders, whether ego and nostalgia will be trumped by more practical politics and cooperation/merger will proceed.

Perhaps Kinsella's piece is neither innovative nor particularly insightful; it is, however, another reminder of just how much the leaders of the Liberal Party and the NDP are willing to gamble on Canada's future going into the 2015 election, all for the sake of their lust for power and dominance.

H/t #canpoli

UPDATE: Here is a link to a thoughtful piece by James Heath on the need for cooperation among progressives.

Thomas Mulcair: Wastrel or Canny Investor?

Given the widespread support that the the NDP Leader of the The Official Opposition is enjoying these days, it is hardly surprising to see a public campaign to erode that support getting underway. The latest, of course, is the non-story of Thomas Mulcair remortgaging his house 11 times; as the trained seals the Canadian public is expected to be, we are supposed to recoil in horror at the thought of this wastrel ever becoming Prime Ministere and doing the same with our 'fragile economy', to borrow a phrase from the perpetually-consternated Labour Minister, Lisa Raitt.

After reading an article in the Financial Post my son, who recently moved to Alberta, sent me the following thoughts:

Everyone's criticizing Mulcair for taking out 11 mortgages on his house and not understanding how to handle money, with the implication being that he'll bankrupt Canada. Here's a good rebuttal to that, saying that it's the opposite, and that he's very savvy with money. As the article says, borrowing to spend is a bad idea, but borrowing to invest is a good idea.

"If you are borrowing money at 3.5% and you have an opportunity for a yield of about 4.5% in a basic investment of say real estate investment trusts, that looks like a winner even before you consider the advantage of writing off interest."

Since he likely borrowed all that money to fund his political campaign, he made a superb financial investment.

Guess that means Harper Inc. is going to have to do a little more work on the Mulcair character-assassination file.

Rick Salutin Skewers the Mythology of the NDP and CBC's Leftishness

My favorite columnist, Rick Salutin, has a brief video on The Star website in which he asserts that the NDP and the CBC are no more leftist than Rex Murphy, Kevin O'Leary, or Don Cherry. You can watch it here.