When it comes to the NDP leadership race, Rick Salutin asks the most important question of all: What differentiates the NDP from other political parties? The difference used to be pretty clear:
At any point in the 50 years after its founding in 1932 (as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, or CCF: which contained the answer in its name, unlike ‘New Democratic Party’), that question would’ve been easily answered. “Unlike Liberals, we are democratic socialists, we’ll demolish or at least tame the scourge of capitalism” — a view grown mildly resonant again, after 2008.
The last of the party's democratic socialists was Ed Broadbent. But things really got confused when Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair were elected leaders:
Then came Jack. At the convention that chose him, venerable NDPers said embarrassing, dated (if faddish) things like: Jack thinks outside the box. As if that had anything to do with anything or, for that matter, were true.
In 2004, under Jack Layton, the NDP voted to kill a transformative national child-care program, which the Liberal government had enacted, but which died as a result, giving us nine years of Harper conservatism. The NDP has never apologized for that, which would at least show they remember what their principles once were.
Then in 2015, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair promised to run no deficits if elected, after the Liberals promised to do so, effectively swapping principles. Self-congrats are less in order here than self-criticism, if not self-loathing.
These days, Salutin writes, the answer to the question, "What differentiates you?" seems to be "We're morally superior."
You can't win an election if that's the chief plank in your platform.
Image: thestar.com
8 comments:
If the NDP wants any hope of being competitive in the next election they had better borrow heavily from Bernie Sanders and Graham Corbett. Anything less and many party supporters will go with the status quo Liberals rather than splitting the vote and handing the Cons a win.
Cap
Sorry, Jeremy Corbyn. Coffee hasn't kicked in yet.
Gap
I think Salutin nails it here, Owen. That the NDP has become a party of chameleons does them absolutely no credit.
Voters used to know not only who the Dippers were, Cap, but also what they consistently stood for. They lost their way. Their future depends on their ability to offer a clear -- and different -- message.
Understood, Cap. An easy error to make and to fix.
He's right, Lorne. There's something to be said for principle in the face of opportunism.
I once attended an event put on by the Hamilton, Ontario chapter of the Council of Canadians. It was about fighting back against the Harper regime and it featured a talk by Rick Salutin and another by Steven Shrybman (the lawyer representing the CoC in the lawsuit trying to get a few election results overturned).
Salutin got up there and just warbled like an old, stoned, hippy. Inane generalizations about how "democracy is a conversation" and about how there's nothing we can do. Then he belittled the CoC's lawsuit itself. Incoherent, useless drivel.
I was livid. I vowed never to read the old fart again. I would have torn him a new strip but I was trying to get some favours from the CoC chapter president so I restrained myself.
Since that time, people have referred me to an editorial of his now and again and sometimes I read them and sometimes they're okay.
But this nonsense: "In 2004, under Jack Layton, the NDP voted to kill a transformative national child-care program, which the Liberal government had enacted, but which died as a result, giving us nine years of Harper conservatism. The NDP has never apologized for that, which would at least show they remember what their principles once were."
1. Layton did not vote no on a national daycare bill. He voted for a vote of non-confidence in the Martin government.
2. Layton did so because when he demanded that Paul Martin cease and desist with the creeping privatization of public healthcare Martin said "No."
I have waited in vain for years for a Liberal to try to explain why Paul Martin decided to torpedo his vaunted Kelowna Accord and his long-overdue (12 years after it was promised) national daycare program, just because he didn't want to commit to preserving public healthcare.
The challenge still stands Liberals: Explain why Paul Martin decided that those policies of his weren't important enough to work with Jack Layton on reversing the under-funding and creeping privatization of Canadian medicare?
3. As if the Liberals (and a shit-load of other fools) weren't responsible for all of us suffering under harper for 9 years! Including the bought-and paid-for Elections Canada and all of us "progressives" who couldn't get off our asses and do anything serious about harper until he defeated himself.
Salutin is an idiot most of the time and not someone whose opinion matters much at all to me.
I agree that the Liberals bear the prime responsibility for Harper's rise, thwap. Ignatieff's ineptitude made Harper possible. And I've heard students who attended Salutin's classes at the U of T express similar opinions to yours. Still, I think his general point -- that the NDP lost its way -- holds up to scrutiny.
Post a Comment