(A slightly edited version of this piece appeared in today's Globe and Mail.)
Jack Layton now faces the most important decision of his political life: how to keep the NDP alive and progressive in the coming struggle for power between Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion.
Based on the choice made by NDP election strategists over the decades, including the approach taken by the party in the 2006 election, the NDP is likely to insist that the Liberals and Conservatives are equally reactionary and that the only genuine alternative is the NDP. This “tweedledum-tweedledee” approach was already offensive and patently false to many progressives by the time of the 1988 free trade election when Brian Mulroney campaigned for the deal he had negotiated with Ronald Reagan against Liberal John Turner who promised to tear up the free trade deal if elected.
In the 2006 election, the NDP pushed this approach to a further extreme. Jack Layton and his party directed their fire almost exclusively at Paul Martin’s Liberals as corrupt and unfit for office, while saying next to nothing about Stephen Harper and the threat posed to Canadians from his neo-conservative platform and ideology. It was as though the NDP had innocently slept through the past couple of decades of experiences throughout the West with neo-con governments.
Now Jack Layton and his advisors have to decide how to cope with Stephane Dion, whom Layton himself described as a man of principle only a few months ago in the confident belief that the corrupt Liberals would never pick such a leader. If it is not clear to NDP strategists that there’s a world of difference between the politics of Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion, this has certainly occurred to legions of progressive Canadians whose strongest wish is to replace the Harperites with a progressive government.
What is the NDP to do?
The NDP could try to make Stephen Harper look better than he really is on the environment and possibly one or two other issues. Given Dion’s strong showing in public opinion polls, Harper has as much interest in this as Layton. The Conservative and NDP leaders have already managed to find enough common ground on the environment to keep the government’s clean-air bill alive in a Commons committee. They could take this a step further with a concession by Harper on greenhouse gas targets that the NDP could welcome as a first step. This would be a way for Harper to moderate his image in Ontario and Quebec and it would allow Layton to argue that the NDP caucus is getting things done for working families and seniors.
The purpose of such a Harper-Layton duo (never to be acknowledged as such, of course) is that it could help both the Conservatives and the NDP stave off a rush of Canadians to support Stephane Dion.
I hope, for the sake of the country and for the sake of the NDP, that this is not the course adopted by Jack Layton.
The alternative course for him to take is to join those political forces that want Harper out of office as soon as possible. Layton ought to take a leading role---the leading role---in exposing Harper and the Conservatives for what they are. The one issue on which the NDP has genuinely done this is Afghanistan, where Layton has had the courage to call for a withdrawal of Canadian troops.
The NDP can do this as well on the environment. Everyone who has analyzed the issue knows that Harper will never do anything to slow the full-scale development of the oil sands projects in Alberta. And without slowing oil sands projects, Canada can only continue to increase its greenhouse gas emissions. Jack Layton should say this without equivocation.
On childcare and on insisting that the affluent pay their fair share of taxes, social democrats share no common ground with Conservatives. It ought to be clear to any New Democrat that if Harper were to win a majority of seats in the next election, he would attack Canada’s social state with a vengeance and seek to make a deal with Quebec sovereignists by savaging the power of the federal government.
Layton should make himself the leader of the movement to oust Harper from power. And in doing this, he can also look out for the long-term interests of the NDP. He should call on Stephane Dion to agree that the first step of a new Liberal government (likely a minority government) will be to introduce a scheme of proportional representation that can permanently end the dilemma progressives now have in deciding how to vote. With proportional representation, progressives can vote NDP without having to resort to the fiction that Liberals and Conservatives are peas in a pod.
If Stephane Dion is as progressive and guileless as he would have us believe, Layton should say, let him commit at once to proportional representation.
The next election is going to be a tough one for the NDP, no matter which strategic approach it takes. The party can come out of it with its political position as the leading edge of progressive politics intact, and with a strong caucus. But only if the NDP is unequivocal in making Stephen Harper the target. If Jack Layton goes back to “tweedledum-tweedledee”, not only is his party going to be punished at the polls by progressives who want Harper out, he will be endangering the long-term survival of the NDP.
Jack Layton now faces the most important decision of his political life: how to keep the NDP alive and progressive in the coming struggle for power between Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion.
Based on the choice made by NDP election strategists over the decades, including the approach taken by the party in the 2006 election, the NDP is likely to insist that the Liberals and Conservatives are equally reactionary and that the only genuine alternative is the NDP. This “tweedledum-tweedledee” approach was already offensive and patently false to many progressives by the time of the 1988 free trade election when Brian Mulroney campaigned for the deal he had negotiated with Ronald Reagan against Liberal John Turner who promised to tear up the free trade deal if elected.
In the 2006 election, the NDP pushed this approach to a further extreme. Jack Layton and his party directed their fire almost exclusively at Paul Martin’s Liberals as corrupt and unfit for office, while saying next to nothing about Stephen Harper and the threat posed to Canadians from his neo-conservative platform and ideology. It was as though the NDP had innocently slept through the past couple of decades of experiences throughout the West with neo-con governments.
Now Jack Layton and his advisors have to decide how to cope with Stephane Dion, whom Layton himself described as a man of principle only a few months ago in the confident belief that the corrupt Liberals would never pick such a leader. If it is not clear to NDP strategists that there’s a world of difference between the politics of Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion, this has certainly occurred to legions of progressive Canadians whose strongest wish is to replace the Harperites with a progressive government.
What is the NDP to do?
The NDP could try to make Stephen Harper look better than he really is on the environment and possibly one or two other issues. Given Dion’s strong showing in public opinion polls, Harper has as much interest in this as Layton. The Conservative and NDP leaders have already managed to find enough common ground on the environment to keep the government’s clean-air bill alive in a Commons committee. They could take this a step further with a concession by Harper on greenhouse gas targets that the NDP could welcome as a first step. This would be a way for Harper to moderate his image in Ontario and Quebec and it would allow Layton to argue that the NDP caucus is getting things done for working families and seniors.
The purpose of such a Harper-Layton duo (never to be acknowledged as such, of course) is that it could help both the Conservatives and the NDP stave off a rush of Canadians to support Stephane Dion.
I hope, for the sake of the country and for the sake of the NDP, that this is not the course adopted by Jack Layton.
The alternative course for him to take is to join those political forces that want Harper out of office as soon as possible. Layton ought to take a leading role---the leading role---in exposing Harper and the Conservatives for what they are. The one issue on which the NDP has genuinely done this is Afghanistan, where Layton has had the courage to call for a withdrawal of Canadian troops.
The NDP can do this as well on the environment. Everyone who has analyzed the issue knows that Harper will never do anything to slow the full-scale development of the oil sands projects in Alberta. And without slowing oil sands projects, Canada can only continue to increase its greenhouse gas emissions. Jack Layton should say this without equivocation.
On childcare and on insisting that the affluent pay their fair share of taxes, social democrats share no common ground with Conservatives. It ought to be clear to any New Democrat that if Harper were to win a majority of seats in the next election, he would attack Canada’s social state with a vengeance and seek to make a deal with Quebec sovereignists by savaging the power of the federal government.
Layton should make himself the leader of the movement to oust Harper from power. And in doing this, he can also look out for the long-term interests of the NDP. He should call on Stephane Dion to agree that the first step of a new Liberal government (likely a minority government) will be to introduce a scheme of proportional representation that can permanently end the dilemma progressives now have in deciding how to vote. With proportional representation, progressives can vote NDP without having to resort to the fiction that Liberals and Conservatives are peas in a pod.
If Stephane Dion is as progressive and guileless as he would have us believe, Layton should say, let him commit at once to proportional representation.
The next election is going to be a tough one for the NDP, no matter which strategic approach it takes. The party can come out of it with its political position as the leading edge of progressive politics intact, and with a strong caucus. But only if the NDP is unequivocal in making Stephen Harper the target. If Jack Layton goes back to “tweedledum-tweedledee”, not only is his party going to be punished at the polls by progressives who want Harper out, he will be endangering the long-term survival of the NDP.
15 comments:
Love the piece. It's absolutely right on. Hopefully for once the NDP will be listening. Having phoned them several times during the federal election, to complain about their soft (to put it mildly) approach to Harper, I have my doubts. But hope springs eternal, as they say.
I continue to wonder why the author spends such an inordinate amount of time attacking the NDP at a time in our history when we need to unite in the fight against neo-conservatism and right wing ideology.
It borders on obsession and is getting very petty in its detail.
Stop this academic nonsense. There is an ideological war under way with the right and your services, sir, are required!!!!!
And without slowing oil sands projects, Canada can only continue to increase its greenhouse gas emissions. Jack Layton should say this without equivocation.
Well, this isn't Jack's words, but the Alberta NDP has already called for a moratorium on further oil sands development.
David Eggen: "In light of recent evidence pointing to possible elevated cancer risks due to arsenic contamination, the Conservative government should not allow the Suncor Voyageur project, or any further tar sand developments, to proceed until complete studies on the threats to human health are concluded."
That's pretty unequivocal.
I agree with what you say regarding PR, but I don't know why you insist on interpreting any criticism of the Liberals are putting them on the same level as the Conservatives. The message has always been the the Liberals and Conservatives are bad choices. Bad in very different ways, but still bad. Canadians need to be told not to believe the Liberals' lies: as Murray Dobbin points out in an analysis similar to yours (though IMO, more tempered and nuanced) we need to judge the Liberals on what they did, not on what they say they'll do. History proves those two things have almost never matched.
leftdog, we are in an ideological war against the right, and that is why Laxer is absolutely right. The NDP must start setting their sights on the real enemy.
James, there are some NDP bloggers at Progressive Bloggers of Canada who would do well to head your advice. Perhaps you might join?
Thanks Stephen for making the point I was going to make. I am a member of Progressive bloggers.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Layton is taking your advice. I don't know if he realizes how bad a headline like this makes him look to progressive voters.
Also, this article by Chantal Hebert may catch your interest.
Good post, I agree with it completely. It is what forced me to not vote for my NDP candidate/MP in the last election, a woman I have known most of my life and have a great deal of personal and professional respect for. Layton has clearly chosen political expediency over defending the fundamental principles the federal NDP have always stood for. It was this clear and consistent position of first defending the principles against those that would oppose them even at the risk of not gaining seats in Parliament that gave the NDP such respect/credibility in the electorate as to be a safe place for progressive voters to park their vote, especially when they were angry at the Liberals. Layton has removed that trust from me and from many Canadians that would once have been willing to vote NDP prior to his ascension.
Layton is playing a very dangerous game here, and no matter which way it ends Canada loses. Canada loses either because Layton splits enough of the vote to hand the CPC a majority while increasing the NDP seat count (which is not a given, they could split the vote giving Harper majority and lose seats they already have in the process) or because the NDP take a shellacking because most Canadian voters fearing the Harper CPC agenda saw the NDP playing stupid political games for power instead of fighting Harper's agenda at every turn and therefore felt the Liberals were the only option to oppose Harper with. I happen to like having the federal NDP in the political mix, I've always thought they provided a valuable service if nothing else as the conscience of the nation, especially regarding social welfare and justice issues.
Layton may well make the reputation of the NDP as a safe place for progressives to park their vote disappear permanently (or at least for a decade or two while it is rebuilt slowly and painfully all over again, this is a 40+ year record Layton is screwing around with) with his lust to replace the Liberals at the alternative governing party from the left. I do not think he can do it without first handing the CPC at least one majority AND by the Liberals imploding from their own internal faction fighting. Which if Ignatieff or Rae had won could well have occurred. With Dion though this does not appear to be happening, no he appears to be able to unite his party behind him as well as bringing in his competitors for leadership into significant positions within the party to work towards a Liberal win in the next election. Therefore Layton is making that much more of a mistake by continuing down this path he has been following since last year. I think he and those within his party that support his agenda are making a critical mistake, both in terms of what is good for the long term health of Canada as a nation AND in terms of the NDP being a relevant federal party/player (even as far as whether it continues to survive as a significant federal presence at all) over the next decade or two.
Talking about which of the parties the NDP should attack how much seems to me a bit beside the point.
The position the NDP are in is perhaps one of the rare ones where they'd be politically best off concentrating on positive, substantive policy messages. Specifically, policies calling for serious public action, of which there is plenty needed in this country. We'll see if the new Liberals are new enough to match such a policy agenda. If they aren't, the NDP has answered the question of what the point of voting for them is.
the BQ proposed bringing down the Tories on the issue of Afghanistan.
Both the NDP & Liberals refused.
Clearly there isn't much starch in the Canadian people either or this wouldn't have been the case. Clearly also what the empire wants the empire gets - especially in our home on native land, satan's little helper- canada
"I continue to wonder why the author spends such an inordinate amount of time attacking the NDP at a time in our history when we need to unite in the fight against neo-conservatism and right wing ideology."
Because, Leftdog, Laxer is absolutely correct. How the New Democrats wage the next federal election campaign will determine whether your party survives in the long term, or disappears from the electoral map. I would politely suggest that you listen to James Laxer before it is too late.
There is no appetite in the nation for an election, so any party that brings down this govt will be doomed. Remember, the NDP supposedly made the last govt fall (Lib) although both the bloc and cons also voted against them. Go figure! I agree with James about the NDP attacking Harper's govt, but I do have a problem with his hands off approach to the Liberals. So what does the NDP do when the liberals attack the NDP, say they are irrelevant, a waste of a vote, and do the boggey man thing. Are the liberals going to play nice? I don't think so as they never have.
Layton and his advisers have to come clean: admit their strategy to replace the Libs has failed. Confession is good for the soul. Then they can rebuild and perhaps gain the confidence the NDP once had. Personally, I won't vote for them. They were pretty dumb.
I must say James, and I intend to democratically seed my comment at the appropriate posts throughout your site, that your recent rants regarding the NDP are bizarre, and the group of Liberal losers you have supporting them are a laugh. They often, as with the ill-informed Lib who did not seem to realize that that the NDP was the ONLY party to vote against the government on all three confidence motions, seem determined to find some obscure moral justification for voting Liberal while pretending that doing so makes them still progressive.
Well, to paraphrase your recent rubbish in the Globe, that it simply a fiction.
One could go over the same old tired but true territory that the Libs ran the most right wing government since the end of the second war when they felt no threat from the left. (The 95 budget being one of the great disgraces of modern Canadian political history... but hey as long as they are not Tories in name I guess you don't care if they are Tories in deed).
One could point out that, your silly attack at Layton to the contrary, the ONLY reason the NDP had to try to work with Rona Ambrose as environment minister was due to the fact that the Libs had refused to vote against her as environment minister when the NDP proposed a Bloc backed motion to do so. (But to you and other Lib apologists it is always tactical when the Libs betray promises, the public trust, etc...when the NDP do anything tactical to advance the interests of Canada's socialist movement it is somehow a "betrayal". This is hypocritical crap, two-faced, and pure proof that the real objective is to serve as an apologist for the Libs. How about ONE SINGLE article critical of Lib positions and self-serving actions. Till I see one I must say that your whole line is a little hard to take seriously.)
One could point out that the Libs have consistently put short term political goals ahead of the interests of the Canadian working class, native peoples, women, gays, even your own personal bugaboo of nationalism (never did renegotiate that free trade agreement did they?), but you only ever seem to notice what you perceive as the NDP putting their political interests first. Well, political parties exist to win elections to advance the interests they support and while you seem to accept this when the Libs do it (and I will come back to this) you reserve all your scorn for the NDP. Why not stop pretending, just join the Liberal Party.
Why not? Well you would lose all that left wing credibility you feel you have built up. So, without having actually done anything politically for years you take cheap shots, dripping with psuedo-leftist sanctimony, at the only political movement that makes this country worth living in, heaping scorn in the process on tens of thousands of actual activists who are the real bulwark that keeps this country out of the union to the south.
One could point out that while you say that the NDP was duped by the Tories, it was really your tired old vision of a 70's nationalism that has duped you into supporting Libs at the expense of Canadian children, social programs, NDP provincial governments, transfer payments, health care, the environment, etc...out of the vague belief that doing so would somehow bolster Canadian nationalist interests by keeping the Tories out of office. Well done. All those who stayed silent during the Liberal majority years as they ripped the heart out of the post war consensus and damned a million Canadian kids to poverty on the backs of fiscal responsibility sure managed to keep this country strong by getting so enraged by the NDP standing up to this same regime after 13 years. Frankly maybe a few too many years of academics has made you lose touch and forget why we are fighting this fight. In this new era your old lines of demarcation are particularly wrong.
One could say all these things, and more (and I will be happy to follow up on any brave bloggers who are so certain to change the world glued as they are to their laptops and poli-sci classes)but in fact the most obvious indication that your approach hides a whole tapestry of hypocrisy can be exposed by bringing up your own son.
Michael, if I am not mistaken, ran against Jim Karigyanis ( I may have got the name wrong, but we all, sadly, know who I mean) in Scarborough in 2000 ( I think he also ran for the party in 2003 provincially). He did not do well, but hey, why should you Lib lovers care? But he did run hard against one of the ugliest, pro-life, pro-death penalty, anti-gay, mean spirited and plain old useless Lib MPs out there. A man even the Star said was a horrible MP. By your own logic he either should not have run, or he should have only attacked his Tory and, at that time, Alliance opponents, despite Jim K.'s disgraceful record.
Were he to run again against Jim K. would you support him? Wouldn't doing so aid the Tories?
This is the huge flaw in your logic. Many great NDP candidates, like your own son, are undermined and destroyed by the strategic voting logic. While you may say, hey I didn't mean it to apply to "bad" Liberals, in the public’s mind it always will. And well you may say, my son had no chance so go ahead and vote for him, your logic defeats many candidates who did have a chance like Sid Ryan. Instead, what you have to live with, as Dion affirmed by once again proving Lib gutlessness and allowing a free vote on the gay marriage issue, is that you have laid with a group of people who, unlike the NDP, will tolerate the Jim Ks, the Tom Wappels, the Dennis Lees and the countless other right wing, anti-gay, pro-life, pro-death penalty and, on a constituency level, useless MPs that populate the Liberal ranks.
Which brings us to a final point. For all your crap about the NDP putting seats first, when the time came to stand up for gay rights the NDP threw Bev Desjardins out of caucus even though this doomed them to lose a seat they otherwise would certainly have won. The Liberals, in a policy reasserted by Dion, tolerate all levels of such bigotry in their ranks so as to keep a few seats here or there safe for vile, bigoted candidates who will, in the end, vote for a Lib Budget. What a principled bunch of folks they are!
Frankly, I would rather vote for your son.
Since Harper and his motley crew of true believers and neocon "free market" enthusiasts exhibit a form of social pathology which must be driven from the seat of power if the very planet itself is to survive, Jack Layton must not support them regardless of what they may say or do. He should quickly get over the traditional NDP tweedle dee and tweedle dum analogy and make common cause with Stephane Dion et al to defeat them at the earliest opportunity, namely on the budget in March. It would set Canada back by decades if the party leaders were so worried about not annoying the public with a Spring election that this preposterous government were given another chance to rule for another year.
"It would set Canada back by decades if the party leaders were so worried about not annoying the public with a Spring election that this preposterous government were given another chance to rule for another year."
Actually what would happen if we had election after election year after year is that "election fatigue" would set in, and Harper would be able to play to that and win a majority, and the desire for stable government in voter's minds would outweigh any trepidation they would have towards Harper, and they would hand him a majority. Then we'd really be in trouble.
For the first time in tne NDP's history, the federal party has a chance to prove itself to be more than a junior partner in a coalition with the Liberals. Unfortunately there are those who wish to see the NDP relegated to that "junior partner" status permanently.
Post a Comment