(Inspiration for doing this post comes from my good friend Ish Theilheimer at Sraightgoods.ca. If you’re not familiar with this excellent source of news and analysis, you should log on.)
Not that I enjoy thinking the unthinkable or that I believe that the Harper Conservatives are necessarily headed for a majority in the next election, but I do hold the view that it is salutary to face the worst so as to avoid it.
There are times in history when truly reactionary political formations come along. Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party is such a formation. While thankfully, it is not overtly racist in the manner of the far right parties in Europe, apart from that it shares all of the views and instincts of a far right party. Harper himself, as his speeches and writings reveal, would be very much at home in the Republican Party and in the American neo-conservative movement.
Unlike social democrats when they take office (as they have in four Canadian provinces over the decades), a Harper majority government would not hesitate to implement the full right-wing agenda for which the Conservative Party of Canada was created following a long period of struggle, and the elimination of the less rabid tendencies on the right, as Joe Clark, the last of the red tories, would ruefully agree. When social democrats tip toe into government, they appear apologetic and immediately try to assuage the worries of the business community.
The Harperites will not compromise on anything. They will put through their program, always with an eye to making it irreversible by any future government---just as Brian Mulroney did with free trade.
Certain to be included in a Harper majority government agenda:
• The privatization of CBC television.
• Amending the Canada Health Act to allow for a more varied set of arrangements among the provinces---in plain English massive privatization---a checkerboard health care system in Canada.
Expect the government to throw red meat to the Conservative backbenchers (who have suffered from the gags tied on them by the PMO during the minority) by having parliamentary committees (on which Harperites will be in the majority) study the following questions:
• Capital punishment.
• Banning late term abortions.
• Restrictions on immigration.
• Support for faith based initiatives.
• The winding down of federal support for the arts and research through the Canada Council and related programs by downloading these activities to the provinces.
• Private marketing of wheat and the termination of the Wheat Board.
A Harper majority government would act quickly to set up a sweeping study (perhaps royal commission) on the prospects for a much closer North American Union. Following the publication of the report, with much fanfare, the government would act quickly to open negotiations with Washington on:
• A single North American market, with a common external tariff.
• A single currency to be known as the U.S. dollar.
• A. tighter military alliance and a common foreign policy, in which Canada’s global policies are locked into those of Washington in essential respects.
This agenda, conferring all the advantages of the annexation of Canada on the U.S. without the bother of inviting Canadians to elect U.S. Senators would be an offer no president could refuse, and that includes Clinton, McCain or Obama (in alphabetical order).
During the coming wrenching recession, during which there will be a dramatic reordering of the position occupied by the U.S. in the global economy---the U.S. will play a smaller role in the world economy and will be restrained from living beyond its means as much as it has in the past---the Harper government would make the historic error of aligning Canada more closely with the United States.
The Harper majority government would bail out financial institutions on the principle that the rich are too important to be allowed to fail, and would not hesitate to impose a harsh regime on the unemployed, those on social assistance (through federal transfers to the provinces), recent immigrants, single parents, and native people.
All this can be avoided, of course, by not electing a majority Conservative government when the time comes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Jim, I agree as we saw what happen with Harris/Eves common sense revolution in Ontario. Move quickly and make sure it is not reversable.
And as we saw with the Harris boys, they will do it with glee and mean-spiritness.
That said, we also have a history of libs doing a neo-liberal dance, as they soothed sweet nothings in our ears. We know this will hurt, but once we get the debt/deficit down, rejig IE, CAP, and reduce transfer payments to the provinces, it will be just great!
It was not.
As we well know, there are many a prominent liberal who are all a part of deep intergration with the US, as they were sitting around that table in Baniff last year.
Although not as socially conservative overall, the liberals have quite a few hawks in their ranks, as well as right of centre leaners. Thus, the libs if in charge would bail out the 'rich' too. As Dion stated in the last Harper budget, there were parts of that budget that fit nicely with the libs agenda.
Although Mulroney brought in NAFTA, the libs didn't fix it up, as promised, when they came in with a huge majority. In fact, they signed quickly and quietly. I noted recently, that when Obama and Clinton both stated that they would rejig NAFTA to address labour and environmental national concerns, the libs were silent.
I guess my concern with your piece here, is not looking at what the other parties would do if they became the party in power. And we do have records to show those pieces.
I also very much agree with your take that when NDP get elected, they kowtow to the business community, something that Harper and the boys would not do, say with labour, NGOs, non-profits, and other progressive interest sectors.
NDP should never be apologetic for standing shoulder to shoulder with most Canadians and their well-being.
James,
What strategy would you suggest for the Liberals, Bloc & NDP?
Jan, I can't see how anyone could suggest supporting the Liberals, given their position on extending the military mission in Afghanistan, and on reducing corporate taxes, among other things.
I hope that in the upcoming election campaign, the NDP is very clear about what the Harper government is about.
As for the question, what the Bloc, the Liberals and the NDP ought to do, no basis has been established among them to take any common action.
I'm hoping that Harper is still pretty far from majority territory, and will not get there.
I share Jan's skepticism about the Liberals as an alternative to Harper and company.
The NDP needs to be very clear about its priorities and its agenda in the next election. It must be seen as a real alternative to both the Liberals and the Conservatives.
However, one party that hasn't been mentioned yet is the Greens, who are gaining ground on the NDP and who could help to elect more Liberals and Tories by splitting the vote.
Whatever we might believe or know about what the Greens stand for, the public sees them as new and different.
Jim, what do you think the NDP should do to stop the bleeding of its support to the Greens? Should we be cooperating with them or taking an aggressive stand against them?
Geoff
I see the Greens as a sentiment in search of a party. I can understand why people who want honest politics and are deeply concerned about the environment are drawn to the idea of a Green Party. I think, though, that this Green Party does not have anything like a well-thought-out progressive agenda.
I think people should ask the Greens some very tough questions about what they stand for.
The previous comments appear to start with the assumption that the far -left solutions to any issue that may confront any Cdn government is what is desired. Laxer and the others above aren't contributing any worthy ideas by their ideological fundamentalism.
Anonymous uses the appelation "far-left" to stick on anyone who advocates egalitarianism, or speaks for the voiceless.
No pregmatist would wish to disembowel the corporate sector; but there are countless examples around us, of excessive or disproportionate power in the hands of the large multinational corporations and their lobbyists.
What's wrong with putting the brakes on such trends?
What Harper's Conservatives have done very effectively, is to perfect the art of demonising the Liberals to the point of gutter-level partisanship. Hectoring Ontario to cut its taxes for businesses is one of the lowest examples of this tactic.
Mind you the Liberals have their faults, and will be paying the price - for allowing their power brokers to meddle in by-elections and arrogantly assuming voters will send them back into office once the election is called.
Dion has to assert himself and not rely too much on the judgement of some advisors who hang on to power instead of grooming younger members to take on leadership roles.
Perhaps the biggest problem we need to address, is the general indifference of people to some of the serious issues that too often get buried or ignored by the media, such as the takeover of farms by giant agribusiness groups,the creeping privatisation of health-care and the sale to foreigners of key Canadian enterprises that are slipping out of our control - Interrnational Nickel, Alcan, Imax & MDA are but a few from a frighteningly long list.
While I appreciate the fear people feel about the prospect of a Harper majority I think it's worth noting that it is Liberals - not Conservatives - who have been on the vanguard of neo-liberalism, pushing the very scenarios you're afraid of.
For the past decade, Liberals have led the charge on economic integration with the US - sigining NAFTA and eagerly negotiating further trade deals. MPs like Maurizio Bevilacqua (the failed leadership candidate and Economic Advisor to Bob Rae) have been far more aggressive and unabashed in their calls for further integration - including common currency, integrated immigration and environmental policy - than any Conservative.
I think they key for Canadians is to raise awareness of these issues and the impact they have on their lives - rather than believe that by defeating an individual they will be spared all struggle.
I think the demonization of Mulroney made it very easy for the subsequent government to continue with the most damaging elements of the Mulroney era (and add some of their own) while claiming they offered "change".
I agree with your analysis of what Harper and his cronies would like to do. Many of their tactics were pioneered in Canada by the Mike Harris crew - many of whom are now dismantling the federal gov't a bit at a time, held back only by their minority status.
Supporting the NDP simply plays into the hands of Harper and his fellow travelers in the corporate-owned media. (Even much of CBC-TV, esp. Mansbridge, is pro Harper these days.)
So we can continue to split the center and left of center vote and create winning conditions for Harper (Layton is so much like Ralph Nader)
or
the greens, the NDP and the Liberals can do the McKenzie-King/Progressives maneuver and agree to stay out of each others strong-hold or most-likely to win seats. That would lead to a working coalition in Parliament that would mitigate your fears about the Liberals.
About asking the Greens tough questions: As a former Green I made a point of asking Elizabeth May about her position on Afghanistan and one or two other issues, and then of re-iterating my questions. I received no answers. We have to remember that a huge problem in a notional democracy like this one is that few people pay attention to events or participate actively. Politicians can easily afford to ignore questions from any angle (note in particular the attempt to interview Dion and Rae about Afghanistan in a riding meeting on Facebook) and do incredible things without elliciting any significant public reaction whatever.
I'm assuming Ron's post is satirical?
If not, he should look into it.
Rudy,
read some history - to see how we have defeated the right-wingers before
or don't -
and let Harper grab control of this country with a minority of votes while the other 60-65% of us remain pure within our ideological sandboxes.
Hey NorthernPOV, show me the history book that shows how we can vote for a guy who says that he'll cut corporate taxes faster than anyone stops the right-wingers.
I'd LOVE to read that one.
Rudy
the most productive Parliaments in Canada were arguably Mike Pearson and 72-74 Trudeau. Ya I agree we need a few greens and NDP in the picture to keep the Liberals in line. So why not accept an electoral compromise like McKenzie King did in 1926.
Hell, one election like that and we might finagle proportional representation and finally (or again) marginalize the right wing in this country.
(Even much of CBC-TV, esp. Mansbridge, is pro Harper these days.)
On what sorts of evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, has this been deduced? I should say I have no interest in mounting a defense of Mansbridge, et al; I'm genuinely curious, and I don't see enough of Mansbridge to know.
Thanks.
-Expat
The CBC's fawning coverage of Canada in Afghanistan comes to mind. Peter looks so cute in a flack jacket.
Yeah, the CBC on Afghanistan is terrible; the CBC during Israel's war on Lebanon was f*+king obscene (reporting Israeli but not Lebanese casualties, in many reports); but such examples don't seem aggressively pro-Harper. It's merely Canadian nationalist (Western parliamentary-capitalist) press, no more looking out for the Cons than it would be for the Libs. That is, I don't see how its Middle East/Afghanistan coverage is actually politically partisan (in terms of party politics).
-expat
Hey Dad,
I am glad to see we fully agree on something!!!
(Just joking, after 38 years of knowing each other, I realize we agree on much!)
Your comments are bang on...the Tories are far to the right of where they were in the past and are truly scary, a Tory victory would be a disaster from which Canada might not fully recover for a generation, along with the oddity that we would be well to the right of our neighbour to the south's likely next government.
The Liberals have proven to be more weak-kneeded and lacking in principle under Dion than one could ever have imagined possible (you point out Afghanistan and corporate taxes, two of many examples of late...). What the hell happened to the leader who was going to restore the Liberal's principles.
The NDP, well they are their own worst enemy with poor tactical judgement and their own drift to the centre on important issues under Layton, a fact often forgotten by the Socialist left. The downside to trying to position ourselves as the "only" alternative to the Tories, aside from being silly, is that it inevitably drives the NDP to the centre. This, in turn, makes it harder to fight the calls for unity among "progressives"...a false god, but one that a centrist NDP cannot combat effectively.
At a time when so many interesting things are happening in the US these are odd days for Canada!
All the best...
I'm not sure why the NDP is considered centrist right now.
The Libs should have picked Kennedy as leader.
I agree. Kennedy is better than any of Harper/Dion/Layton/Duceppe/May. These ARE odd days for Canada, as Michael Laxer said.
Here's something for the Anonymous who wants to know why the NDP is considered centrist:
http://www.cjob.com/News/Local/Story.aspx?ID=1003568
"Manitoba Ending Tuition Freeze"
Here is another centre-right move from 2006:
http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=e9f86842-a58b-45a1-9c17-4be2dab17824
"NDP pushes tough anti-crime platform"
This was federal.
Hey All,
I would like to clearly state that those taking my prior comments out of context are misled. I regard the NDP as the only worthwhile political movement on the left in Canada.
Kennedy, one should note, ran as a RIGHT WING liberal, despite what his many star struck, though politically neophyte Lib backers think. He was a terrible Education Minister, stated that he saw Tony Blair as an inspiration (which frankly ranks him as a moron), and began his campaign by calling on Canadians to look to Alberta as a model!!! One should also clearly remember that, despite his bullshit about being inspired to run as he wanted to stop the Harris agenda, he actually was elected in an NDP held riding during a by-election that the Tories had no chance of winning. He did not defeat a Tory, he defeated David Miller! Thanks Gerrard. He now wants to get into parliment by defeating another sitting NDP member. What an impressive record of fighting the right!
As for the nonsense trying to portray the NDP as right wing, get a grip. After the Liberal budget of 95, and the recent gutless attempts to avoid an election no matter the cost to the country, I think we can count this out.
What I was trying to say is that the NDP has drifted from supporting systemic change towards short-term driven election platforms and that, as the last Ontario election shows, this is a mistake. The NDP remains viable as a Socialist party only...otherwise we will be co-opted. Many of Rae's supporters today seem to totally forget the fact that he was elected on a very left wing "Agenda for the People" and was defeated after he had cynically destroyed this agenda from within and pushed the party far to the centre...I supported him in 95 only because the alternatives, INCLUDING the liberals, were so much worse (in fact the Libs were calling for the firing of 15,000 civil servants among other things like welfare cuts and tax breaks for the rich...sorry kids, the world did exist before Paul Martin was forced to the left by the NDP).
It never fails to amaze me how Lib apologists will find one thing, here or there, that the NDP should not have done while ignoring the completely disgusting record of the Liberal Party since 1995. It is a willing ignorance, a contempt for memory that claims that the horrible Liberal governance of the 1993-2004 period did not really happen and that the FACT of their complicity in the remaking of the Canadian state is somehow not real. When I ran for the NDP federally I ran against a man, who while I will admit is a decent enough guy, has opinions that would simply NEVER be allowed in the NDP caucus. Pro-life, anti-gay, etc...Oddly, when Dion, right after becoming leader, failed to force his caucus to support gay rights legislation I remember a neo-Marxist partner of a relative of mine going on about how that was OK because it was only "tactical". Would he have said the same of the NDP had they not forced members to vote for the bill (which, of course, they did)? I doubt it. Somehow the sins of the Liberals are always forgiven!
The NDP is the expression of Canada's grand Socialist & Social Democratic tradition. It is the ONLY alternative to the neo-liberal politics of inequality and the perpetual victory of the business class. It alone can claim to want to remake confederation to support the interests of those who have been left out of the last 30 years of reaction against the working class gains of the 50's & 60's. I only want to remind it of this obligation.
While Layton may have pushed it to the centre, while he may be too short-term political and partisan for his own good, while he may have made some idiotic policy choices here or there, he remains the far more left wing alternative to the Liberal or Tory parties, and he remains far more principled on a bad day than the strikingly gutless Dion or the self-absorbed pretty boy Kennedy (never mind MR. Me First Bob Rae).
What makes this period so unusual is exactly the confluence of a very right-wing Conservative Party, a totally ineffective Liberal "opposition", a "Green Party" that is both unclear on what it supports and quite reactionary when you scratch the surface, a province that continues to elect a confused bloc of pseudo-nationalists and sometime social-democrats and a socialist party that has forgotten why it matters to be socialist.
All-in-all an oddity....
Hi Michael,
I'm the first Anonymous who posted about Kennedy (and didn't say anytihng about the NDP). I thought he was left-wing because of some of your dad's articles about him, like this one:
http://www.jameslaxer.com/2006/07/gerard-kennedy-is-winning-liberal.html
Also, recently, by Carol Goar:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/339433
Didn't he also gut Flaherty's right-wing tax credit?
But, apologies if I got Kennedy wrong. I never heard of him before 2006, so maybe you're right.
Some NDPers also like Tony Blair, like this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Romanow
I hope and pray Stephpen Harper will get a Majority government, I'd love to see Canada turn back into a Conservative Christian country. GOD BLESS STEPHEN HARPER!!!! REPENT:D
GETTING TO HEAVEN:: All you have to do, is beleive Jesus Christ died on the cross for you, ask God to forgive you for the sins you have done and will do, then ask Jesus into your heart, after you do that, your saved, and you will live for eternity with the Lord. God Bless Canada & the rest of the world....
believe******
Just rereading the posts from back then. So Kennedy beat Nash, running as a pretend progressive, because he is an empty vessel and able to portray himself as such.
Not running for the leadership but all his previous backings moved to Iggy's camp (as the obvious right-wing of the liberal party). That's good optics. Now we will see the remaking of Iggy as progressive (by TorStar, as is usual).
I must say that seeing potty mouth Bobby Rae running around the country - bashing the NDP - as an embarrassment for him. There is something very in-congruent of an elder statesperson (which before his lib transformation and election is what he obtained and recovered some respect) acting like a juvenile with his antics. Bob you are not a young NDPer anymore, so grow-up and act like a statesperson and rise above the fray.
Rae will not win the lib leadership - your lib claim to fame will be the NDP battering ram - how sad.
Although not as socially conservative overall, the liberals have quite a few hawks in their ranks, as well as right of centre leaners. Thus, the libs if in charge would bail out the 'rich' too. As Dion stated in the last Harper budget, there were parts of that budget that fit nicely with the libs agenda.
Post a Comment