On Canada's Complacent Left

[Bragi]

I think Canada's centre-left can no longer afford to split its vote between the Liberal, NDP and Green parties for one, big compelling reason: if the centre left doesn’t unite, then I believe the right wing will take complete control of Canada, and will reshape this country in profound ways that will not reflect the centre-left views of the majority of Canadians.

As some who follow this discussion group may know, I have been making (and testing) the above proposition here for a few weeks now. During the debate that has ensued, I have been quite surprised to discover that the above premise is almost violently rejected by many here who identify themselves as being politically left of centre.

According to them, Canada’s distinctive history, and our different demographics, means that – unlike our neighbours to the south – we are somewhat immune to a takeover by the hard right. Because of this, their argument goes, there is no need for the centre left to panic over the situation, and it’s safe to cling to our old political choices on the long march to the New Jerusalem.

Personally, I reject this assumption, and I’m alarmed at the political complacency it fosters. Here’s why:

First of all, Steven Harper is *already* in power, and he is an extreme right winger. Yes, he only has a minority right now, but despite this, he is nonetheless actively pursuing a quite distinctly hard right agenda. For example:

- he is taking steps to reduce government presence in the lives of citizens (e.g. tax cuts instead of child care);

- he is setting the stage for two-tier medicine (supporting privatized delivery is the start of this);

- he is beginning to politicize the judicial selection process, and to move on some less-divisive right wing law and order issues (hearings for Supreme Court justices, brining in minimum sentences, ect.);

- he is shifting Canada’s foreign policy towards the US neocon agenda (deep anti-Palestinianism, support for US militarism abroad, etc)

It is predictable that mainstream media are missing all this, but I am surprised to find that so many on the left persist in thinking that Harper is a moderate, and not a hardline right-winger, largely because he has not moved on any of the more divisive social conservative “moral issues” such as same-sex marriage, and abortion rights.

In my view, what this shows is that many Canadian leftists don’t understand that, while conservatives and social conservatives usually run in the same pack, they are not synonymous.

Harper is a good example. If you read the two biographies out on him, you will find that while he is driven by deeply conservative views on economic, social and foreign policy, he is largely ambivalent about socon issues like same sex and abortion rights. However, while these aren't the issues that make him run, he knows quite well that a crucial, and highly active, part of his political base does care deeply about these things, and wants results.

And he has made a deal with them. The deal is that they have to accept that while he can’t help them much with their divisive issues now, and still get the majority he seeks in the next election, that he will get them what they want once he has a majority. He has, through the deep links between the evangelical Christian churches and the CPC, assured them that they will get their issues dealt with, through *free* votes in the House, once he gets a majority. They just have to shut up in the meantime, and vote right next time.

For those on the left who think that Canadians will never accept policies that reflect the views of the socons on these issues, I suggest you have a hard look at opinion polls. What you will find is that margins in Canada between those who support and don't support liberal views on same sex, right to choose, etc. are actually not that wide. With an effective campaign, the socons could win.

The other key factor on how these issues may play out is that not many non-socons in Canada actually care passionately about things like same-sex marriage, one way or the other. Consequently, given a majority, I think Harper would be able to give the socons what they want without even breaking into much of a political sweat, let alone facing insurrection in the streets.

As for religion in Canada, the complacent left is correct that it isn't politically the force it is in the US. However, some 60 per cent of Canadians say religion is an important part of their lives, and that it provides them with moral direction. That is not a small chunk of electoral change. And if you look at the denominations that are growing in Canada, well, it sure isn't the good old United Church.

So the situation is that while many on the left assure themselves that Harper is not a serious threat, Harper is already in power, already implementing his right wing economic, social policy and foreign policy views, and doing it in a manner that is slow and careful, in a way that won’t scare people, in a way that creates the conditions needed for him to win a majority.

Personally, I believe Harper will continue in this manner during his minority period, and that if/when he wins his majority, he will have four years in which he can then profoundly reshape this country ways that reflect his deep, right wing views. And the centre left majority in Canada won’t be able to do squat to stop him.

This why, for me, sitting back thinking that "it can't happen here" is just, as the old saying goes, "whistling past the graveyard". It's why I think it is urgent and necessary for the centre left to get its act together now, before the next election, and why I think we no longer have the luxury of splitting our vote between the Libs, the NDP and the Green Party.

I don't claim to have all the answers to how we can best get our act together, nor do I think it will be simple or easy, but I do believe that the first step is to realize that we have to do it, and to shake off the complacency about Harper that now seems to grip the Canadian left.

- B

[MrPrax]

1. Why are you attacking us all the time?

You make Baby Jesus cry!!

:cry:

[AX10]

2. I have to agree. Complacency and infighting has cost us..

dearly in America.

Could you please explain this one further: "As for religion in Canada, the complacent left is correct that it isn't politically the force it is in the US. However, some 60 per cent of Canadians say religion is an important part of their lives, and that it provides them with moral direction. That is not a small chunk of electoral change. And if you look at the denominations that are growing in Canada, well, it sure isn't the good old United Church."
-What are these denominations that are growing?

Thanks.

[V. Kid]

3. Just because someone is religious...doesn't mean they're fundamentalist...

...or socially conservative, let alone politically conservative. Such claims are a strech. And attacking their very right to exist, and then proclaiming them threats, will turn things into a "us vs them" sort of dynamic. Sometimes I wonder if some people who claim to be athiests, but continiously insult religion, and claim how stupid the religious are, are actually not athiests, but just trying to say crazy things to anger people.

[ConcernedCanuk]

4. "if/when he wins his majority, he will have four years" - - NOT

.
.
.

This ain't Murikkka.

He can be ousted anytime if he loses on a "confidence" motion in the house. We don't have to impeach him or take him to court

He just has to piss off enough of us over ONE issue - and he's outta there!

Well, we have to put it to an election, but we can do that anytime.

Our paper and pencil voting system works just fine.

Harper will not last.

Count on it.

[GirlinContempt]

6. Touche!

A minority government or a minority cabinet is a cabinet of a parliamentary system formed by the leading political party when it has won a plurality but not a majority of seats in the parliament. In bicameral parliaments, the term applies when the leading party does not have a majority in the chamber whose confidence is considered most crucial.

In general, a minority government tends to be less stable than a majority government, because the opposition can always bring down the government with a simple vote of no confidence. Also, it is often argued that a minority government is less accountable because the leader can dodge responsiblity and shift blame to the opposition. However, a minority government tends to be less dictatorial because it often requires compromise between the different parties to ensure the passage of legislation.

[GirlinContempt]

5. So lemmie get this straight:

You want the left to 'unite'. Under who/what? You REALLY think that's gonna work? I've got a theory for you:
1. Rightwing liberals will get pissed and go con
2. Leftwing liberals might not care
3. NDPers will get pissed and go independent/abstain/spoil

What's with this obsession with having a majority government? What's with this disingenuous label 'vote splitting'? The greens aren't leftist, the NDP and the Liberals are very different parties and the people who support either KNOW this. What's with this sudden terror of the Canadian-right? I don't like them that much either, but I also don't think they're the devil incarnate, and I also don't think that the vast majority of Canadians have suddenly altered their beliefs to the point of allowing a total 'neocon' takeover. In fact, as a citizen of this country I find that insulting. And I REALLY don't get where your vague insinuations about religion come from. For christ sake, it was a devout Catholic leading the country who put forth the same sex marriage bill.

[Bragi]

8. Girlincontempt wrote:

What's with this obsession with having a majority government?

In a democracy, the purpose of a political party is generally to get elected to power so they can implement their policies and vision. This isn't usually referred to as an obsession.

What's with this disingenuous label 'vote splitting'?

When the votes of people of substantially similar views are divided between two or more candidates, people who have fewer votes, and hold quite different views than those of the majority, can get elected. This is what happens with vote splitting. Nothing disingeneous about it.

The greens aren't leftist

People who vote for them generally tilt to the left.

...the NDP and the Liberals are very different parties and the people who support either KNOW this.

Party activists may KNOW this, but there is not a profound difference in political views between people who vote for either of these centre-left parties.

What's with this sudden terror of the Canadian-right? I don't like them that much either, but I also don't think they're the devil incarnate, and I also don't think that the vast majority of Canadians have suddenly altered their beliefs to the point of allowing a total 'neocon' takeover. In fact, as a citizen of this country I find that insulting.

Good illustration of the "it-can't-happen-here" complacency of the left in Canada.

- B

[GirlinContempt]

9. *snicker*

Yeah. See, the thing is, minority governments are elected, in democracy's, and have power. So that doesn't quite explain it.

The parties are not substantially similar, and it is disingenuous to claim that they are. This also ties in to your claim that the political views of voters are not profoundly different between the two parties (A statement I can't totally refute, because unlike you, I don't claim to know the minds of all of the Canadian public as that is absurd).
Unless the Liberal party of Canada has suddenly started advocating nationalized services, election reform, and progressive taxation, to name a few (Which they haven't) they are not substantially similar. And those are pretty big voter issues. Your claim that the Liberals are even a leftist party at ALL is laughable. They're centrist.

If left-leaning people vote for the Green party, they need to learn how to read.

You painted a pretty picture of complete and total ignorance of Canadian political history, the parties platforms, and politics in general.

[Bragi]

10. GirlinContempt should read up

She wrote:

The parties are not substantially similar, and it is disingenuous to claim that they are. This also ties in to your claim that the political views of voters are not profoundly different between the two parties (A statement I can't totally refute, because unlike you, I don't claim to know the minds of all of the Canadian public as that is absurd).

Read some public opinion data, and you will find that there is not a lot of difference between the core views and beliefs of Liberal voters and those of NDP voters.

Unless the Liberal party of Canada has suddenly started advocating nationalized services, election reform, and progressive taxation, to name a few (Which they haven't) they are not substantially similar. And those are pretty big voter issues.

Actually, read some polls and you will see that nationalized services, election reform, and progressive taxation aren't really big voter issues at all. I'm not sayign they aren't important issues, but they just aren't big voter issues.

You painted a pretty picture of complete and total ignorance of Canadian political history, the parties platforms, and politics in general.

Despite your apparent belief in the superiority of your knowledge, your comments suggest you may benefit from reading up on the views of Canadian voters, as generally shown in various opinion research studies of voters.

The reality is that, in most instances, there aren't profound differences in political views even among voters who vote for diffferent parties. In Canada, voting preferences are more often determined by geography, family background, and factors other than sharp differences in core political beliefs.

- B

[GirlinContempt]

11. Would you care to link me to some

public opinion data that states that? Because, I sure as hell can't find it. Not ONE reputable public opinion polling company has such a study that I can find.

Those are SPECIFIC NDP positions on hot issues. Don't tell me you're claiming that crown corporations, taxation and elections aren't big issues to Canadians. Hell, to anyone. Come on now.

Show me this data you have that shows Canadians don't care about taxes, elections, and public services, and that they are registered either liberal or NDP but hold the same political beliefs. I'd LOVE to see it.

"The reality is that, in most instances, there aren't profound differences in political views even among voters who vote for different parties. In Canada, voting preferences are more often determined by geography, family background, and factors other than sharp differences in core political beliefs." Opinions stated as fact don't become fact, they remain opinion. Just FYI.

[GirlinContempt]

12. Wait. Hold up a second here.

It's not that the parties ARE the same, but that you personally think that people who vote for them agree on the same issues? :crazy:

[V. Kid]

14. I think that you should realize that history...

...since John A. MacDonald, the last time the Conservatives where the "natural governing party", has clearly changed during the 2006 election. :hide: Why don't you understand?!? :banghead:

Harper is an evil genius so everyone needs to vote Liberal for the sake of the country, otherwise they're anti-Canadian. :grr:

P.S. Why do you hate the baby Jesus so much :shrug:

[GirlinContempt]

16. Oh I get it now

The parties should merge because Bragi thinks the voters all think the same things anyway!

[GirlinContempt]

7. Does any of THIS look familiar to anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election%2C_1979

A few choice excerpts:

"The Trudeau Liberals had become very unpopular during their last term in government because of large budget deficits, high inflation, and high unemployment."

"The PC Party campaigned on the slogans, "Let's get Canada working again", and "It's time for a change - give the future a chance!" Canadians were not, however, sufficiently confident in the young Joe Clark to give him a majority in the House of Commons."

"Clark's minority government lasted less than nine months. It was defeated in the House of Commons in a vote of non-confidence over a budget bill that proposed to increase the excise tax on gasoline by 18 cents per Imperial gallon. This resulted in the 1980 election, in which the PCs were defeated by the resurgent Trudeau Liberals."

[CHIMO]

13. Shit or Get Off The Pot

Either accept the fact that the Conservatives will get a majority in the next election or do something to stop them, rather than dividing the opposition.

You presume to have superior intelligence over everyone and still manage to divide. Pretty slick operation.

Just sit back and imagine that all of what you say comes true. Do you think that eventually there is no recourse. Have you thought through what if? How did the Romans go down? Do you think that a small population in Canada can change the present and past objectives of the march of the USA?

Your rhetoric is like a tape recorder gone broke.

Detach yourself from the discussion and sit back and look at the "what ifs". You might then be able to contribute some new ideas and outlook on things.

[V. Kid]

15. NO! NO! NO!...Bragi is funny ;-)...

...I always appreciate Bragi's posts. I don't even need to read them to get the jest of them.

[Bragi]

17. Good grief!

Cimo writes:

Either accept the fact that the Conservatives will get a majority in the next election or do something to stop them, rather than dividing the opposition.

That's what I've been arguing: If the centre-left remains divided, the Conservatives will get a majority next election, and every election after that until the centre-left does unite.

Ironic that someone arguing for uniting the centre-left is considered in some quarters (like here) to be divisive.

- B

[Minstrel Boy]

18. I think you've united the Left, Bragi.

Take a bow.