Filibuster Cartoons
 |
|
 |
As Vancouverites swept up broken glass, charred steering wheels, and other tattered remnants f their city’s reputation this weekend, on the other side of town a spectacle of an entirely different sort was unfolding — the biennial convention of the New Democratic Party of Canada.
Canadian party congresses are usually incredibly dull things; as scripted as an infomercial and just as cloying and predictable. Unless there’s a new leader to appoint, what comes out of them rarely more than a string of self-indulgent resolutions and choir-preaching speeches — little of which has much appeal beyond the ultra-partisan 2% or so of Canadians who bother to hold card-carrying party memberships. When it comes to useful authority over things like the party’s agenda and policy positions, almost all practical power in the Canadian system is afforded to the party leader. At best, conventions can hash over the symbolic.
But sometimes symbolism matters, and last week’s NDP convention was certainly occurring at a richly symbolic moment. Almost exactly 50 years ago, in August of 1961, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party merged with the Canadian Labour Congress to form the New Democratic Party of Canada, and elected its first explicitly NDP leader, Tommy C. Douglas. In those days, New Democrats usually battled with the Social Credit Party to control a couple dozen seats, and avoid fourth place status in the House of Commons. Today, the 103-member strong NDP has become the official opposition, and possesses a larger caucus than the Liberal Party did in 1961. Tommy would be proud.
Yet history can be a burden, too. The old CCF was founded as an explicitly socialist movement; its founding document, the Regina Manifesto, professed a desire “to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity” with a glorious new order, where “economic planning will supersede unregulated private enterprise and competition.” Its NDP successor didn’t quite go that far, but still maintained a commitment to the basic gist of socialism, with a constitution that proclaimed that “the social, economic and political progress of Canada can be assured only by the application of democratic socialist principles,” pledged support for “economic and social planning” and denounced “the making of profit.”
This agenda did not exactly prove to be a recipe for electoral success. Though Canada enjoys a reputation as a “left wing” country, outright socialism has never been popular in a country that took the Cold War quite seriously, and the NDP has fought most of its elections on the defensive.
In the 1990s and 2000s, following a collapse of their never-high-to-begin-with popular vote into the single digits, there were growing calls for the party to formally moderate and renounce socialism, in the same way that Tony Blair’s Labour Party, and other nominally social democratic parties of Europe had already done in a (successful) effort to win the center. Yet the NDP lacked a Tony Blair of its own, and a sequence of weak leaders, elected in vicious left-versus-more left leadership battles, ensured that the status quo continued. A perennial problem that all small parties have to face is preventing their membership vacuum from being dominated by the very sort of unrepresentative hardliners who caused all the problems in the first place. The NDP of the 1990s and early 2000s suffered this fate in spades; as ordinary Canadians abandoned the party to peruse other options, hard line unionists and radical politicians happily filled the void.
Jack Layton’s 2003 election as leader didn’t seem to be much of a break with this trend at the time. A former Toronto City Councillor, Layton was an unapologetic leftist of the traditional urban stripe, who had pursued more than his fair share of flaky causes in the past. As a federal politician, however, he’s proven to be incredibly savvy. By reaching out to Quebec, the one part of Canada whose politics have consistently remained on the far-left of the national mainstream, yet has historically never voted NDP, Layton has been able to secure enough French-based growth for his party to offset the erosion everywhere else. Thus, while the NDP achieved only modest increases in its share of the popular vote in non-Quebec Canada, this reality has been entirely eclipsed by the much sexier story of its unprecedented Quebec sweep. Layton, understandably, feels incredibly justified. His “have it both ways” approach seems vindicated; the party was able to remain leftist, yet also make gains. But the gains he made were still only good enough for second place, which brings us back to the original dilemma of the party he inherited — is the NDP still too radical for prime time?
In retrospect, the triumphant atmosphere of the party’s first post-election congress was probably not the best place to ask such questions. Many members clearly felt they had nothing to apologize for. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, etc. Yet others, the more establishment NDP leadership types, saw this as the perfect moment to moderate the party once and for all, and set the stage for even larger electoral gains in the future. A resolution to formally abandon socialism once and for all was drafted, earning the support of many moderate MPs, including some, like longtime Winnipeg MP Pat Martin, who have often been considered possible successors to Mr. Layton (Layton himself was neutral).
The ensuing debate was a revealing example of the NDP’s internal schizophrenia. While Martin called socialism an “anchor” hanging around the party’s neck, Barry Weisleder, a radical union activist and chairman of the party’s unofficial “socialist caucus,” retorted that socialism was actually a “rocket” and got much greater applause from the assembled delegates for his analogy. Cooler heads eventually just tabled the matter to a committee, and no decision was made.
If we think of socialism the way the old CCF did, then clearly few Canadians, or even NDPers, are textbook socialists today. Even if he won a majority government, it’s absurd to think Jack Layton would have much interest in instituting a Cuban-style centrally planned economy, or nationalizing private assets for collective redistribution. The NDP’s own shifting positions on issues such as free trade, corporate taxes, and spending cuts are ample proof of that, especially at the provincial level, where NDP administrations often govern in a way that’s practically indistinguishable from Liberals or Conservatives. Whenever I speak to NDP politicians, likewise, I find their unease with the socialism label quite palatable. Even those with some affinity for the traditions of socialism find the label messy and unclear, and would prefer to be identified by policy, rather than ideology.
Yet these politicians still need people to organize the rallies and write the cheques. Though I’d also question how many of these types actually want a formal, socialist economic structure, their distaste for capitalism and the market system remains intense. Totemic or not, to the hardcore public sector unionist, Marxist academic, new-age hippie, alterna-feminist, or other stalwart members of the NDP base, capitalism remains an icon of modern society’s injustice, inequality, and oppression, and the very thing they joined an “outsider” party like the NDP to oppose.
The question is whether a party designed by and for society’s proudest outsiders can ever hope to win the support of the rest of us.
June 22nd, 2011 at 1:54 pm
An interesting, well thought out post. It's a good question, but it's worth noting that even as Anglo-America seemed to ignore the Socialist cause, the socialists (or the "social democrats") are mainstream in virtually every other western country. Even the British had a mainstream socialist party! Same goes for Australia and New Zealand, who are probably better comparisons as anglo-immigrant nations. Canada on the other hand seems to have lacked one until approximately three months ago (except Quebec) and America elected its first explicitly socialist senator, Bernie Sanders, only in 2006 (from Vermont of course). Why are we so different?
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:50 pm
We learn from the mistakes of others? I don't see the United States or Canada transitioning to a planned economy anytime soon.
June 22nd, 2011 at 3:37 pm
The NDP is at a point where it can redefine the political landscape, albeit only a little – it is still in opposition, after all. NDP representatives need to be comfortable with the word socialist, they need to be able to not only defend it but explain and argue for it, or they shouldn't be NDP representatives. If the situation is as you describe it, the the NDP's setting itself up for a difficult time (or a rightwards shift, which is the easier and likelier option). if NDP representatives don't have the imagination or courage to argue for and help build a better society, then it falls to the unions, their members, and the party's membership, who should really reconsider who they elect.
June 22nd, 2011 at 5:46 pm
I've heard that part of it has to do with the diversity of our societies, and distinct political systems. The logic goes that socialism only seems fair when everyone is already roughly the same, when it's easy to see your fellow citizen as the same as you, and thus equally deserving. But when your fellow citizens are members are different races/religions/ethnicities/etc, it's harder to feel the same level of kinship for spreading the wealth around. Thus a homogenous society like Sweden is much more likely to embrace socialism than a place like Canada or America, where there's historically been a lot of tension between racial/ethnic/linguistic groups, and a historically high interest in maintaining unequal relationships between them.
The other theory is that socialism requires a strong central government to implement, and both the US and Canada have very decentralized systems that give too much power to states/provinces, which limits how far a federal socialist agenda can go without local support. The problem is further compounded in the US, due to the strong checks and balances even within the US federal branch.
June 22nd, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Layton really has the opportunity here to be quite a transformational leader, for the NDP and perhaps all of Canadian Politics.
If he can find a way to develop and sell a Social Democratic message (not Socialistic) and a compelling narrative forboth French and Anglo Canada, and construct a shadow cabinet with real depth and maturity, the Liberal Party is toast, and the Conservatives will be in real trouble.
Obviously, this is much easier said than done; I'm not a Canadian, so I don't know too much about Jack Layton personally, and whether he's going to succeed or the NDP is headed for some spectacular collapse.
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:43 pm
New Zealand doesn't really have a mainstream socialist party.
We have a labour party, but they're not even as socialist as British Labour (indeed, they dismantled our welfare state in the 80's). And we have a Green party, which is fairly socialist, but gets votes mostly because the environment is an important part of NZ identity. The Greens are actively moving towards the centre.
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:58 pm
NZ Labour (or any of the Euro-"socialist" parties, for that matter) aren't really "socialist" in any meaningful sense, but their origins and history are usually those of explicitly anti-capitalist parties. They've moderated over time to become ordinary liberals, but NZ Labour's Constitution still says that it is committed to "social democratic and democratic socialist principles", iirc.
June 23rd, 2011 at 2:06 am
Well that's really it isn't it? When is a socialist not a socialist? I'm not at all surprised to hear that NDP politicians are uneasy with the label, as it's either lost all meaning, or gained so many meanings that it's useless as a label. To say that countries like the United States or Australia are run by socialists simply on the grounds that the governing party is the Democrats or the ALP respectively is ridiculous. Even if they say they're socialists, they're not. Canada had the Liberals, who were comparable to other such centre-left parties elsewhere (or even furthur left, possibly). Do no confuse the two party dichotomy of one country with that of another, the centre can and does vary quite a bit. There's a reason Canada has a reputation of being left-wing, and the fact that your Prime Minister is a "Conservative" does not change that reason.
June 23rd, 2011 at 7:57 am
Very interesting…..
I'm confused as to the precise differences of three terms: Democratic Socialism, Social Democrats, and Social Liberals. As I understand it, Democratic Socialists actually are Socialists that want the means of production handed over to the state. This seems to still be in the NDP charter but has no chance whatsoever of occuring. Social Democrats and Social LIberals seem to aim, as I understand it, at the same thing…a welfare state capitalism but come to the same conclusion from different traditions and rationales. Social Democrats come from the Socialist tradition and have given up on control of the means of production but support the welfare state as a benefit that those receiving the benefits should get upon the basis of their rights as human beings and in the interests of social justice. Social Liberals support the same policies having broken with NeoLiberals since they feel that a welfare state will lead to more prosperity for Keynesian reasons. Sound about right?
June 23rd, 2011 at 8:59 am
"the NDP’s internal schizophrenia"
Do you perhaps mean Multiple Personality Disorder? Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking.
Thanks for the perspective on the NDP.
June 23rd, 2011 at 11:10 am
@#1: The NDP calls itself democratic socialist now, and was debating moving to social democracy, which AFAIK would have been perfectly accurate. Social democracy is mainstream, or centre-left, in most countries; “socialism” can be a broad and vague term possibly including social democracy, especially as a term used by opponents, but I don’t think socialism as defined by self-defined socialists is mainstream.
@#9: Kind of right, though I don’t know if what you call social liberals invoke specifically Keynesian reasons for a welfare state. Of course, I’ve never heard “social liberal” outside a US context where it refers to being ‘liberal’ on sex and religion, usually paired with being “fiscal conservative” meaning who knows what.
I’d say democratic socialists want lots of central but democratic planning, a la Marx hiimself, or Rosa Luxemberg, and unlike Lenin’s “party vanguard”. Western Europe in the “nationalize lots of industries” phase is probably closest to real implementation, along with Spanish Republic anarchists/syndicalists on the other side. Social democracy is a moderation of that, accepting markets and capitalism subject to regulation and wealth redistribution and lots of public services where those seem appropriate. Also, it’s mostly a non-US term. US liberals are similar, though mostly even more moderate, and come out of the original liberal (now libertarian) tradition via Progressivism, FDR, and the New Deal. SDs are socialists who embraced markets, US liberals are old liberals who embraced welfare, I think for its own compassionate and egalitarian merits more than for Keynesian macroeconomics. They didn’t break with neoliberals so much as break with classical liberals, who neoliberals are a throwback to. Outside the US, liberal never lost its old meaning.
Many European countries also have Christian Democrats, not as liberal on the sexytimes front but overlapping with social democrats on the economic side.
June 23rd, 2011 at 3:58 pm
I know that's the medical definition, but in common parlance, "schizophrenia" is just shorthand for "two conflicting identities within a single body." Not that your definition isn't an accurate description of the NDP, too.
June 23rd, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Strong two party system or system with limited amount of viable parties. That's why. Parties in a two party system or limited amount of viable parties you need to appeal to moderate and independents to win. Since you need a majority and not a plurality to hold power you have to appeal to others.
Socialists are far left and thus cannot by themselves appeal to enough voters to win in countries like Canada and the US. So they just diluted themselves and eventually just saw it wouldn't work and either died off or the ideals watered down to left of center and right of center (for the European style socialists and Japanese style corporatism).
Also simply put. The US doesn't like government. Its very libertarian. And the west overall doesn't like socialism. With the Atlantic Ocean as a gap and US as an influence along with Britain, Canada simply hasn't gone as far left as some European countries.
Plus how socialist can you be when you have a free trade agreement with the most capitalist country in the world? Good luck getting rid of that when you have hundreds of thousands getting jobs because it.
June 23rd, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Random question: how do you figure 1988 as the date China abandoned socialism? I thought it was in the late '70s. Maybe 1978? I seem to remember that was when the congress that (basically) abandoned socialism was held.
July 3rd, 2011 at 8:17 pm
h-c-g…
Lovely day for blogging huh…
July 3rd, 2011 at 9:28 pm
Hi, got me a little extra time to learn just what had been you actually attempting to mention with this, however now i am onto it. Just few days back I actually was thinking of similar situation, and additionally came across your article. This is a shame that my best cousin aren’t able to read through this today, my partner and i by now send it directly to them on e mail. by the way, I really like your posture. Keep on writing. ;)
July 5th, 2011 at 1:24 am
Great work! It looks very nice and useful.
September 20th, 2011 at 12:59 am
Your content is incredible! Thank you for researching and making this topic plain to your readers. Your article is a very welcome change of pace from others I’ve been reading.
October 5th, 2011 at 11:45 am
It is in point of fact a nice and useful piece of info. I'm glad that you simply shared this useful information with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.
October 8th, 2011 at 1:59 am
Do you know the rs gold sell game.It is a good game. This is no blood or extreme violence, but there are some issues. One is that there are sexual issues in gameplay. Partial nudity posses a problem in the game. I'm a Runescape player myself and I have seen or read about details in the fast runescape gold game.Love runescape and get runescape money. The review is not up to date by saying that bad language is bleeped. Now you can have filter on or off. On violent content topic the review says Player vs. Monster. There is also runescape accounts.