Filibuster Cartoons
 |
|
 |
Canada’s epic, multi-week national drama of mourning, romanticizing, and then ultimately beatifying the late Jack Layton having finally concluded, the nation can now move into the final stage of the grieving process — politics.
As has been remarked endlessly, the electoral strength and political success of the New Democratic Party of Canada was derived mainly from the popularity and canniness of its deceased leader, giving his party’s present quest to find a suitable replacement a certain level of frantic energy. But one important fact that hasn’t been observed nearly enough in the aftermath of Layton’s death is that all parties in Canada basically work like this. The NDP isn’t really experiencing anything notably unprecedented or tragic right now when one considers just how common it is for Canadian political parties to experience great convolutions and upheaval the second their domineering leader shuffles away.
The whole crisis that the Liberal Party has been experiencing for the last five years, for instance, all really stems back to the fact that the party never found a particularly good replacement for Jean Chretien way back in 2003. Paul Martin seemed decent at the time, but proved underwhelming at the ballot box, and neither he, nor the Dion-Iggy duo that followed, seemed to have anything resembling the message discipline, strategic savvy, or charismatic likeability of the “Little Guy from Shawinigan” (he even had his own catch-phrase!). Chretien was arrogant, inarticulate, and often maddeningly simple-minded, of course, but he could also win elections, which is more than we can say for his egghead successors.
With Layton suddenly gone, however, the Libs may be facing their greatest strategic opportunity in decades. Under Layton, after all, the very real fear — born out by the results of the 2011 election — was that the NDP was well on its way to replacing the Liberals as the preferred party of the Canadian left, and permanently assuming the role of the progressive, anti-Conservative coalition party that sits as choice #2 in Canada’s historic two-party system. The key word being “coalition.” In a country as large as Canada, with such vastly disparate and hard-wired regional identities, prime ministers are rarely elected unless the party they lead has some sort of broad, national appeal. Which, in practice, often means offering very different things to different people. The good leader’s challenge is making this look natural.
Under Layton, the NDP was a coalition of progressive Quebecers and the various left-wing rump communities that always vote NDP, namely young people, academic-types, social activists, and other Stuff White People Like-types dwelling in the downtown cores of Canada’s biggest metropoli. But it was never a winning coalition. Though it was a good enough coalition for second place, the Liberals are now poised to peel off as much of the fair weather 2011 Layton groupies as possible, and welcome them back into their own larger and stronger tent — where many of them have a lot more history.
Speaking at a Liberal Party conference this week, acting Liberal leader Bob Rae tried valiantly to remind the nation that it was his party, not the NDP, that has served as Canada’s left-of-center option for over a century, blasting the Conservatives as the party of uncaring, “Tea Party-type ideology” while simultaneously casting the Liberals as stalwart progressives who care about “social justice as well as prosperity.”
“Liberals had everything to do” with crafting Canada’s proudest progressive traditions, he said, rattling off issues such as healthcare, the environment, and ensuring “no one is left behind” as potential battle fronts on which his party is willing to fight the Harper government “every single step of the way” in the coming years. Yet he also repeatedly emphasized that Liberals were “flexible and pragmatic,” in contrast to Conservatives (and, though not explicitly stated, presumably the NDP as well), who are guided by little more than “whim, prejudice and ideology.”
My view, which I discussed in an essay shortly after the recent election, is that the Liberal Party should, subtly or not, continue this sort of rhetoric, and constantly seek to market itself as the party of the smart, pragmatic left, and brand the NDP as the party of the flakes. With Thomas Mulcair — the man who famously refused to accept Bin Laden’s death on national TV hours after it was announced — currently viewed as a prospective front-runner in the NDP leadership primary, there seems to be a lot of room at present for Liberals to reach out to common-sense progressives turned off by some of the NDP’s fringier rhetoric and members. As I noted in yet another recent essay, this has very much been the victorious strategy of the Liberal Party of British Columbia, which has proven tremendously effective pushing itself as the progressive party of successful and smart people, while counter-branding the NDP as the party of dated, ignorant socialists thoroughly unprepared to run a 21st century economy. One could also see parallels to the success of Bill Clinton in the States, who, unlike many Democrats before and after, made great hay out of denouncing the unrealistic and unattractive fringes of the American left, with his Sister Souljah moments and so on.
Liberals can also capitalize on the fact that the NDP is currently suffering from something of a separatist problem. Their current acting leader, we now know, was once a member of the Parti Quebecois, and due to an evident lack of background checks during the last campaign, many other members of the caucus have similarly dubious or unknown allegiances to federalism, either in the past or present.
Positing the “in or out?” question in sharper terms could very well help expose a central weakness in the NDP’s bloated Quebec contingent, while playing up the right-wing element of the Harper Conservatives could move the separatist-vs-federalist discussion into a more of a left-vs-left matter, as it already is in Quebec provincial politics. If nothing else, Quebecers are a people who like having their voice in government. Paradoxically, the NDP’s victories in the province can actually be twisted to make the party appear less successful, if the Liberals are smart. “Second place is well and good,” they might say, “but we’re the only progressive party in this country that has repeatedly proven we can win Quebec and the rest of Canada, too.”
But I’m curious what you guys think. What should the Liberals learn from the NDP, and what does the NDP have to learn from the Liberals? And most importantly: what leader should be recruited to take either of them to victory?
September 3rd, 2011 at 6:12 pm
What a well written opening paragraph. True, too.
September 3rd, 2011 at 6:28 pm
I might also add that Frank McKenna is clearly the man for the Liberal party leadership. A Center-Left candidate with considerable governing experience and business savvy, who speaks fluent French, who could take the Center back from Harper and help Canada to return to fiscal responsibility, and credibly cast the NDP as loonies.
September 4th, 2011 at 2:17 am
Ultimately, I think people who are closer to the center on the left side of things, the moderate left, may end up holding the balance of power in the future. Either the Liberal Party is rejuvenated, or they may break ranks and form the liberal wing of the Conservative Party, especially if the NDP continues to draw from and be dominated by fringe types.
Then again, I suppose the same could be said for any group in Canada, and all that changes is the context. Canada is a bit of politically pluralistic society.
September 4th, 2011 at 7:09 am
Saying this as a Liberal who agrees with him on the issue, he's pro-life and because of that, will never win.
September 4th, 2011 at 8:12 am
You say young people always vote NDP? At the time Layton became leader the average age of the NDP member was 59- one of his great successes was getting youth interested in the NDP. And considering the amount of youth that dont vote- you can win if you motivate enough of them to vote. This has proven locally successful in areas where the NDP have had little traditional success i.e. Edmonton, Toronto, and Montreal.
I think part of the NDP's success was Layton's policies that were clear and starkly different from his rivals. He first activities as leader was getting the NDP involved in the anti- Iraq war protests. He was very visible in leading the 80,000 protesters in Toronto. The NDP experienced a great increase in votes and support as a result of that stance- that is certianly the reason why I joined the NDP.
September 4th, 2011 at 8:13 am
I am curious that conservatives seem to think that NDP's huge Quebec wing is terrible problem to have- its a problem but a very good problem to have. It means that the NDP has to only slightly increase their vote totals in English Canada to form government.
Layton's greatest ability was to expand the NDP's support base into communities where they were never very successful in before. He could rally and consolidate the base but also convince people to the joinn and vote for the NDP. His success in Quebec where the NDP has been a fringe party for 50 years is the most obvious example. But victories in Alberta, Newfoundland and Ontario (the ON MP block is the over twice the size of Broadbent's and now there are 8 NDP seats in T.O.something untinkable a decade ago). He has turn bedrock Liberal ridings such as Outromont, Hull-Alymer and Davenport to NDP and even won the once stauchly Tory St John's East.
September 4th, 2011 at 8:14 am
So the NDP needs a leader that can continue expanding the NDP support base. I looking to see what Peter Julian and Charlie Angus decide in terms of the leadership race. If the leader can keep Quebec and expand the NDP in urban immigrant circles (they are the weakest of the federal parties there) then they will form the next government.
September 4th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Just wondering, JJ, why is Rae drawn with a (what appears to be) Order of Canada medal? While I'm sure he is a recipient (hadn't looked it up), I'm sure you've drawn many other OC members (again, haven't looked it up), and their medals aren't shown. And I don't think Rae's been making a big deal about his OC, thereby necessitating its inclusion in his caricature ("Look! It's an OC medal! That's how you know it's Bob Rae, because he's always talking about his OC!")
September 4th, 2011 at 10:27 am
I disagree! He wears his medal almost 24/7. It's almost always on the lapel of every suit he wears, which I find particularly obnoxious given his was probably one of the most undeserved.
September 4th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Indeed youths tend to vote NDP, particularly those that are on entitlements or from families that have been on entitlement programs or in unions for any length of time. They know how valuable those programs are. Likewise most-if-not-all Canadians that working for a union must vote for the NDP (do I need to explain why?) UFCW, UAW, CUPW, CUPE, TWU, etc.
What is often missed is that those that live in resource towns, in BC at least, almost always vote NDP because all the major employment jobs are union. If the HST referendum is any sign of things to come, I expect much more job losses should the NDP come back into power here.
September 4th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Harsh! I think Bob Rae has done some good stuff as a mediator in Labour issues in Canada, and also in Sri Lanka apparently. Lloyd Robertson has worn his for years, heck I've seen a few of them in person on local grandees. He was premier of our largest province after all.
September 4th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Honestly, I can't think of a better, more realistic-minded leader for the LPC than Bob Rae himself. Honestly, nobody else right now has the right "stuff" to keep the Liberals from fading into the background. And I do believe that fading away is the Liberals' biggest concern right now. All this talk of forming the next government are pipe dreams.
The NDP needs somebody who can expand its base, keep it moving toward the centre and make it look like an authentic government-in-waiting. It also needs to shed its unionist anchor, which excludes several candidates right away. Mulcair would be a good candidate if he could learn to work better with others.
September 4th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
First of all, I think that people are overestimating the NDP coalition. I believe that the party base in Québec is as fragile as the PC base in the 80's, because basically the NDP vote was in a big part a protest vote against all other parties and this with a leader who was a "Good Jack'. And yes, remember the ADQ? Yes, this gives 4 years, but I cannot take out of question that May 2 in Québec was more an impulsive move against their incumbent MP than any "ideological" base.
Yes, maybe Mulcair as leader will cement some parts of this coalition, but honestly this is a new situation is Canadian politics, so nobody knows and A LOT could happens in 4 years. And yet, they are seeming to be some infighting between some wings in the party.
For the Liberals, I see two options for the future:
-The party will find a new leader who is capable of making the party something else than a watered down version of the NDP with an acting leader who is a reject from the NDP. Maybe something more liberal in the classical sense.
-And yes, if they continue like that they will finish with 15% while losing almost all their seats when the last incumbents retire. They will be like the Lib Dems had been in the UK since a long time. Some will probably joins the Conservatives, others the NDP and others will stay Liberal through the end.
Again, a merger between the Liberals and the NDP could be possible but there will be consequences because the two parties absolutely don't have the same political culture at all. I honestly believe that the whole ''progressive voting" thing is quite simplistic. One thing is sure however, the NDP will be in the spotlight for the next years to come as opposed as before May 2 because they are now considered the shadow government.
September 4th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Boo to litmus tests to hold office. I don't doubt you, but I don't like it either.
September 4th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Probably the worst premier in the history of Canada's largest province though.
September 5th, 2011 at 5:50 am
More practical hurdle than a litmus test…having another option on the left means that hardliners on the question (whom most younger Canadians are) can simply move to the NDP.
September 5th, 2011 at 7:43 am
Rae might be the man for the job, but we must remember elements of the Liberal coalition need to be strengthened first before they can start picking off segments of the NDP. If Rae tries to appeal to the more left wing groups too much, it is quite possible the remaining right wing faction of the Liberal Party could just walk right over to the Tories. At this point the blue Liberals and Tories really aren't that different.
September 5th, 2011 at 8:29 am
What can the Liberals learn from the NDP? I would phrase this question differently. How can the Liberals become competative, once again, in Quebec?
Surely attempting to establish ties with the Quebec Liberals and running some of their candidates in national elections would not be a bad start.
September 5th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
“health care” — what, like the Medicare created by the NDP?
September 6th, 2011 at 12:20 am
I miss the Savagites. Don't they have any opinions about Bob Rae and the Liberal Party?
September 12th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Nope. Like many troll-floods, they'll only comment where directed and not even look at the rest of the site's content.