The Liberal Party of Canada clearly needs renewal, but what it provided on Sunday amounted largely to a series of smug declamations about the wonderful legacy of the Chrétien and Martin governments. The debate was burdened by the notion that the Liberals are right on just about everything, from the Kelowna accord to the Kyoto Protocol, and that Stephen Harper's Conservatives are wrong on about just about everything. Stéphane Dion, in particular, wore his Liberal pride on his chest. The only problem with this is that Canadian voters have already rejected the underlying premise. Liberal delegates are not meeting to elect an archivist to lovingly husband the party's legacy. They are not seeking to rekindle old friendships. They are after new leadership and new ideas. Hope springs eternal that one of the candidates might eventually show some.
This time, of the four leading candidates, only Gerard Kennedy desisted from the group hug. He rejected complacency and argued that Liberals have to rethink their policies. Yet while he had the wit to identify the issue of renewal, he hasn't yet revealed the intellectual heft needed to be the one who can bring it about.
This editorial echoes my concerns coming out of the last debate. I winced everytime I heard someone speak with pride about the past record. I realize that Liberal partisans might see it as confidence to point out the past accomplishments. However, this sentiment shows a clear detachment from the electoral reality. Rightly, or wrongly, the general population now sees the Liberal legacy as one of entitlement, corruption, arrogance and lost opportunity. The lack of a viable alternative masked the dis-satisfaction, allowing Liberals to think all was well. As I've said before, if not for hesitation about Harper, the Liberals would have been wiped off the electoral map in historical fashion.
I have voted for several parties throughout my life, but what pushed me to join the Liberal Party was the sense that reform was on the horizon. The idea of real renewal and a progressive agenda was attractive. However, I must say that this ideal is fast becoming empty rhetoric, that lacks any urgency. I don't want to hear about the terrific Liberal record on the environment, because it insults my decision to vote NDP last election, precisely because I couldn't endorse such an utter failure on an issue I hold as primary. The truth- there is virtually no concrete evidence to support Dion's thesis that the Liberals were ready to pounce on the environmental front. If I were a Conservative strategist I would be licking my chops at the prospects of facing a Liberal Party that had the audacity to brag about their environmental record- all that record does is give the Conservatives a relative pass on an issue that should be their achilles heel.
Jean Chretien kept us out of Iraq, and we should all be thankful. On that score, I have no qualms with Liberals reminding Canadians of the record. However, please don't take this stand as evidence to support the bigger thesis of what a wonderful government we had. The names Chretien and Martin should rarely be mentioned, because frankly they are a turnoff for everyone, except diehard partisans. Every cell of the Liberal being should be dedicated to the future, moving forward with new ideas. If Ignatieff proposes that we need to go farther on the environment, we should embrace that mentality and resist defending half-measures as though the holy grail.
Where were the questions on renewal in the last debate? Why was it left to Kennedy to mention the absence in his close? The fact that no one felt it essential to dedicate part of the debate to this question has left me wondering if Liberals actually get it. Tinkering around the edges won't do, a massive overhaul is required to be truly relevant. Is it because Harper has stumbled that renewal is on the backburner? Are people really so arrogant to assume that can get away with half-measures and argue that entitles a return to power? If Liberals don't accept their rejection and look outside the comfortable esoteric womb, then they shouldn't be surprised when Harper wins another mandate. Guess what, Canadians aren't misty eyed about past Liberal accomplishments, in fact they are mostly repulsed. It is important to seperate partisanship from the greater reality, because I see a disconnect that clouds judgement.
UPDATE Another point of view.
13 comments:
I have voted for several parties throughout my life, but what pushed me to join the Liberal Party was the sense that reform was on the horizon.
me too!!!!!
"It is because Harper has stumbled????"....according to who? The Liberal/socialist media who conducted a socialist media sanctioned poll? In spite of CBC, CTV, the Grope & Flail and the Red TO Star's best efforts to go so far as inventing straw men about the Conservatives; I think the Canadian public is a lot smarter these days. When reporters are married to Liberal campaign chairs and "renewal" Liberals; when the accountability act which would allow audits on pet Liberal slush funds Canadians can see protectionist tactics in all of the hysteria to attack the Conservatives.
Fooled us once, twice, three times...sheesh even four and five times.
As the old dinosaur media Red Rags start to fall replaced by interactive media where we can see entire interviews rather than carefully edited sound bites; where I can get news releases and speeches from the government directly in my in box it is getting much harder to "fool the people". Why do you think Castro and China and North Korea to name a few censor and control the media? Because the media is used to control the people. Now that the Liberals don't have a monopoly there is a new century dawning - and if the Liberals are still stuck in the past you will not be invited.
"where I can get news releases and speeches from the government directly in my in box it is getting much harder to "fool the people"."
Goebbels would be proud.
You have repeated a myth that Chretien kept us out of Iraq. He did not. The United Nations kept us out of Iraq. Chretien was very clear back then that we support our allies but only with UN support (notwithstanding his commitment to go into Kosovo and Bosnia despite UN approval).
So you can thank Kofi but not Jean.
The last election was more about renewal of our political system than an endorsement of the New Conservatives. Harper plugged into that with his promise not to continue with politics as usual. Now that he's proven it is politics as usual with a new Republican (Old Mike Harris) mind control twist. If the Liberals are really serious about renewal and can make good on that promise they have a chance to jump into the void and change the political dialogue. But Rae, Ignatieff and Dion are just doing the same old dance and the Tory attack ads are already waiting to go on air. Gerard Kennedy talks to voters like a human being not like a human propaganda machine (for an excellent example see "Shannon" above) and voters are ready for that.
"The last election was more about renewal of our political system than an endorsement of the New Conservatives."
Bingo.
Le Vert and Rachel have it bang on. We do need the renewal, Steve's victory had NOTHING to do with widespread support of his policies, and Gerard Kennedy is the only leading candidate that can deliver the renewal we need and, therefore, the government we desire.
G
PS Shannon - wtf?! overabundance of information makes it easier, not more difficult, to fool the people, who have been shown to withdraw from analysis and take refuge in only those outlets that support their preconceived notions. Which of the rags is your favourite, and which do you cast off as being useless, biased, socialist dominated tripe?
With respect, I disagree with you. The Liberals are the party that kept our social safety net from being dismantled by the IMF. Believe it or not there are non partisan Canadians that recognize that the reasons for the deep cuts in the first half of the Liberal 13 year rule was a direct result of extreme overspending by prior governments. Including I might add the doubling of the national debt and the deficit in the 9 year Mulroney government which proceeded it, and that when the Libs took over the deficit was around 42 billion dollars.
There are a lot of Canadian voters that have as their primary focus the economic health of this nations and who recognize that the only way to have sustainable social welfare programs requires a sound economic footing and sensible fiscal policies by the government. That is a legacy that Chretien/Martin created for the Libs since it was Trudeau that helped increase debt and deficit in the Lib government preceding Mulroney's. There are Canadians that will remember all this, and if the Libs are not willing to take pride in these measures and instead allow the NDP and CPC to paint them as being driven by nothing more than mean spirited deception by the Libs in the 90s then the Libs lose an important piece of political territory.
Now, the Libs have not exactly done a good job of explaining this point, and they do have serious issues on the ethical/scandal side of the ledger, and that does need reform/renewal. I think though it is equally important for the Libs to not toss the baby out with the bathwater here. It is also important to remember that at least some of the soft CPC vote was due to scandal, but also that some of it was drawn by the promise of better economic vision and policy by the CPC, especially with their tax cuts over all approach. What Libs need to do is remind Canadians of the value they get for their taxes and why simplistic approaches to tax policies and other economic policies is actually harmful to the nation and it's citizens instead of letting the American imported notion of government=evil and tax cuts are never bad prevail.
So I see nothing wrong with taking pride in that accomplishment along with not breaking our international reputation of fighting in wars/conflicts without UN authorization and making us a party to unprovoked aggression in Iraq. Part of the strategy of Harper's CPC is to make the word Liberal as despised in Canada as it is in America. I see no reason to aid them in that mission. If Liberals are ashamed about the things they did right and decide it is more important to sacrifice them instead of taking pride and defending them it will add to the argument that Liberals have no principles save power and they blow in the winds of political expediency.
It is not an easy line to walk I grant you, and I have not been overly encouraged by any of the leadership candidates on that. I mean really, if the 13 years of Liberal government was so bad, how is it the economy was in good shape, the government's books were in good shape, and the overall national economy was in good shape? Yes, there are ethical and corruption issues that need to be addressed and dealt with, but there were also some fairly good policies and actions taken by the Liberal government as well that should be marked with pride. It is also an important tool to refute the Harper/CPC mantra of their government doing more of "x" in six months than the Libs in 13 years. That is a simple catchphrase and one that repeated often enough without vigourous challenge could well become accepted/conventional wisdom, and if that happens that is a major impediment for the Libs coming back to power and defeating Harper.
scotian
Points taken. You raise something which is relevant and should be applauded. Historically, it has always been Conservatives that were supposedly the fiscally mature, while Liberals had been equated with excessive spending and deficits. The greatest legacy of the Liberal regime might be merging sound fiscal policy with progressive ideals. The Liberals have credibility on economic matters, have distanced themselves from the Trudeau legacy, as a result of Martin's years in finance. Liberalism and sound fiscal policy are no longer mutual exclusive propositions, and on that point Liberals can rightfully crow.
Steve V:
Exactly, which is why the rewriting of history on this topic by the Harper CPC and the Layton NDP (each in a manner that panders to their base, the CPC is Libs spend too much on useless programs to enrich themselves and their allies and the NDP in claiming the Libs want Canadians to suffer proven by the cuts in the 90s) is dangerous, fallacious, and needs to be opposed. The Liberal record is more a mixed bag then the total negative the CPC/NDP want to portray it while not being the glowing image of perfection some diehard Lib partisans would have people believe.
What needs to be done is to defend those policies and decisions which confirm the credibility of the Libs in creating sound policy that tends to survive Charter challenges, demonstrated sound economic management, a distinctly Canadian foreign policy, while showing remorse for the sins of excesses which can happen to any party in power for an extended period. The CPC is providing a lot of ammunition to do this with with their revisionist history, but as we all know revisionist history that is not strongly refuted tends to become a political truth regardless of the actual truth/facts of the matter.
I worry about this sort of thing because it is one of the more potent tools the GOP used to destroy the good name of the Dems/left in America, and the CPC appears right on track towards trying to do the exact same thing. Thankfully the Libs do have that record of economic management from the 90s, but if Libs are afraid to point proudly to it (possibly in fear of reinforcing the Layton NDP claim that this proves Libs are not serious about social programs) because of it maybe costing them votes on the left then this record becomes an albatross instead of the benefit it properly is.
I am glad that you found my arguments and points worth considering Steve V, especially since I was speaking in opposition to the thrust of your post. Which of course indicates yet again one of the main differences I find between CPC blogs and progressive blogs. That being one makes a sound argument which refutes/disagrees with the substance of the post gets serious consideration by the blog operator instead of simply slammed for daring to disagree with the insightful brilliance of the blogger. (The main reason I do not comment at Conservative blogs aside from BBG is for this reason, I tried and instead of thoughtful disagreement I got standard political polemics and personal insults) Again, thank you for showing me yet again that my view of this blog is accurate, especially since I recommended it (unlike my own which I recommended against given my spotty posting record) to Canadian Cynic as one that the American Liberal Oasis should have as an example of a good Canadian liberal/progressive/left leaning blog.
Let's talk about renewal.
What conditions have to be met before we can say that the party has been renewed? A pretty new face is not enough I'm afraid.
What is needed is 1) Substance 2) The ability to unite the party 3) The ability to draw attention from outside the regular rank and file.
1) Substance:
Dion's 3 pillar platform ( focussing on the environment, economy and social justice) speaks most directly to the future of the liberal party.
Throughout the 20th century the liberal party worked for social justice and economic prosperity. But as Dion has pointed out those two essentials must now be joined by a third one, environmental stewardship.
Here's just a small sampling of what Dion proposes to do:
- Green the Health Care System
- Build Renewable Energy throughout the Nation
- Make sure that all Ministers are green and that all deputy ministers also know their careers depend on that
- Use 5% of domestic spending on R&D to focus on the needs of developing countries emphasizing the environment and health problems
- Commit to limiting urban sprawl
etc. etc.
I've said it before, this is the way governments are going to have to work in the 21st century. Some of us are just a little ahead of others in recognizing this.
2) Uniting the party:
Said former MP for Burlington Paddy Torsney, “Unlike other candidates, [Dion] doesn’t sharply divide the electorate. People like him and, more importantly, they trust him.”
Dion is not a polarizing candidate. His centered policies can unite the left and the right of the "big-tent" party. Pretty simple but also essential to a reinvigorated party.
3) Drawing attention from outside the regular rank and file:
What's also very interesting is that support for Stephane Dion seems to be coming from Canadians of all political stripes. Both Elizabeth May and Jack Layton were heard praising him and his integrity not that long ago. But David Orchard also supports his candidacy. So too do other conservative voters (particularly green conservatives) who would likely be swayed by Dion's run for PM.
Dion's support crosses political spectrums and that's important to take note of. I know that much of the attention will be devoted to narrowing the focus on the delegates over the next few weeks. But if we want to build a renewed party we'll need to choose a leader more people can support. Getting the attention of people who are outside the regular rank and file of the liberal party is a big plus.
scotian
Thanks for the recommendation, much appreciated :)
jeremy
Good to hear the Dion defense, nicely argued.
This just shows how off the media has been. How is Kennedy the only one rising above this, when in fact it was Ignatieff that directly endured, and brought out, Dion's big slap on the back outburst.
Post a Comment