So, the question, are the Liberals really dead? Truth of the matter, we just might be, but that recognition isn't necessarily as dire as the acknowledgment would seem to suggest. See, I believe looking death squarely in the face doesn't allow for delusional comforts, it's stark, it's urgent, it scares the shit out of you. People who have had a near death experience often have an epiphany of sorts, and it is here where the Liberals can come back from the white light, if the prescription is right.
The reality demands a utter REVOLUTION within the Liberal Party, aggressive positions, seismic internal reforms that present a new age democratic institution, a complete and utter overhaul, that can only be achieved knowing full well death is the alternative. My personal pessimism has been fueled by a complete inability to truly recognize the circumstance, the whole plan seems to be predicated on the external hope the NDP fail which is the stuff of gambling. Susan Delacourt makes a terrific point about old stories, "you had to be there", to which I'd add a culture of ambition, wherein social climbing tends to trump a necessary HIVE mentality.
Look, the Liberals are dead as door nails unless somebody pours icy water on the whole appartus and mindset. To my mind, in this one instance, we very much are looking for the "messiah" leader, because we need a lightning rod, some place to put the revolutionary spirit, someONE to implement the necessary reforms, someONE that can speak above the competing chatter and still lingering appeasements. Liberals need the vehicle, while it's true that leaderitis has plagued us in the past, if EVER the sentiment was justified, now is the time. We need an insurgent, and hopefully this objective talk of death allows for a hero's welcome.... It's the only way, apart from waiting on some LUCK to come our way. We might be dead, Liberals need to start everyday with that morning thought.
30 comments:
Came to this post via Susan Delacourt's article.
I find your prescription for revival, a "messiah" leader, to be an odd choice. It seems to confirm criticisms of the Liberals that "they don't stand for anything but the exercize of power." With a messiah leader, people will flock to the Liberals not for the principles espoused but for the perqs of power dangled from his/her coattails. Internecine battles like Copps/Valeri are inherent to such a system, not an unfortunate side-show.
In short, your solution is to re-create the hollow shell that has already been exposed. The CPC and NDP are succeeding because they start with principles and ideals that are then articulated by leadership. Harper has been called many things, but messiah is not one of them. Jack Layton has died, yet the NDP are not riven by an existential crisis. Prinicples continue to drive them. And by "them", I mean voters.
What principles drive voters to the Liberals?
If you bothered to read a little closer, I said I normally don't buy that type of prescription. However, in this instance, Liberals do need a galvanizing force. It's also a bit comical, when you consider that the NDP breakthough in Que was entirely a leader consideration, deep as a bird bath.
"If you bothered to read a little closer, I said I normally don't buy that type of prescription."
No need to descend to insult. I was not commenting on what you might 'normally' prescribe, but on what you are prescribing - a messiah leader a.k.a. what worked in the past but fails now.
The federal NDP Quebec caucus will be a challenge, but the brand still attracts support country wide, as demonstrated in recent provincial elections.
Insult? No, just clarifying you misrepresenting my view. I agree Libs have suffered in past from this mentality, but these are unique times and we need a commonality that lends itself to reform, a leader armed with bold ideas a good glue. Somebody has to articulate...
The situation is stark. The Liberals were competitive in Manitoba close to two decades back. Now the province is split between the Conservatives and the NDP.
It's difficult to make predictions. Who'd think the NDP would be in the situation they're in, or the Conservatives would be running a majority a decade ago? People just extrapolate trends. The party's on a downward line and obviously, things need to be turned around. Adapt or die.
As for leader, I want to see someone who can take criticism and is willing to work his/her/its butt off.
You don't need charisma, but hardwork has helped politicians like Harper and McGuinty win elections.
Insult? No, just clarifying you misrepresenting my view.
You wrote:
To my mind, in this one instance, we very much are looking for the "messiah" leader
I wrote:
I find your prescription for revival, a "messiah" leader, to be an odd choice.
How did I misrepresent your view? You think this messiah will bring revival, but I think it would be more of the same.
The Libs need a leader who can articulate a NON-continental corporatist agenda, based on liberal political philosophy.
Brookfield Asset Management, the company that owns the park involved in Occupy Wall Street is a case in point, the chairman of the board is Frank McKenna, former Lib Premier of NB, and a major right wing continental corporatist, along with John Manley.
If kinder gentler corporatism is all the Liberals have left, then they have nothing left.
The party should have been ahead of the democracy curve, instead they failed to embrace renewal in the last election, because they became irrelevant.
No more abiding by consortium rules for debates.
Corporations need to lose all rights of personhood, which they gain by being taxed, liberals must also alter the ways and means by which they operate, like getting rid of non-voting shares, by making corporations accountable, by ending conglomerate control of media.
Genuinely free enterprise and liberal democracy cannot co-exist with corporatism, corporatism is a form of licensed gangsterism.
Liberalism MUST be rooted in personal liberty, from the state, from corporations, even from unions,while still allowing freedom of association, and the way and means can be found in the cooperative movement.
Government as credit union, member owned and operated.
Harper has been called many things, but messiah is not one of them.
Without Harper's leadership, the Conservative party wouldn't be in power. Let's be honest about this.
The Reform party was compared to a cult of personality revolving around Preston Manning -- maybe true consider the split that happened when Stockwell Day took over. One of the things Harper did was to reform the Alliance and then make a pitch to join the PC and the Alliance into the Conservative party. Surprising enough, he won the leadership races of both parties in the first ballot -- meaning he had over 50% support.
As noted back in 2002, the idea that the Conservatives would win an election would be surprising. Harper. Especially considering Paul Martin was polling at over 50% at the start of his leadership.
But going back to the Liberal party, yes a leader is needed. For one thing, the party doesn't really have one. Bob Rae's an interim leader. It's a temporary job. Also, he wasn't picked by the rank and file.
And leaders are important. Not the most important things, but important. As seen with Harper, a leader can get different fractions to smarten up and work together. With Layton, we've seen how a charismatic leader can get people to vote for an MP without knowing who these people were. Anyone think that Ruth Ellen Brosseau would have become an MP without Layton? Or that Quebecers would have voted for the NDP without Jack? Here are some results on the difference Topp and Mulcair make in Quebec. There's a noticable difference between the two.
Screw it, leadership matters.
Prinicples continue to drive them. And by "them", I mean voters.
Does any party or leader have them? Flexibility wins more elections than it loses.
Back in 2002, Harper ran on the idea of smaller government, and changing the Canadian Health Act. Apparently, he wanted to create a firewall around Alberta, and even warned against forming alliances with the BQ.... Yeah, pretty much ditched on the way to the PM office.
Heck, Layton talked more about the homeless in 2004, but over time the focus became the middle-class. Did things suddenly improve for the homeless under Harper? Or did the NDP change tactics?
Maybe this lack of principles by all parties explains the steady drop in people voting from election to election. (Not data, just spitballing.)
What principles drive voters to the Liberals?
The idea that you don't have to vote left or right. That maybe both sides of the spectrum have some ideas that work.
The we can work together as a country.
Last election, it seemed as though all the parties had the country divided into regions. The Conservatives tried to spark fear in Alberta and Saskatechwan over regulations for the oil industry. The NDP and the Sherbrooke Declaration with its promise of asymmetrical federation for Quebec. Who really tried to appeal to us as a nation? No one in my opinion.
I am really sorry to have to say this Steve, but sometimes your posts as of late really drive me to want to rush to the nearest clinic for scrip of anti-depressants.
But then, I'm not a dyed in the wool Liberal partisan or squarely on any team--just that--anybody but Harper and at this poit, don't care who does it and how.
They say necessity is the mother of invention and now, given the loss of the per vote subsidy and Jack Layton's death, with the crop of NDP leadership hopefuls, which, if you ask me, is nothing more than an elaborate dog and pony show, because everybody knows, that Brian Topp will get it; it's really time to consider a merger. And the sooner the better. I honestly don't see Topp producing another Jackmania. He just doesn't have the stuff Jack Layton did. None of the candidates do.
I see many progressive bloggers of different partisan stripes talking long term plans of not the next election, but perhaps, just perhaps the next election. Yeesh! We can't even afford this Harper majority, let alone another one.
Look at what Harper and his cons have done and what they said they're planning to do in such a short time in their majority mandate. I shudder to think what Canada will look like come 2015. Really, I do.
Also, leadership matters a great deal, actually. Probably counts for 90% of the whole enchilada. We all know that when folks actually do show up at the polling station, they're not voting for their favourite candidate they think will represent their riding. They're voting for the leader and/or perhaps their favourite party, but consideration for party, more often than not, comes a distant second for voters.
Bottom line for me is that I don't think either party can beat Harper the next election all by their lonesome, but together, they actually have a shot.
sharonapple88: "Who really tried to appeal to us as a nation? No one in my opinion."
I don't think that can ever be done, honestly. Meech Lake Accord taught us that. French Quebec doesn't understand English Canada and vice versa. their needs, culture and priorities are not compattible with each other much of the time.
It will be further divisive when Harper adds those 30 seats to Ontario, Alberta and BC, and count on him to redraw that map in a way those new seats will ensure 30 extra con seats.
The Top is one thing that is driving us down. When we get a new President in January, he better be neutral, not a Chretien or Martin person. The top should be pared down and the Roots will grow. We were the Grits long ago , and we need that now.
Don't be sorry, I honestly see not merit in optimism just for the sake of it. As a matter of fact, until we dispense with "hope", we won't get to the crux.
Yes, unless we have some reconfiguration, Ill put money on Harper governing most of this decade.
Sharon
You should start a blog, liblogs needs more voices.
Sharon:
I agree that leadership matters (as per your example of Harper with the old Reform/Alliance). I didn't mean to come across as thinking it irrelevant. In fact, your example of Harper reviving his party from being 'personality driven' shows the weakness of a "messiah" type leader.
Your 10:50 post leaves me scratching my head. It sounds like a "we're not the other guys/gals" policy. Not really inspiring, and not something that a strong leader would really want to lead.
For me, the call for a "messiah" leader is nothing more than a call for a 'personality cult' party that will not survive the exit of the leader.
Some perspective. By the end of 1984 the Liberals were shut out of power everywhere. The PCs held power in the federal government and 7 provincial governments while the NDP, Social Credit, PQ held power in one provincial government each. By comparison, the Liberals today hold power in the the three largest provinces plus two Atlantic ones.
Nobody is saying we are dead, just that we "might" be, unless we some creative thinking, articulated by new voices that have some panache.
Wasn`t Michael Ignatieff an attempt by the party to install a Messiah. Stephen Harper was no Messiah, he was a builder. He won the leadership of the Canadian Alliance, then merged it with the PC party to create the Conservative Party of Canada and won the leadership of that. At this point it is his party.
The Liberal party needs a builder. Whether that person becomes Prime Minister or not at this stage is irrelevant for the party if it wants to survive.
Is Mike Holmes avaialable.
A builder needs to motivate workers, Harper was every bit the right's messiah, and their base that ponies up money no matter is a testament.
I've resisted the messiah stuff prior, but in this circumstance, without a compelling messenger you can do all the work you want, you won't get people to bother joining. We need an advocate who can reinvigorate and articulate just what modern liberalism means, to say we don't at this stage, simply doesn't appreciate the gravity. Canadians don't owe the Liberals jack squat.
Seems like everybody's groping at the same thing, here. Steve wants a leader, but Alan wants a leader who believes in things; one who isn't interested in power for the sake of power, but is trying to forward a vision of 21st century liberalism.
Those two things aren't incompatible at all. In fact, they make a lot of sense. Both Harper and Layton did what they did because they believe in something, and want to use the mechanisms of power to help bring that vision about. The vision may change somewhat in response to circumstance, but there's still a vision.
People like that. People respond to that. People want that. And, sorry, but "we aren't either left or right" isn't a vision. Heck, there's no such thing as a "vision" that has anything to do with the words "left" or "right". It has to do with what you want our country (or our province, or our city) to become.
That's one of the things people miss about McGuinty's victory. It wasn't just "mushy middle" and "strong leader" and "stay the course". He went to bat really hard for his renewable energy agenda, even though environmental issues have diminished as a public concern and even though it probably lost him Northern seats. That ain't the sort of milquetoast management that people associate with the word "Liberal party".
Whether or not you agree with him on solar contracts and wind farms, you have to grant that he has a goal and he's driving towards it. It's an admirable goal, it's an achievable goal, and it's a small-"l" liberal goal. I think it helped a lot more than people think.
So, yeah, Steve's right. Get a leader. But get one that has a real vision, along with the political knowledge and savvy to bring people along with him.
I don't think that can ever be done, honestly. Meech Lake Accord taught us that. French Quebec doesn't understand English Canada and vice versa. their needs, culture and priorities are not compattible with each other much of the time.
Hey, no one seemed to love the Charlottetown Accord. I guess French Canada and English Canada will always have that in common. If not we could always love hockey and hate Toronto together. ;)
This is going to sound horribly naive, but I keep on thinking that we all need to talk more as a nation. Talk and listen. No more two-solitudes, or to modernize it a bit, ten solitudes and three territorial solutides. At times it feels like we're hunkered down in regional bunkers thinking the worst of each other.
Everyone streotypes Alberta as being solid Conservative country, but Naheed Nenshi beat Conservative-backed candidates. Heck, there were probably some Wild Rose supporters who thought that Toronto finally got their head in gear by voting Rob Ford in. Maybe we all have more in common than we think.
Your 10:50 post leaves me scratching my head. It sounds like a "we're not the other guys/gals" policy.
No it's about breaking down the left-right divide on issues. I lean left, but I'd like less ideology and more drive towards solutions.
Side note: anyone following American politics? The left-right divide is preventing any real movement on issues. A few people have noted that the Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party have a few greviances in common. They didn't like the Wallstreet bailout, and they're worried about the middle-class. Should they try and work together? Maybe.
And yet...
An organization opposed to the Wall Street bailouts learns that a bunch of people are so mad that they're taking to the streets, partly because of the bailouts. Does it see an opportunity to win converts, or at least to cooperate on a narrow reform? Nope. They're on the other team, so "same-old, same-old."
It will probably just end up like this:
Yet both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street seem to be investing in a political approach where the strategy is to bring about a bigger triumph for Team Republican or Team Democrat.
Spinning wheels to get traction and end up doing nothing.
I would offer this observation: Throughout the Prairies, the Liberal brand goes through variations of dead, deader, and very dead. The Manitoba Liberals got whacked in the recent election, and bailiffs may soon be calling. The Saskatchewan Liberals don't have any seats, and are unlikely to win any next month. The Alberta Liberals are regularly trailing the NDP in the polls, and will be lucky to hang on to half their seats next election.
The NL Liberals were soundly beaten by the NLNDP in terms of vote count (and had to rely on concentrated support to win their 6 seats), and the Yukon Liberals lost Official Opposition status to … the NDP.
The BC Liberals and Quebec Liberals have only the loosest of ties to the federal party, having wisely seen it being as unwise to be linked closely to such an organization. Federal Liberals would (and do) recoil in horror at who the BC Liberals let into the party.
Even in Ontario, with a PC leader who was seemingly anxious to trip over his own shoelaces in the last provincial election, McGuinty could only manage a minority government (albeit by the smallest of margins). The only provincial majority Liberal government which bears some resemblance to its federal counterpart? PEI.
While you can dismiss at least some of it as being provincial politics only, a successful provincial exponent of your philosophy helps the federal party also. If your provincial cousins are fleeing for their lives, it's unlikely you'll do well in the next federal election.
Sharon: A few tea partiers have expressed some sympathy for OWS, and have stated their frustration with how their populist movement got hijacked by the paid apologists for the ultra-wealthy.
(They were also hijacked by the Republican party, but these days those are pretty much the same thing.)
One of the things Liberals need to do is recognize why things like OWS exist, and to start working on real solutions to those complaints. They aren't just an American problem—our income inequality numbers are almost as bad as theirs—and our relatively stable banking system isn't necessarily going to make a difference.
We have a 99% too, and if the Liberals want to matter, they need to address its needs.
Liberalism itself has very little media, no stream of journalists, the NDP have Rabble and all the online tv news via Democracy Now et al, the consolidation of corporate media around Rupert Murdoch's and co's agenda since the 1970's etc.
Liberals don't know what's going on because they no longer have a relevant news stream, they don't live in the zeitgeist, they have become insiders trading off corridors of power.
Time to talk ideas, time to see the real picture: we live in a neo-feudal guardian class age and yet
neo-liberalism
is a republican/libertarian theory about our political-economic system.
Liberal political philosophy is what we need, conversations about ideas, grapplings through their own news stream so they can determine for themselves what's going on and what to do about it.
Only then will the Liberal Party know what liberalism in this age is.
But for now, Harper downplays the occupy movement because of how well Canadian banks are regulated, no thanks to him.
Steve
You're wrong about Canadians not owing the Liberal Party anything, we have the charter of rights and freedoms. Harpercons don't like those.
Liberals have to fight for a corporate charter overhaul. A restoration of parliament, a restoration of cabinet government accountable to the rest of legislators...
Canadians owe a deep debt of gratitude to the most important Liberal in the last two decades, Peter Milliken. Get Milliken involved in leading the political philosophy discussions. What a great PM he would make for that matter.
In the meantime, the Harper remains on the wrong side of history, the majority of voters know he has a hidden agenda so
Bob Rae, should deconstruct that agenda over the next two years,
and that deconstruction, coupled with a philosophical and policy-based leadership campaign, will unfold into the next election, which is when Mr. Harper will finally understand just how far on the wrong side of history he is.
Liberals need to stand in occupied territory to find the radical centre, not sitting with Frank McKenna in Brookfield Assets.
sharonapple
the change of tactics by the NDP has to do with Levelers and Diggers,
to protect the underclasses, it is no longer enough to stand and defend with them,
the NDP needs the Levelers - the middle class - especially now that they are finally seeing that the 1% really do exist, and that a stand has to made against the Protectorate that has governed charter law since Cromwell, since the Hanseatic League, since Egyptian dynasties survived on pyramid schemes.
Ignatieff turned out to be a court prophet, and one whose predictions failed the test of time, a propped up, straw man who could not see democracy in Wisconsin even while following Milliken's wisdom and hauling Harper to the commons floor on contempt.
The Count failed because he failed to make a stand in his platform with by campaigning for democratic renewal . His Liberals lost because they failed the corporatist stink test.
It's renewal - hell - it's the creation of liberal democracy time now, or nothing of the Liberal Party of Canada.
I don't believe for a moment the Libs are finished, but whenever I see threads like this one, they seem to be dominated by calls to return to radical or progressive roots (or yearnings for Trudeau's second coming), which I interpret to mean surrender Harper's support to the Cons and try to squeeze the NDP. A few weeks ago, Steve called for a "radical" vision marked by legalizing pot and now he wants a messiah. (When will you people get over Trudeau?) But shouldn't you start by taking a hard look at the electoral map and figuring out the demographic you want to aim at?
Leaving aside Quebec, the electoral pranksters of Confederation nobody dares bet on, its not easy to see how the Dippers plan to grow. Apart from smallish traditional bases in industrial and Northern Ontario and the crunchy left coast, they are basically the party of the urban cores of large cities. The Cons pretty much own rural, small town, suburban and even small city ROC. Douglas's old rural Prairie base is gone and even Broadbent's fortress in Oshawa is now blue. How do you propose to crack that Tory monolith with a platform designed to steal Dipper urban votes? Or do you just want to mount a perpetual fight to be Leader of the Opposition?
The Libs were very smart to put the leadership contest off for so long, but it will be a waste if you just look for messiahs to lead the same old graying urban progressive types. Do you appreciate just how big the suburbs are, and do you know what their priorities are? Do you ponder the political, economic and social fallout from mind-boggling technological developments over the past thirty years? Do you ask yourselves why government has come to be so widely mistrusted before you call for more of it? Can you explain why scepticism over climate change continues to grow with every scientific confirmation it is happening? Do you think you know why so many of today's youth are so cynical and fatalistic? Do you just plan to let the messiah figure all that out?
I'm not saying you should turn right, because I'm not sure right/left means that much anymore, but isn't it rather obvious that if you are going to beat the Cons you have to grab a lot of Con votes? Jerry can keep repeating that Harper is on the wrong side of history, but after three straight wins that sounds more like a soul salve than the germ of a promising platform.
I don't believe for a moment the Libs are finished, but whenever I see threads like this one, they seem to be dominated by calls to return to radical or progressive roots (or yearnings for Trudeau's second coming), which I interpret to mean surrender Harper's support to the Cons and try to squeeze the NDP. A few weeks ago, Steve called for a "radical" vision marked by legalizing pot and now he wants a messiah. (When will you people get over Trudeau?) But shouldn't you start by taking a hard look at the electoral map and figuring out the demographic you want to aim at?
Leaving aside Quebec, the electoral pranksters of Confederation nobody dares bet on, its not easy to see how the Dippers plan to grow. Apart from smallish traditional bases in industrial and Northern Ontario and the crunchy left coast, they are basically the party of the urban cores of large cities. The Cons pretty much own rural, small town, suburban and even small city ROC. Douglas's old rural Prairie base is gone and even Broadbent's fortress in Oshawa is now blue. How do you propose to crack that Tory monolith with a platform designed to steal Dipper urban votes? Or do you just want to mount a perpetual fight to be Leader of the Opposition?
The Libs were very smart to put the leadership contest off for so long, but it will be a waste if you just look for messiahs to lead the same old graying urban progressive types. Do you appreciate just how big the suburbs are, and do you know what their priorities are? Do you ponder the political, economic and social fallout from mind-boggling technological developments over the past thirty years? Do you ask yourselves why government has come to be so widely mistrusted before you call for more of it? Can you explain why scepticism over climate change continues to grow with every scientific confirmation it is happening? Do you think you know why so many of today's youth are so cynical and fatalistic? Do you just plan to let the messiah figure all that out?
I'm not saying you should turn right, because I'm not sure right/left means that much anymore, but isn't it rather obvious that if you are going to beat the Cons you have to grab a lot of Con votes? Jerry can keep repeating that Harper is on the wrong side of history, but after three straight wins that sounds more like a soul salve than the germ of a promising platform.
the change of tactics by the NDP has to do with Levelers and Diggers,
to protect the underclasses, it is no longer enough to stand and defend with them,
Jerry, you might have a point here, but there's a concern that by focusing on the middle class we sort of lose focus on helping people worse off in society. Anyway, this was a point raised during the riots in France a few years back. The accusation has been made that the social programs just serves to strengthen the inequalties in France. Life is good if you live in the cities, which is where the rich and middle-class live. There are numerous government programs that can help you. Out in the suburbs where the poor live, things aren't so great. Not saying that there should be an either/or situation, but it's depressing to consider that we can create a society where the middle-class are helped but the lower-class are ignored.
Maybe we already have this problem already considering the state of Native groups in Canada.
You should start a blog, liblogs needs more voices.
Steve, I might if I ever get the courage too. :P
Jerry Prager said "Liberal political philosophy is what we need".
Absolutely.
I think Jerry's wrong about the lack of being in touch with the "zeitgeist", though. The Liberals do have people writing about them. If they didn't, this blog wouldn't exist, and Delacourt's choice of linking to this blog shows that the mainstream media is willing to listen.
They aren't going to be too interested, though, if it's just the same-old, same-old BS about "left" and "right" and "centre". That's an old story, and reporters like new stories.
A Liberal party that breaks out of the "left v. right" line and starts stating what it really believes in is exactly the sort of new story that's needed.
Steve, what the LPC needs is someone like Louise Arbour. A brilliant mind, a strong commitment to social justice and a fierce, fearless scrapper when required.
The trouble is, what remains of the LPC to attract that quality of leadership? The party hasn't reversed Iggy's legacy - its drift to the right. It doesn't want to address the great and threatening problems of the day - inequality and climate change. It rejects the progressive policies it needs to reconnect with the voting public.
You're right. It needs a goddamned revolution because what remains of it right now is revolting.
Post a Comment