Ravenwood

The purpose of this thread was to discuss ideas that might form the basic philosophical foundation for the Liberal Party of Canada; a cohesive set of principles that will help guide the formulation of a policy platform that the party can offer to Canadians in the next election. In an earlier post, I put forward 3 basic philosophies as a suggestion: 1. Open, liberal markets. 2. Progressive government. 3. Socially liberal values. While some of those 3 philosophies are certainly shared by the other 2 national parties, I think it's fair to say that neither of them would stand behind all three. If not, then there is a philosophical vacancy that the Liberals can fill. ------------------------ If you can agree with the 3 philosophical attitudes listed above, then the next step is to come up with a practical policy platform. As August1991 puts it – "providing policies that people want". A policy platform that sits comfortably within the political philosophy of the party that voters can either accept or reject. But to really make a splash, and capture the imaginations of the electorate, that platform needs to include a 'big vision'. As Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe & Mail puts it – "Think big. Come up with ideas that transcend ideology and region; ideas that will tie Canada together and make it fairer and more productive; do not be afraid to challenge verities; always speak to tomorrow." The Liberals used to offer this sort of vision, whether it was the establishment of our universal health care system, or the affirmation of a Just Society in the Charter. The Conservatives have done this with, first, Free Trade, and more recently, their Arctic sovereignty agenda. The Liberals could learn a thing or two from this. Here is another such idea… (Y'all are gonna love this…) A National Energy Pro- Wait! Let me finish! Yes, a National Energy Program, but not your father's National Energy Program. Allow me to explain – Energy – if you'll pardon the expression – is power. Canada, by virtue of its geography and resources, is already one of the top producers of energy in the world. Making Canada the energy super power of the 21st century could become the 'big vision' of the Liberal Party. We can do this by adopting a program that would make strategic investments in energy infrastructure. To be clear – I'm not suggesting the nationalization of the industry. Rather, I'm suggesting a strategic partnership between private industry and the federal government that goes beyond what the Conservatives are offering, to ensure Canada remains at the forefront of global energy producers. I'm suggesting that the Liberals make energy infrastructure investment their big idea. It would be a program similar in nature to McDonald's railway construction of the 19th century, or Eisenhower's interstate construction of the 20th. Examples of infrastructure investment might include oil and gas pipelines to either the west coast or the US market; better electrical grids to ensure Quebec's hydro power can better reach a variety of markets, such as New England; investments in projects such as the lower Churchill Falls; investments in R&D for sustainable energy; upgrades to our nuclear power plants; etc; etc… Pros and Cons Environmentalists will make the argument that Canada is ransacking the environment. Possibly. But by virtue of being a major investor in these projects, that guarantees the Canadian government a seat at the table when it comes time to ensuring oversight, and the protection of our environment. The very notion of a Liberal-sponsored energy plan will have the west up in arms. If this was a reincarnation of Trudeau's energy plan (which was basically a redistribution of wealth from the west to the east) I'd agree. But it's not. If anything, this plan should be very well received by the oil interests in the west, as it's an investment in the infrastructure needed for them to grow their industry to its full potential. In actual fact, I would view this plan as an opportunity to re-build some of the bridges that Trudeau's policy burnt to the ground. And by doing so, re-establish the Liberals as a viable option in the west. Just some crazy thoughts.

I certainly agree that Harper has moderated his message since his days at the National Citizens Coalition, and the infamous Firewall letter. He's managed to build a party that allies Alberta with central Canada. But the same could have been said of Mulroney's tories. (Replace Quebec with Ontario, and the electoral dynamics are quite similar.) The real test will be, can Harper succeed in keeping this alliance together over the long term? Mulroney could not. And if you know your Canadian history, you know that the west has traditionally been at loggerheads with the 'eastern bastards'. It will be interesting to watch.

I wonder if the opposite might in fact be true. Now that the Conservatives have finally reached the promised land of majority government, I wonder if we are going to see the restraints of rigid party discipline begin to loosen, and the far right wing of the party (which until now had been effectively muzzled by Harper's rigid control) begin to emerge. Certainly, with the stability of a majority government, there is going to be pressure within the party to finally implement some of the old Reform platform. Otherwise, what was the point of destroying the old Progressive Conservative party? "Liberal, Tory, same old story", I believe was the slogan adopted by Preston Manning. Likewise, Layton runs the risk of alienating the ideological left of the NDP if he moves too drastically towards the centre. I think Ignatieff might have been right - the best way to demonstrate the need for a centrist Liberal party might just be 4 years of Conservative majority government, with an NDP opposition.

I think it's a great analogy. Both the retail chain and the party were Canadian institutions that over time lost their dominance. Eaton's died. The Liberals are at risk of doing so. There are a lot of parallels to be seen here... I've been trying to contact my Liberal riding association, but there doesn't seem to be any way to do so. (Granted, they just went down to defeat to the Conservative candidate, but even still - have they completely closed up shop?) Where is the 'customer service'? The Liberals do not seem to have the same 'army on the ground' that the Tories do. (Not enough employees walking the aisles.) They are not offering a compelling 'vision' (or 'product', to use the Eaton's analogy). And they are perceived to be the party of higher taxes (or higher prices, to continue with the analogy even further). I think August's analogy is dead-on.

August, I believe that is where we're disagreeing. Your contention seems to be that Liberals need to focus on the practicalities of winning some more seats, and should therefore spend most of their energies on answering "the critical question of where in Canada they can win some ridings." While I agree with you that they need to expand beyond their current urban base, I'm suggesting that this can only be achieved once they've answered those fundamental questions about principles. Otherwise, the old accusation of "Liberals only stand for winning office" will continue to ring true. That's the point of the thread - discussing what those principles ought to be. (Indeed, it may well be that in discussing that question, it becomes clear that the current philosophy behind the party is simply not marketable beyond that urban base. In which case, if the party hopes to survive, it will need to adapt its principles. That, or concede that they are dinosaurs, and slowly wither away.) One other thing - please don't confuse the importance of principles with the importance of picking a leader. Shwa used a good analogy: Principles are at the foundation of a party, while a leader, while obviously important, is more akin to 'the roof'.

If people who voted for either the NDP or the Conservatives in the last election can find some common ground with the political attitude outlined above, I don't see this as a problem. Indeed, it goes without saying that if the Liberals hope to ever find themselves back in office again, they're going to have to attract some of these very same voters back. Thanks for the comment - I was beginning to think no one else was going to post any ideas on the subject. I look forward to hearing some of yours.

The question of centralization or decentralization is a tricky one. (What political question in Canada isn't tricky?) Trudeau was clearly a champion of strong central government - ...but to be honest, I think he took centralism a bit too far, given the realities of the country. As a political entity, Canada is just too diverse to be effectively governed from an overwhelmingly centralized authority. The federation needs some give to it, or it risks flying apart. My own view is that the central government ought to be strong enough to ensure that it is capable of fulfilling its mandate and obligations (the 3 philosophies listed above) and beyond that, the various Canadian regions should be left to manage their own affairs.

What I'm hoping to set in motion here is a discussion of alternative political philosophies to the one currently being championed by the CPC - ie. conservatism. (A discussion of specific policy differences would, naturally, follow from this. I don't think we're quite there yet, but if I had to draw from recent experience, a national child care program would constitute such a policy difference.) Conservatism as a political philosophy tends to be suspicious of government action. Progressivism is most certainly a different political...attitude, for lack of a better word. On the subject of social conservatism vs. social liberalism, I think there are some very clear differences between what we're discussing here, and what some (not all, but some) members of the CPC would like to see. Harper is astute enough to keep social conservatism out of the official party platform, but the CPC is nevertheless home to social conservatives.

Yes, I quite agree. If you summarize that vision statement as... 1. Liberal Markets 2. Progressive Government 3. Social Liberal Values ...you will find agreement with Conservatives on point 1, and agreement with New Democrats on points 2 and 3. So far as I can tell, no other party is presenting Canadians with a vision that offers all 3. Therein lies the opportunity for a "unique selling proposition", and the ground on which the Liberals can firmly plant their flag.

My real hope in all this is that the party will spend some time to seriously reflect on what it stands for. So if I can help foster some discussion on that front by presenting some ideas to local grass roots Liberals, I suppose I should. I don't mind being told I'm naive.

Here's a start... The Liberal Party should stand for the following fundamental beliefs: 1. Liberal Markets. Liberals believe that free, liberal markets are the most productive and efficient means of creating wealth and prosperity. As an extension of this, Liberals believe in free trade, and the notion that competition ensures an efficient, productive, robust economy. 2. Progressivism. Notwithstanding its belief in a liberal economy, the Liberal Party maintains that the state has a vital, progressive role to play in it. Liberals believe that the role of government is, first, to provide a fair, rules-based regulatory environment. Second, to curb the worst excesses of the open market by ensuring a social safety net for those dislocated by or unable to function within it. Third, to provide impartial oversight to ensure the integrity and protection of our environment and institutions. Fourth, in instances of market failure where the private sector is unable to meet demand, the state should come forward to meet it. Fifth, that the state should be a primary investor in the building blocks of a competitive, world-class economy – health, education, and infrastructure. 3. Social Liberalism. Liberals believe in tolerance, respect for individual rights and freedoms, social justice, multi-culturalism, freedom of speech, and of the press, and democracy.

A common criticism of the Liberal Party is that it has lost its moral compass. It's alleged that the Liberals don't stand for anything more than keeping themselves in office. As such, the party has lost touch with Canadians. Certainly, the historic loss on May 2 would seem to confirm this. Since the election, there has been a lot of talk about the need to rebuild the party from the ground up. A key (critical?) part of this process involves coming to terms with what it means to be a Liberal. Basically, what does a Liberal stand for? If you were to write the party's manifesto, what would it say? What would it include? What should a Liberal stand for?

I think we're still not seeing the forest for the trees... The Liberal Party has - arguably - been slowly collapsing since 1984. It has nothing to do with the leader. Under Trudeau, the Liberal Party had a clear agenda. (The Just Society.) Since that time, the party has lost its purpose, and the first order of business is to find it again. Say what you will about Harper and the Conservatives, but they've been very successful in articulating what they stand for. (That being, the establishment of 'conservatism' as the mainstream political philosophy in Canada.) You might not agree with what they stand for, but nobody has any doubt about what it is. Job # 1 = getting the party organized again. Once again, I'll point to the Conservatives as an example of how to do this. When they were wallowing in the opposition wilderness, they spent a lot of time re-building their grass roots support. Over several years, policy positions were hashed out during countless meetings and town halls. This process accomplished 3 main things: 1. It gave the party a policy agenda with which to rally the troops. A "moral compass", if you will. 2. It offered an opportunity to organize its followers and supporters - which is the single most important reason the Conservatives are so much better funded today - they're organized! 3. By listening to its constituents, it made the Conservative faithful feel they had a real stake in the party and its agenda. Job # 2 = Only once the party has rebuilt its organization and established its political philosophy - the positive message it will offer to voters as an alternative to conservatism - only then should it begin to contemplate who will lead it. It's a giant task, but the one luxury the Liberals have is time.

Surely the question of leadership is a bit premature? Rushing into a leadership race now is essentially putting a fresh coat of paint on the creaking Liberal house. The Liberals need to step back, take a deep breath, and decide what it is they actually stand for. What vision of Canada will they offer Canadians in the next election, that's distinct from both the Conservatives and the NDP? (To continue with the creaking house analogy, they need to re-pour the foundation.) If they can't answer that question with conviction, they're not going to find any traction with the electorate. They won't find any traction because the assumed answer will be "The Liberals stand for getting re-elected, and will say or do just about anything to do it." Personally, I think the Liberals should stand for something more than that.