What should the Left do?

[jdobbin]

There are no such things as surpluses in this context.

The correct term is "overtaxation".

So if the Tories go into deficit this year, we can call it undertaxation. Ot would you prefer overspending?

[Michael Hardner]

New battles? Gay marriage?

How is that comparable to falling unionization rates or falling median income statistics?

Michael, I don't think you reall appreciate the awkward confusion of Layton's schedule. He must go from a meeting of urban university students to a union hall and then a rural co-op. The modern North American Left is in an awkward position. Does it defend an individual's fundamental right to be different or does it defend victims against oppressors?

Uh... Gay marriage is an OLD battle. Even in the US, the beachhead has been secured and it's in the COURTS.

Falling unionization rates ? Is that the real problem or is it falling income ? And isn't income a concern for everyone ?

Layton's confused schedule is a reflection of the patchwork that is the NDP's core audience, otherwise known as "the converted".

The left WON the important battles of the 20th century, and they don't understand that.

[Wild Bill]

So if the Tories go into deficit this year, we can call it undertaxation. Ot would you prefer overspending?

Oh, I'm fine with overspending!

It's a sin of ALL parties! The argument comes over what they define as necessities and what others may call waste.

I admit that I don't see Harper's crew as quite as bad as some Liberal governments over the years but his crew are FAR from blameless!

After all, they ARE politicians, you know!

[BC_chick]

Come on down, BC Chick. You get picked.

I guess I bungled this thread and poll because it has taken a direction that I didn't foresee. Then again, maybe I didn't bungle it at all.

In my mind, in the past, the Left was like Robin Hood - it took from the rich and gave to the poor. Then, the (North American) Left realized that taking from the rich would never solve the problem. This Left embarked on protecting victims, the oppressed and changing the way these people view themselves.

For whatever reason, perhaps a lack of electoral success using these two approaches, the North American Left has recently come to defend minority rights: women, gays, lesbians, Muslims, pot smokers and so on. Gays (DINKs) are not poor and don't need tax breaks yet the NDP defends them. Why? Marijuana? Tommy Douglas or David Lewis would have said the world's poor and the NDP have more important questions than defending pot smokers.

So, I'm intrigued about this split in the North American Left between old-line socialists vs. libertarians. Whenever I see or hear Jack Layton (or Amir Khadir), I sense they're trying to be (boomer) hip, metrosexual supporting the right/freedom of individuals and women to choose. While at the same time, they're trying to support ordinary working families. I sense that they feel awkward in trying to combine both goals.

That was the idea behind my OP.

New battles? Gay marriage?

How is that comparable to falling unionization rates or falling median income statistics?

Michael, I don't think you reall appreciate the awkward confusion of Layton's schedule. He must go from a meeting of urban university students to a union hall and then a rural co-op. The modern North American Left is in an awkward position. Does it defend an individual's fundamental right to be different or does it defend victims against oppressors?

"The left" is an over-arching label, so in a way, yes, you did bungle the thread. Your explanation in the post above, however, does clarify your meaning.

The left has indeed veered from it socialist roots to social-activism, but IMO there is nothing "awkward" about such an alliance for today's left-wing politicians. The same phenomenon has happened for the "right" where fiscal-conservatives find themselves allied with the social conservatives. The two factions of the right may not share all the same ideology, but they have found a common goal.

Social and economic factions of both the right and left working together therefore seems to be a natural evolution in the postmodern bipartisan democratic world.

Having said that, I think the alliance between socialism and social activism is even more natural than an alliance between the religious right and fiscal conservatism. For instance, pro-choice and/or proponents of SSM do not hold animosity toward "hard-working families." That leaves the "awkwardness" a one-sided issue. Furthermore, tolerance is one of the fundamental pillars of today's "left" - therefore whether or not it's subconscious, hard-working families are being taught by their peers to respect others even if they personally do not agree with their lifestyles.

Compare that with social conservatives who preach morality as opposed to tolerance. Where "the left" is taught to respect opposing points of view, "the right" is taught that there is a universal truth to which we must all adhere. Where there is room to negotiate one's beliefs, there is room to find common ground. Social-conservatism, on the other hand, is synonymous with dogma.

As such, there is more incurable "awkwardness" amongst the politicians on the right than there is amongst the left. How do you reconcile two opposing views amongst your supporters when one side does not know the meaning of compromise?

[White Doors]

Furthermore, tolerance is one of the fundamental pillars of today's "left" - therefore whether or not it's subconscious, hard-working families are being taught by their peers to respect others even if they personally do not agree with their lifestyles.

So you are saying that the CHRC, BCHRC and the OHRC are right wing organizations?

[eyeball]

The left WON the important battles of the 20th century, and they don't understand that.

Sure they do, but what the left also understands is that a lot of the right still doesn't get it, here's today's case in point and here's another you can expect the right to rail against. No doubt there will be similar issues tomorrow and next week and on and on and on it goes. The left needs to guard against the right-wing's near constant efforts to effect a moral re-engineering of society - to retro-fit society with its cranky old vindictive justice systems, faith-based welfare and economic Darwinism. The environment has also failed to find any real advocacy on the right. Environmentalism has always put down better roots in a matrix of social principles and justice than the economic so-called 'theory's' of the right that seem to always result in expanding income gaps and further diminshment of natural capital.

Personally I think the real battle that's shaping up is the effort to make the state more transparent and less powerful in terms of its ability to bear down of the backs of the people. Law and order yes but not the vindictive crack-down and get-tough mentality of the right. If there is any ideology that understands the nature of authoritanism it's probably the left. Its been there and done that. The right just doesn't get it and I don't think it wants to.

I think what the left should do is challenge the so-called libertarians to seriously question their partnership with social conservatives. I think they're completely out to lunch if they think their principles will be sustained by them.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure they do, but what the left also understands is that a lot of the right still doesn't get it, here's today's case in point and here's another you can expect the right to rail against.

The first example is an excellent example of how the left DOESN'T get it.

The legality of birth control -> do you really think that this is an issue worth spending time on ? That's a 1960s argument and as I said, the left needs to move on.

Safe needle sites is a better example of how the left can present alternatives to a knee-jerk, emotive response and they have been doing just that. By showing that such sites are a practical way to reduce disease, they are building a rational argument for the existence of these sites.

[eyeball]

The first example is an excellent example of how the left DOESN'T get it.

The legality of birth control -> do you really think that this is an issue worth spending time on ? That's a 1960s argument and as I said, the left needs to move on.

No I simply used it as 1 case in point. The point I made is that the right still doesn't get it.

Safe needle sites is a better example of how the left can present alternatives to a knee-jerk, emotive response and they have been doing just that. By showing that such sites are a practical way to reduce disease, they are building a rational argument for the existence of these sites.

Not as fast as the right is building on its knee-jerk emotive responses.

I still think the real battle is for more transparent governance. It'll be the next quantum leap of social advancement and I'm afraid the right will have to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way.

[MontyBurns]

The left should go home because everything is done. The left can't make Canada any gayer or wimpier than they already have.

[jdobbin]

The left should go home because everything is done. The left can't make Canada any gayer or wimpier than they already have.

Yes, we have seen a few on the right become toe tappers.

[Michael Hardner]

No I simply used it as 1 case in point. The point I made is that the right still doesn't get it.

I realize that's what you were trying to do. But you inadvertently made my point.

Not as fast as the right is building on its knee-jerk emotive responses.

I still think the real battle is for more transparent governance. It'll be the next quantum leap of social advancement and I'm afraid the right will have to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way.

They've already been dragged quite a ways.

[August1991]

The left WON the important battles of the 20th century, and they don't understand that.

Huh?

The Left won the important battles of the 20th century?

That's not my view of history.