The Liberal Disease

[Keepitsimple]

Interesting article from Glen Perason, a Liberal MP. There are many Liberals like Mr. Pearson - who instinctively know what's wrong with the party.....but the "leadership" and backroom boys are still looking for a magic potion to get back into power......and won't allow the grassroots renewal that the Party is in such desperate need of.

.....snip

The blog begins with an assessment of historical liberalism, which rejected the traditional notion that people existed to benefit the state and argued that it’s the state that receives its legitimacy via the support of independent individuals.

Here’s the interesting part:

So much for this first history lesson. Putting it in today’s context, it would logically mean that the essential meaning of liberalism today would be found in the empowerment of the individual. Yet following a history as Canada’s “natural governing party,” today’s Liberal Party spends an inordinate amount of time talking about institutional politics and policy as opposed to the key role of the citizen as an agent of progress. One of our key weaknesses as a national party at present is our distance – physical, emotional, empathetic – from the average lives of citizens. Gone are the days when the Liberal Party could attract candidates from unions, social agencies, environmental groups, anti-poverty advocates, and even small business associations. This hurts, but it’s true.

Like it or not, today’s Liberal Party is often viewed as elitist, out of touch with daily pressures of average people and groups. Perhaps its having power that does this, because the Conservative Party itself has put increasing distance between itself and its grassroots base, much to the chagrin of many in the party.

Liberals must confront this peril of distance if they are again to achieve relevance. If the power of the individual is the true basis of Liberal philosophy, then just defending policy won’t cut it – we have to once again reach out and touch the individual citizen. American humourist Henry Mencken once observed, “The Liberals have many tails, and chase them all.”

And that indeed is our present predicament. We have a multitude of policies but no one philosophy; a plethora of concerns but no cause; an army of advisors but few advocates. We are at present a corporate idea with no citizens. It’s either back to the individual citizen or recurring years in the wildnerness.

I’m not sure I’d agree with Mr. Pearson that “average Canadian” equates with “unions, social agencies, environmental groups, anti-poverty advocates, and even small business associations.” Maybe Jack Layton’s average Canadian, but there are a whole lot of people in Canada who don’t fit that urban activist criteria. Maybe that’s why they feel ignored by the Liberals.

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/06/federal-mp-searches-for-antidote-to-liberal-disease/#more-5890

[Shakeyhands]

The really interesting part of this article is that Pearson feels (and rightly so)that he can say something on a public blog. Let's see a CPC MP do that!

[Keepitsimple]

Lorne Gunter, a former Liberal in the Trudeau government, offers some further comments relating to Mr. Person's writing:

Trudeau completed the transformation of the Liberals, begun by Pearson, from a party that believed in equality of opportunity (classic liberalism) to one that sought equality of outcome (socialism).

Unfortunately, he barks up the wrong tree when it comes to putting this observation into practice; he thinks the Liberals need to attract more unionists, social workers, environmentalists, anti-poverty activists and, maybe, small business leaders. Frankly, such advocates for special interests are typically as far removed from ordinary Canadians’ lives as the Liberals themselves. Joining forces with them would only reinforce the Liberals’ aloofness.

What the Liberals need are more supporters such as farmers, entrepreneurs, duck hunters and self-employed tradesmen.

Symptomatic of the Liberals’ remoteness is their demand for universal, government-regulated daycare versus the Conservatives’ policy of giving every family with children under six a tax credit they can use for whatever kind of child care they choose. That’s individual empowerment versus the Liberals’ faith in a big government solution.

It is unlikely the Liberals will ever break with the powerful and fashionable interest groups that control their caucus and drive their policy. But, as Mr. Pearson concludes, unless they somehow can reinvent themselves as the party of the individual, they are doomed “to recurring years in the wilderness.”

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/07/lorne-gunter-how-the-liberal-elites-lost-touch-with-canadians/#more-5951

[Shwa]

Being picky:

I’m not sure I’d agree with Mr. Pearson that “average Canadian” equates with “unions, social agencies, environmental groups, anti-poverty advocates, and even small business associations.” Maybe Jack Layton’s average Canadian, but there are a whole lot of people in Canada who don’t fit that urban activist criteria. Maybe that’s why they feel ignored by the Liberals.

National Post

The latter part of the quote was commentary by Kelly McParland of the National Post. Here is the actual link to Pearson's blog posting entitled 'Liberalism - The Power of One.

The problem with this commentary is the idea that Pearson is equating "the average lives of citizens" to mean "urban activitist." Pearson doesn't say that. In fact, McParland uses quotation marks in his commentary to make it appear that the phrase "average Canadian" is directly quoted from the blog posting. It isn't.

Other than McParland's dishonest commentary, the blog articles are very interesting as there are a series of posts on Pearson's take on Canadian Liberalism.

Good find Keepitsimple, thanks!

[Moonbox]

The problem with this commentary is the idea that Pearson is equating "the average lives of citizens" to mean "urban activitist." Pearson doesn't say that. In fact, McParland uses quotation marks in his commentary to make it appear that the phrase "average Canadian" is directly quoted from the blog posting. It isn't.

He's right. It's one of the reasons I don't like reading the Post. It was a pretty pathetic attempt to put a spin on something honest and fair that a Liberal wrote.

[Argus]

It's still a valid point, and a continuing problem. MPs are supposed to represent people to their party and the government. Instead, for the most part, they tend to be ambassadors to a given area from their party.

Far too many MPs are lawyers. Almost all of them are university graduates. Most come from the ranks of the upper middle class or upper class. There are very, very few "Ordinary Canadians" in Parliament, nor have their ever been.

And the question is should we want there to be? Would a parliament made up of store clerks, factory workers, dental hygienists, taxi drivers, cops, firemen, lab technicians, fishermen, loggers, sawmill workers, carpenters and secretaries have the ability to properly assess the complexities of bills they are being asked to vote on?

[August1991]

The latter part of the quote was commentary by Kelly McParland of the National Post. Here is the actual link to Pearson's blog posting entitled 'Liberalism - The Power of One.

Thanks Shwa, for the original link. It should have been in the OP.

The really interesting part of this article is that Pearson feels (and rightly so)that he can say something on a public blog. Let's see a CPC MP do that!

Pearson wouldn't be posting that if the Liberals were in power.

He's right. It's one of the reasons I don't like reading the Post. It was a pretty pathetic attempt to put a spin on something honest and fair that a Liberal wrote.

I don't agree and if anything, McParland is being too polite.

Pearson's little screed can be summarized in the last paragraph:

And that indeed is our present predicament. We have a multitude of policies but no one philosophy; a plethora of concerns but no cause; an army of advisors but few advocates. We are at present a corporate idea with no citizens. It’s either back to the individual citizen or recurring years in the wildnerness.

IOW, slice it as you will, Liberals want power.

As to Pearson's little history of "liberal thought" including the lead off with a quote by Krugman, I'll have none of it - certainly not from someone talking of the federal Liberal Party of Canada. Pearson presents an incoherent mish-mash of ideas that have little if anything to do with a political party that owes its electoral success to being able to unite disparate groups in a regional country.

[August1991]

From Lorne Gunter link above:

Sometime during the Trudeau years, the Liberals ceased to be the party of the individual and became the voice of special interests, the face of elitism.

The transformation began under Lester Pearson, when the Liberals launched huge new social programs — universal medicare and pensions — that were uncharacteristically collectivist for the party....

Unfortunately, he barks up the wrong tree when it comes to putting this observation into practice; he thinks the Liberals need to attract more unionists, social workers, environmentalists, anti-poverty activists and, maybe, small business leaders. Frankly, such advocates for special interests are typically as far removed from ordinary Canadians’ lives as the Liberals themselves. Joining forces with them would only reinforce the Liberals’ aloofness.

What the Liberals need are more supporters such as farmers, entrepreneurs, duck hunters and self-employed tradesmen.

Oh cripes. The federal Liberals were just as elitist under King as under Chretien. Who remembers C. D. Howe? Or how about Clifford Sifton?

And what to make of this populist gimmickry? Marlene Jennings was an average person parachuted by Chretien into a safe Liberal riding - and she's now just a partisan hack.

----

I'd be the first person to argue that we must limit government spending and the power of the State but that doesn't mean we should eliminate all government spending, or that Stephen Harper should think about how each individual Canadian is affected by any government decision.

Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't know what Gunter's talking about and to me, Pearson is just pining about his party's loss of power.

[Remiel]

It's still a valid point, and a continuing problem. MPs are supposed to represent people to their party and the government. Instead, for the most part, they tend to be ambassadors to a given area from their party.

Far too many MPs are lawyers. Almost all of them are university graduates. Most come from the ranks of the upper middle class or upper class. There are very, very few "Ordinary Canadians" in Parliament, nor have their ever been.

And the question is should we want there to be? Would a parliament made up of store clerks, factory workers, dental hygienists, taxi drivers, cops, firemen, lab technicians, fishermen, loggers, sawmill workers, carpenters and secretaries have the ability to properly assess the complexities of bills they are being asked to vote on?

A question along similar lines I think is whether it would be possible to have a system that worked where exemplary " store clerks, factory workers, dental hygienists, taxi drivers, copes, firemen, lab technicians, fishermen, loggers, sawmill workers, carpenters and secretaries " were the sort of people who found their way into the Senate. It would be rather ironic in that the names of the houses, the " Commons " and the " Senate " would have reveresed functions.

[Remiel]

...slice it as you will, Liberals want power.

There is more than one way to want power, and more than one thing to want it for.

" What can we do to get power? " and " Why is no one giving us power? " are fundamentally different questions. It is the difference between wanting power for the sake of enjoying it, and wanting power for the sake of which it is given. After all, there is a sense in which anyone who accuses a politician of wanting power is incredibly stupid: the very job to which a politician aspires is the wielding of power; requires it. It is like accusing a fireman of wanting to put out fires.

[August1991]

Here's a recent quote from this MP's blog:

The liberal founders were right: the great institution in democratic life is the individual, and on that institution we will build our country – not on our designs as a political party. The institution of the empowered, enlightened and caring individual is the highest achievement of any just land, and it’s time the Liberals came back home to it.

Link

To my knowledge, Macdonald, Cartier and George Brown were the instrumental writers of the BNA Act and I don't know if I would characterize them as "liberal" or "Liberal" - possibly Brown. They wrote a document with numerous references to different religious groups or different calculations of seating based on geography - not the individual.

We have two official languages in Canada and recognize two legal systems - not based on individual choice. And by tradition, we have three Supreme Court seats reserved for justices schooled in the Civil Code while six seats are reserved for those from the common law.

The BNA Act contains no restrictions on the power of the State (that amendment would await Trudeau and his Charter of Rights). The BNA Act also (unlike the US Constitution) gives to the federal government all powers not specifically given to the provinces. (In the US, all powers not expressly given to the federal government are left to individual states, and any power not expressly given to the indiviudal states is reserved for the people.) These rae the so-called residual powers.

Edited July 7, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

" What can we do to get power? " and " Why is no one giving us power? " are fundamentally different questions. It is the difference between wanting power for the sake of enjoying it, and wanting power for the sake of which it is given. After all, there is a sense in which anyone who accuses a politician of wanting power is incredibly stupid: the very job to which a politician aspires is the wielding of power; requires it. It is like accusing a fireman of wanting to put out fires.

Whatever, remiel. I might appreciate your point if Pearson had a coherent point to make with some connection to Canadian history or the federal Liberal Party.

Instead, he appears to be thrashing around with the vague idea that if he sounds smart enough, people might think that he's thinking and will re-elect him. Or some such.

[Shakeyhands]

Pearson wouldn't be posting that if the Liberals were in power.

He wouldn't have a reason to post it if the Liberals formed the Government, however, the Liberals have never censored anything from any MP AFAIK. My point stands that the CPC (read: PMO) doesn't let their members say anything without prior approval and vetting.

[Wild Bill]

He wouldn't have a reason to post it if the Liberals formed the Government, however, the Liberals have never censored anything from any MP AFAIK. My point stands that the CPC (read: PMO) doesn't let their members say anything without prior approval and vetting.

How about the first same sex marriage bill, when the Liberals were still in power before the present Harper regime? During the prior debate many Liberal MPs were against the idea. Many were for it but claimed they would bow to the wishes of their riding constituents and vote against it. However, when the time came to vote the party flatly told them all to vote with it!

Is a total party whipping not censorship? I still remember watching the vote on tv. Many Liberals were so upset about being forced to vote the party line that they were openly crying in their seats! Still, not one dared break party ranks!

Yet today all anyone talks about is the vote Harper called on the issue! Harper at least let his MPs vote freely, even though it meant a decision with whitch most folks think he personally disagreed.

So Harper's the tyrant and the Liberals are the home of the free? Yeah, right! As Garth would say, "And monkeys will fly out of my butt!"

[August1991]

So Harper's the tyrant and the Liberals are the home of the free? Yeah, right! As Garth would say, "And monkeys will fly out of my butt!"

As long as I can remember, Canadian federal PMs are invariably called tyrants in one way or another, and the PMO is supposedly populated by control freaks.

There is some truth to the accusations even if they tend to take a more hysterical tone when a Conservative is in office. (I figure that the English-Canadian, Toronto media explains the hysteria.)

Who remembers now how Trudeau treated James Richardson? Has Harper done anything similar?

[Bonam]

...it would logically mean that the essential meaning of liberalism today would be found in the empowerment of the individual...

This philosophy is not and has not in recent times been associated with liberalism. Liberalism today stands for the empowerment of a variety of minority groups (often at the expense of the majority of individuals), and transfer of wealth from some individuals to other individuals, at the whims of a government that thinks it knows best for everyone. This is mixed in with a philosophy of political pragmatism - doing what is necessary to get/keep votes, regardless of whether it agrees with or conflicts with any principles that the party may still remotely hold to.

[myata]

An interesting read, thanks for posting it. But I'm skeptical as to whether the problem is with any particular ideology. Could it be that Canadians are tired of having to pick one of the two mandatory "good for you" ideologies? The "beans or potatoes" fatigue? That this society has grown more complex than to be satisfied with the same old neverending duo of "we're good because we are not them" partocracies?

Wake me up when Liberals come up to support this country having real, meaningful political choice, where we ourselves rather than eternal political elites could choose which party / priority / ideas reflect our views of the moment. Till such time, I'm afraid I have little time for Liberal or otherwise soul searchings. As rightfully mentioned, those have little application to my interests, issues and priorities.

Edited July 8, 2010 by myata

[lictor616]

Interesting article from Glen Perason, a Liberal MP. There are many Liberals like Mr. Pearson - who instinctively know what's wrong with the party.....but the "leadership" and backroom boys are still looking for a magic potion to get back into power......and won't allow the grassroots renewal that the Party is in such desperate need of.

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/06/federal-mp-searches-for-antidote-to-liberal-disease/#more-5890

The liberal disease is an identity complex... Socialism is not liberalism... so to remedy their current quandary liberals should adopt two of the following measures:

1/ Purge the entirety of their party of anyone left leaning (since socialism is all about empowering a state at the detriment of personal freedoms), reverse all of their policies fro the past 40+ years

or

2/ change their name to what they really are: Nanny State Socialists

[bloodyminded]

The liberal disease is an identity complex... Socialism is not liberalism... so to remedy their current quandary liberals should adopt two of the following measures:

1/ Purge the entirety of their party of anyone left leaning

Sure. Why should left-leaning Canadians have any say in how their county is run? It's not like there are many left-leaners anyway.

[lictor616]

Sure. Why should left-leaning Canadians have any say in how their county is run? It's not like there are many left-leaners anyway.

no what I'm saying is that they can form an honest party, and call themsleves what they actually are: communists or socialists...

I also agree that "right leaning canadians" should also form a true right wing party, that is anti-communist to the core,

[bloodyminded]

no what I'm saying is that they can form an honest party, and call themsleves what they actually are: communists or socialists...

OK, I get you now.

But there's a problem. There is no actual "left" as a monolithic entity. The variations are broad and deep.

I also agree that "right leaning canadians" should also form a true right wing party, that is anti-communist to the core,

I imagine that anyone forming an "anti-communist" party would be committing genocide, in that thirty million Canadians would die laughing......

[lictor616]

OK, I get you now.

But there's a problem. There is no actual "left" as a monolithic entity. The variations are broad and deep.

I imagine that anyone forming an "anti-communist" party would be committing genocide, in that thirty million Canadians would die laughing......

Yes but on the essential points leftists are all identifiable... the breaking down of the nation, the artificial stirring up of the society so that the dregs on the bottom can become the scum on top, the promotion of every racial enclave EXCEPT of course: White Europeans, the promotion of a big government with enormous taxation powers, the regimentation of the public (political correctness), the meddling of government in every aspect of our lives, the elimination of 'dangerous freedoms" such as freedom of expression, freedom of association and the like... The NDP and Liberal party have essentially the same position on all these issues. the only "variation" is in degree not kind...

And you're right, an anti-communist party would be kind of difficult a proposition, it should be anti-liberal... which is precisely the same thing anyway.

Edited July 10, 2010 by lictor616

[Jack Weber]

OK, I get you now.

But there's a problem. There is no actual "left" as a monolithic entity. The variations are broad and deep.

I imagine that anyone forming an "anti-communist" party would be committing genocide, in that thirty million Canadians would die laughing......

Did'nt you know???

The pinko's are everywhere...

Joe McCarthy told me so....

[lictor616]

Did'nt you know???

The pinko's are everywhere...

Joe McCarthy told me so....

ah of course a McCarthy line...

incidentally, he was proven correct in his suspicion that the US had been captured by communists... his only error was in greatly UNDERestimating the extent of communist penetration...

All of his House Un-american activities suspects turned out to be communists... every single one.

From oppenheimer, to Colonel House to Owen Lattimore, Harlow Shapley, Frederick Schuman, John S. Service, and Philip Jessup... every single one has been shown red.

Look for a communist under every bed? .. no need to do something so absurd when all you have to do is look at who is in the room with you.

but its funny that mention of Joe still makes socialist giggle... (maybe they DO know what he was talking about)

Edited July 10, 2010 by lictor616

[Bonam]

All of his House Un-american activities suspects turned out to be communists... every single one.

From oppenheimer...

Yes, the man who gave America the nuclear bomb, a communist. Lol.