Liberalism

[Ravenwood]

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?

[Ravenwood]

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.

[Shwa]

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.

Are you going to take your philosophy to your local Liberal riding association? You should.

And when they tell you your ideals are naive, will you openly caucus on your principles and next riding association election gather enough support to toss the old guard?

[Ravenwood]

Are you going to take your philosophy to your local Liberal riding association? You should.

And when they tell you your ideals are naive, will you openly caucus on your principles and next riding association election gather enough support to toss the old guard?

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.

[Remiel]

If I may a philosophical point, I think the problem with the charge of "naivety" is that it an accusation about the short term likelihood of something coming to pass; a kind of one step thinking on that part of the accuser. Leonardo Da Vinci probably was naieve to think he could build a flying machine, but the fact was that a flying machine could be built: in the future. Similarly, advocating for the "naive" may help tomorrow, even if it does not help today.

[Evening Star]

The CPC and NDP believe in most of those principles too, to varying degrees. It seems that something more specific is required. Perhaps there's room for a party that's closer to the CPC on economics but closer to the NDP on foreign policy and social issues...?

The one place where I can see an opening for the Liberals to reassert themselves is as a voice for strong, centralized federalism. The NDP, at least on paper, supports 'asymmetrical federalism' and the CPC tend to lean towards decentralization. We'll have to see how the two parties evolve over the next 4-5 years.

[Ravenwood]

The CPC and NDP believe in most of those principles too, to varying degrees. It seems that something more specific is required. Perhaps there's room for a party that's closer to the CPC on economics but closer to the NDP on foreign policy and social issues...?

The one place where I can see an opening for the Liberals to reassert themselves is as a voice for strong, centralized federalism. The NDP, at least on paper, supports 'asymmetrical federalism' and the CPC tend to lean towards decentralization. We'll have to see how the two parties evolve over the next 4-5 years.

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.

[Evening Star]

The Conservatives do still see a role for a social safety net and public health care, education, and infrastructure, perhaps not to the same degree as the NDP. The NDP still believes in a competitive market economy, though they're a little more interventionist and protectionist than the CPC. And unless you intervene enough in the market, via taxation, you can't afford the social safety net anyway. (The NDP could adopt the whole 'Family Pack' without sacrificing any of their principles.)

I'm sure both parties would say they believe in

individual rights and freedoms, social justice, multi-culturalism, freedom of speech, and of the press, and democracy

So I'm still not completely clear on what this Liberal Party would have to offer. Could you give examples of specific policies that would be distinct from both the CPC and the NDP?

Edited May 7, 2011 by Evening Star

[Ravenwood]

So I'm still not completely clear on what this Liberal Party would have to offer. Could you give examples of specific policies that would be distinct from both the CPC and the NDP?

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.

[Ravenwood]

The one place where I can see an opening for the Liberals to reassert themselves is as a voice for strong, centralized federalism.

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.

[Evening Star]

See, that doesn't sound that different from the CPC's stance to me. I'm sorry if I'm being difficult: It just seems that 'mushy middle' is hard to navigate when you're a third-place party rather than a 'natural governing party'. Funding programmes like national child care may well require an NDP level of taxation... I could perhaps see room for a free market party that is also socially liberal on issues like legalizing soft drugs or prostitution or euthanasia (although I wouldn't vote for it).

[jacee]

It occurred to me during the campaign that the Liberals did not communicate at all what they stand for. The family pack got only a bit of airing and their support of free markets none at all. Perhaps if they'd reminded voters of the latter they might have stopped some of the bleeding of blue liberals to the Tories. However it appears that Ignatieff simply was not an effective carrier of their messages regardless.

Jim Prentice, now disaffected from the Harper tories, could carry those messages effectively. What a coup that would be!

[Evening Star]

That might be because they don't really stand for much anymore. Rob Silver pretty much openly stated this in the G&M after the election. You can't really support a free market and also advocate for a bunch of new social programmes at the same time, honestly.

[jacee]

That might be because they don't really stand for much anymore. Rob Silver pretty much openly stated this in the G&M after the election. You can't really support a free market and also advocate for a bunch of new social programmes at the same time, honestly.

Isn't that what defines Canada - a balance of both?

[Remiel]

Isn't that what defines Canada - a balance of both?

At the most fundamental level all societies strike a balance between the two. The idea of a free market is just that - an idea.

[PIK]

1st they need a good leader, not a trudeau or a rae, but someone like leblanc. In 2 years quebec will be wanting to get rid of the NDP,and in 4 years if harper gets to right,and again the libs pick a good leader not a parachute one, and go back in time when it was a great party and study that party. They can get right back in, in 4 years.

[Battletoads]

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.

Mostly what the Cons are against. Should give voters a good choice should that present themselves as the above.

[Evening Star]

Isn't that what defines Canada - a balance of both?

My point is that the CPC and NDP also present a balance of both ideas. So advocating for a balance doesn't in and of itself say that much to me.

I see no reason why the NDP should not be able to develop their platform and entrench and expand their support over the next 4-5 years, presenting a viable alternative to the CPC. They're a perfectly logical fit for Quebec. Not saying that the Liberals can never come back or anything. For the sake of argument, though, I'm a little hard-pressed to see where the need is for them right now, aside from being a voice for centralism (unless they were to become a truly fiscal conservative/social liberal party). Even the Liberals don't seem that excited about centralized federalism though. Maybe Justin Trudeau?

Edited May 7, 2011 by Evening Star

[Shwa]

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.

See? Here's the thing: You are presenting something coherent, something that we can sink our teeth into, something of substance.

They might call you naive because you don't know the ins and outs and all the rules of a local riding association or becuase you don't know who the 'in' crowd is or who the right sugar mommies and daddies are. But if you believe in what you say, then what the LPC needs is people to stick up for those principles and be willing to fight for them in the open. Right in front of the faces of the status quo.

Enough of the compromising between this group and that group and this clique and that clique. Bind them with your principles and make that more important than all the personalities in the room.

And when they do call you naive, gather your supporters from their ranks.

[Black Dog]

While I think the OP has more or less encapsulated the broad philosophical direction of the new Liberals, it's really a bit of a no-brainer. The devil is in the details and thus I'd like to see some ideas that show this kind of thinking in action.

[Shwa]

While I think the OP has more or less encapsulated the broad philosophical direction of the new Liberals, it's really a bit of a no-brainer. The devil is in the details and thus I'd like to see some ideas that show this kind of thinking in action.

Sure. But don't be expecting a roof before the foundation is poured.

[Michael Hardner]

I think the dialogue between Evening Star and Ravenwood (and Black Dog's comment) are illustrative.

The Liberal party values are held by the other parties, though to what degree is debatable. In any case, it's tough for the Liberals to stand on the values that the others have also claimed for their own. This is what makes people think that the Liberals stand for "nothing". The problem is that they stand for nothing special: everybody believes in these things.

The next step for the Liberal party should be to go back to their roots and find out what middle Canadians want *today*. I would submit that they want services to be delivered efficiently, that they want to see their tax money well spent, that they want to be able to have themselves heard on the bigger issues (our role in the global community vis a vis security or the environment for example).

There are ways that these things can be done and reinvented - to spark the interest and faith of middle Canadians once again. The Liberals last big hurrah was under Trudeau - a man who had a vision for all Canadians and convinced the middle that he stood for them. I'm hoping that another Trudeau-like visionary (not Justin) will step up. Lots has changed since that era - we need to see that reflected in our politics now.

[August1991]

Trudeau was clearly a champion of strong central government -

In fact, Trudeau was a strong federalist - not a centralist. He believed passionately in a federal system and his writings state this clearly in many ways.

But to provide a link to a retired Trudeau interview given at the time of the Meech Lake negotitaion hardly helps in making the case for federal Liberal renewal. As long as the Liberals dwell on their past glories (which in some cases - such as this example - only exist in their own mind) then the party is destined to the dust heap of history.

While I think the OP has more or less encapsulated the broad philosophical direction of the new Liberals, it's really a bit of a no-brainer. The devil is in the details and thus I'd like to see some ideas that show this kind of thinking in action.

BD, you are being far too generous.

----

Ravenwood, surely you know that the word "progressive" is now kitsch. It is the equivalent of the 20th century practice of dictators to add "Popular" to the name of their republic.

Edited May 10, 2011 by August1991

[Ravenwood]

The Liberal party values are held by the other parties, though to what degree is debatable. In any case, it's tough for the Liberals to stand on the values that the others have also claimed for their own. This is what makes people think that the Liberals stand for "nothing". The problem is that they stand for nothing special: everybody believes in these things.

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.

Ravenwood, surely you know that the word "progressive" is now kitsch. It is the equivalent of the 20th century practice of dictators to add "Popular" to the name of their republic.

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.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

It's already clear what the liberal party stands for...

Good policies come from compromise that considers all points of view.

If you vote Conservative, you get right wing policies. You vote NDP, you get left wing policies.

Hard Left and Hard Right ideological people are the most difficult people to debate with. They don't budge on their opinion, EVER. Even after it is shown that a policy their ideology subscribes to has no, little or a negative effect in the current situation. This is because extreme ideologies are completely irrational.

The Liberal Party is a centrist view that is open minded and adaptable to the situation. Not some ideology that may or may not be applicable, or even have a negative effect. They will consider all ideologies and make a policy decision based on the information at hand. If the people demand a more right wing approach, they shift right. If people demand a more left wing approach, they shift left.

That is what they need to be marketing.