Liberalism

[RNG]

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

open minded and adaptable to the situation.

Unfortunately, that tends to stand for what they believe will get them the most votes. And it has been so for a long time. The great misfortune is that the Tories have learned well from the liberal success and now do the same thing.

[ninjandrew]

Except that Harper himself is far from being open minded, or adaptable.

[RNG]

Except that Harper himself is far from being open minded, or adaptable.

Unfortunately, we don't have a sarcasm icon.

[RNG]

Except that Harper himself is far from being open minded, or adaptable.

Did you even read my post? The "adaptible" label to me is rationalizing the Libs willingness to say whatever they think will get them votes, irrespective of their policies or constitution. And I am bemoaning the fact that the Cons learned so well from them that they now do the same thing. What didn't you understand about that?

[ninjandrew]

Did you even read my post? The "adaptible" label to me is rationalizing the Libs willingness to say whatever they think will get them votes, irrespective of their policies or constitution. And I am bemoaning the fact that the Cons learned so well from them that they now do the same thing. What didn't you understand about that?

The open minded and adaptable part. I thought you were referring to those words in the same context MiddleClassCentrist was using them.

[August1991]

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.

Ravenwood, your OP and most of the comments here seem to discuss either Liberal "principles" or a Liberal leader. (IME, when Liberals are together, they most often like to gossip like a high school student council but I'll leave that aspect of the Liberal Party aside.)

But Canada is a country of regions and no federal party will be successful unless it has roots in at least one region and preferably two or more. (Andrew Coyne had a great article on this point.)

At present, the federal Liberal has roots nowhere and none of the discussion seems to address this fundamental point. I sense that Liberals would prefer to avoid it because they simply don't know how to face the awful fact that they are not connected to Canadians.

Laurier set up a party that King continued with strong roots in French Canada and Ontario. The remnants of this party exist only now in the Maritimes. Elsewhere, the federal Liberals have a tenuous hold in urban English Canada where Liberal ridings are now personal fiefdoms with an MP/immigration consultant.

----

As long as the Liberals natter on about principles, liberalism, the need for a centre party, bilingualism, or picking a good leader, they will avoid the critical question of where in Canada they can win some ridings.

Right now, all that I can see is that the Liberals will at best win a few ridings in urban English Canada with a couple of seats in the Maritimes. That's not a sustainable strategy.

Edited May 11, 2011 by August1991

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Unfortunately, that tends to stand for what they believe will get them the most votes. And it has been so for a long time. The great misfortune is that the Tories have learned well from the liberal success and now do the same thing.

Social Conservatives want to ban gay marriage, and restrict abortion.

The party did not campaign on this, and rightly so, because they knew it would lose votes of blue liberals or small c's.

I don't see how that is different from what you said. They targetted what would get votes and ran with it.

Edited May 11, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[bloodyminded]

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.

No, I don't think this is accurate. It is sometimes accurate, to be sure, but it applies to self-described Centrists as well, who can be profoundly extremist, though always without recognizing it.

Besides, we'd need to define "hard left" and "hard right" (a definition which centrists always refrain from navigating, even as they decry all these crazy radicals so beneath the sober Liberal brand) which in my view describes a distinct minority of supporters of both the Conservatives and NDP.

[Ravenwood]

As long as the Liberals natter on about principles, liberalism, the need for a centre party, bilingualism, or picking a good leader, they will avoid the critical question of where in Canada they can win some ridings.

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'.

[Keepitsimple]

It would have been hard to perceive 5 years ago but 5 years from now, there may not be a place for the Liberals on the Political Spectrum. It's OK for a party to be "centrist" and base its shifting principles on the prevailing opinion - but only when there is a clear Right Wing party like Reform along with a clear Left Wing party like the NDP of elections past. As each year passes, the Conservatives occupy more and more of the Center Sweet Spot. They are now Center Right but will ultimately be viewed as Center with a mere leaning to the Right. Jack has 4 years to moderate NDP policies to bring them closer to the Center. They will ultimately become a Center/Left party when the next election rolls around. That leaves very little room for the Liberals. Exacerbating the problem is that the Libs will get very little media exposure as a third place party for the next 4 years. It all depends on how effective the NDP are in moving their party to the center. It's pretty clear already though, that unless the Conservatives badly shoot themselves in the foot, they will have a majoreity for the foreseeable future.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Ravenwood]

It would have been hard to perceive 5 years ago but 5 years from now, there may not be a place for the Liberals on the Political Spectrum. It's plausible for a party to be "centrist" when there is a clear Right Wing party like Reform along with a clear Left Wing party like the NDP of elections past. As each year passes, the Conservatives occupy more and more of the Center Sweet Spot. They are now Center Right but will ultimately be viewed as Center with a mere leaning to the Right. Jack has 4 years to moderate NDP policies to bring them closer to the Center. They will ultimately become a Center/Left party when the next election rolls around. That leaves very little room for the Liberals. Exacerbating the problem is that the Libs will get very little media exposure as a third place party for the next 4 years. It all depends on how effective the NDP are in moving their party to the center. It's pretty clear already though, that unless the Conservatives badly shoot themselves in the foot, they will have a majoreity for the foreseeable future.

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.

[Keepitsimple]

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 guess Liberal supporters can hope for that....but the reality is that less than a quarter of the Conservatice caucus could be called "Right Wing" - probably far less by now. A lot of people still consider Albertans to be Right Wing but hey - Calgary has a Muslim mayor and is just as multi-ethnic as Toronto. The West has grown up. Harper does not have to offer anything more than lip service to the fringe Right - after all - where are they going to go? People should look at Harper for what he is - a middle of the road family man......and if he is the dictator that everyone seems to think he is - then that's where the party is going to end up. Gee, the guy's father was an accountant....he was raised in Leaside (Toronto) and he loves hockey. His wife is a graphic designer and rides a motorcycle and they've got two nice kids. Nothing scary there - as we'll be finding out over the next 4 years. Which brings us back to the Libs......it depends on what Jack can do with the NDP over the next 4 years.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Ravenwood]

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.

[August1991]

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.

First of all, a political party that ignores "winning office" is never going to "win office". We live in a democracy and there is no shame in providing policies that people want.

Secondly, I happen to think that regionalism and not ideology drive Canadian federal politics. The current Liberal obsession with finding "principles" is a parlour discussion of the English MSM.

In very practical terms, what part of Canada would conceivably vote Liberal in 2015? Alberta? Northern Ontario? Quebec outside of Montreal? The BC interior? There are simply too many regions in Canada where the Liberal Party, as currently constituted, has zero chance of winning seats. Articles in the Toronto Star about Liberal renewal do not address this problem.

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.

Dream on. Edited May 12, 2011 by August1991

[Keepitsimple]

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 do know my Canadian history.....Liberals are sick of hearing about it but Trudeau's NEP National Energy Program was disatrous for Canadian unity and ultimately for the Liberal Party. It was that single misguided policy that led to "Let those Eastern Bastards freeze". The Liberal cry of the day was "Screw the West, we'll take the rest".

Times have changed and indeed, it will be interesting to watch.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Wild Bill]

Social Conservatives want to ban gay marriage, and restrict abortion.

The party did not campaign on this, and rightly so, because they knew it would lose votes of blue liberals or small c's.

I don't see how that is different from what you said. They targetted what would get votes and ran with it.

I think you don't have an accurate idea of the typical Tory voter at all. You have a comic book caricature of what the typical conservative supporter is like! It's similar to some extreme rightwingers who think all NDP voters are communists.

There are actually rather few social conservatives in the CPC. Even in the days of Reform, where I spent a lot of time, I only met one or two social conservatives. There are some pockets of them out west, mostly in BC but in nowhere near the numbers to control the party or represent some "hidden agenda".

Most conservatives don't really care about changing abortion laws or legalizing gay marriage. Some may feel that some laws go so far as to give too much to some groups, making them "special". The usual belief is that all citizens are equal, which is why most conservatives don't support affirmative action. It's not that they are racist. They just think that reverse discrimination is still discrimination and therefore just as bad.

The whole idea of conservatives being "scary, scary" is really wearing kinda thin! It's like a weak plot line from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". It's also a very bigoted view to hold, in that it is ascribing some evil taint to your political opponent that cannot be disproven because it is based on a "feeling" and not facts or evidence, just like prejudice towards some racial group.

If your point is that now Harper has a majority he is going to make sacrificing your first born child mandatory to support some evil agenda I'm afraid you're in for a disappointment. It's just not going to happen! There will be little or no social engineering to some mythical conservative theme happening. Rather, it will be about the economy and reforming of parliament, like making parties get their own money instead of welfare taken from the taxpayers.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

There are actually rather few social conservatives in the CPC.

Exactly Bill, that is why they don't run policies based on them.

They pick their policies where the votes are. Just like the Liberals pick their policies where the votes are.

No one is talking about the Conservative boogeyman except you.

[noahbody]

When people are worried about the essential issue in life, such as employment, the need to associate oneself with Liberalism or Conservatism isn't a big motivating factor. With a majority, the Conservatives will have the opportunity to build their brand as a governing party. The Liberals will have to wait until the time people get tired of the Conservatives.

[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.

[RNG]

If they would actually state that they are fiscally conservative, I might think they are as close to the ideal of Libertarianism I long for. But they don't and won't. So I don't trust them.

[August1991]

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.

Already with this approach Ravenwood, you are dooming the Liberals. I don't know where you live but you seem to approach the question like an urban anglophone. The Liberals will never leave third party status if they use this approach to their problem.

The problem is not ideology.

A National Energy Pro-

...

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.

The Constitution gives natural resources to the provinces. And in fact, most provincial governments do (controversially) as you say and reduce royalties as a subsidy to infrastructure costs.

The Liberal Party would gain absolutely no seats (outside Toronto) if it proposed that Ottawa get involved in natural resource extraction.

----

My present thinking is that there may be about 50 or so Quebec seats available in 2015. The traditional base of the federal Liberal Party has been Quebec and it would not be credible to go against this strong reputation. If the federal Liberals were to clean house with a modern day Claude Ryan, they might be viable in Quebec again. With that, they should then take on the NDP and the soft/urban Conservative voters in western Canada. I would ignore Ontario because with support in Quebec and even modest support in western Canada, votes in Ontario will come naturally.

As in other democracies, elections in Canada are won on a very local basis. If Liberals were serious, they would examine western Canadian ridings (BC/Manitoba in particular) and even individual polls of ridings to target places and communities where they might win some votes.

Politicians dream of winning like Layton in Quebec. This is the exception, not the rule.

Edited May 13, 2011 by August1991

[eyeball]

If they would actually state that they are fiscally conservative, I might think they are as close to the ideal of Libertarianism I long for. But they don't and won't. So I don't trust them.

By the same token if Conservatives would actually stand by their promise to get the god-damn state off people's backs I might trust them. But they won't so Harper can go screw himself.

What's really scary is how many so-called libertarians are willing to put their wallets ahead of principle and vote for heavy-handed governments that promise to crack down on and imprison certain people for their own personal behaviour - behaviour that is otherwise perfectly acceptable, legal and even enabled by the state's provincial clones when they indulge in it.

[Keepitsimple]

Further to August's comment on Natural Resource extraction, the Liberals have depended on the public's ignorance of what is, and what is not, the responsibility of the Provinces vs. that of the Federal government. They have tried to con the public into thinking that the Liberals could "fix Healthcare for a generation" (as an example)....when in fact the feds don't operate one hospital or pay one doctor. This patronizing attitude has totally alienated Quebec and Alberta and as Provinces have matured in the delivery of various services and the claiming of resources - this "intrusional" approach will continue to annoy the Provinces. Harper and the Conservatives clearly respect Provincial Juristiction and the Canadian public will be better served because of it. The Provinces will eventually no longer be able to blame the Feds for their shortcomings and the Feds will not be expected to make a huge difference in areas that are beyond their control. So, back to the main point of where the Liberals go from here - and it's a big decision. Do they drop the patronizing approach - or do they stick to their 60's and 70's approach of a heavy centralized government or will they be force to copy the Conservatives. It's a tough road because they've already ceded so much ground.