Layton's Last Letter

[August1991]

And finally, to all Canadians: Canada is a great country, one of the hopes of the world. We can be a better one – a country of greater equality, justice, and opportunity. We can build a prosperous economy and a society that shares its benefits more fairly. We can look after our seniors. We can offer better futures for our children. We can do our part to save the world’s environment. We can restore our good name in the world. We can do all of these things because we finally have a party system at the national level where there are real choices; where your vote matters; where working for change can actually bring about change. In the months and years to come, New Democrats will put a compelling new alternative to you. My colleagues in our party are an impressive, committed team. Give them a careful hearing; consider the alternatives; and consider that we can be a better, fairer, more equal country by working together. Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done.

"... greater equality, justice, and opportunity... a society that shares its benefits more fairly." Fair, fairly. In this 21st century, what does "fair" mean? Should rich Canadians give to poor Africans?

I simply don't think that the English word "fair" is the basis of a sustainable political ideology.

My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.

CBC

IOW: "Honesty is better than lies. Paris is the capital of France, not England. And chocolate cake is better than broccoli." Of course hope is better than fear. Who wants to despair? Who likes anyone who's angry?

More pertinently, I hate this leftist attempt to wrap motherhood and apple pie into their ideology without any reference to consequences: If you eat alot of chocolate cake, you get fat. And if someone points out your weight, you get angry.

Fairness, and motherhood, are not the basis of a viable political ideology in a democracy. I happen to think that Layton knew this and so his last letter, I suspect, was pure demagoguery.

Sad.

Edited August 23, 2011 by August1991

[Black Dog]

Oh shut up.

[BubberMiley]

Wow. Oleg Bach learned to spell.

[g_bambino]

I happen to think that Layton knew this and so his last letter, I suspect, was pure demagoguery.

You're not alone:

It was extraordinary, though it is not Mr. Solomon's repeated use of that word that makes it so.

Rather, it's remarkable because it shows what a canny, relentless, thoroughly ambitious fellow Mr. Layton was. Even on Saturday, two days before he died, he managed to keep a gimlet eye on all the campaigns to come.

The letter is full of such sophistry as "We can restore our good name in the world," as though it is a given Canada has somehow lost that, bumper-sticker slogans of the "love is better than anger" ilk and ruthlessly partisan politicking ("You decided that the way to replace Canada's Conservative federal government with something better was by working together with progressive-minded Canadians across the country," he said in the section meant for Quebecers).

Christie Blatchford: Laytons death turns into a thoroughly public spectacle

She kind of has a point; I had similar feelings the first time I read it: Who fills their last message to the world with pure partisan politics? It was the fifth paragraph, his message to other cancer patients, that I found to be genuinely humble and poignant.

[c/e]

Edited August 23, 2011 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

He was not addressing the world and he was not addressing most Canadians throughout most of the letter.

He was addressing:

"other Canadians who are on journeys to defeat cancer"

"members of [his] party"

"members of [their] parliamentary caucus"

"Quebecers"

"young Canadians"

"And finally, to all Canadians"

Each step of the way he addressing specific groups of people.

Who brings partisan politics into their final letter to Canadians? A damn fine leader that needs to inspire a team that has been criticized for riding his coat-tails to success. When he's talking about being treated unfairly, he was talking to "young Canadians" who by far are under-represented politically (because they don't vote) and who are often overlooked in Ottawa (because they don't vote).

August, you talk about fairness not being a viable political ideology and perhaps that's exactly what the problem is with politics today. Fairness plays absolutely no part in it and is treated as a laughable, if not contemptible notion. If people truly don't understand how the cards are stacked against many Canadians from youth to women to the First Nations, then there's less to be hopeful for than Jack Layton promises.

[Black Dog]

She kind of has a point; I had similar feelings the first time I read it: Who fills their last message to the world with pure partisan politics?

Gee I dunno: a fucking politician maybe?

The graceless and spite-filled Blatchford, of course, is one to talk about sophistry and self-aggrandizement, given those are the pillars upon which she has built her career.

[Michael Hardner]

I simply don't think that the English word "fair" is the basis of a sustainable political ideology.

That says more about your personal political ideology than anything.

The idea of 'fairness' is perhaps so foreign to you who suspect the socialists of being simply thieves because you can't conceive of the feeling of universal brotherhood. Instead such people project their own views on the world. Their inability to empathize paints all action in the palette that they themselves know: mainly selfishness and greed.

Humans are not all like you, August, trying to clamour for a better deal for themselves: some of them believe that there is a chance for a better world for all.

Scoff if you want to, but it just says that you don't understand what is in other peoples' hearts.

[cybercoma]

Blatchford is detestable. How can she criticize the face of a party for trying to drum up hope in his party and political base after his death? Many people saw Jack himself as the NDP and he wanted to get the message out there that the party is bigger than one leader. He was trying to inspire a party that saw him as the greatest leader they ever had not to give up hope in his absence and to continue fighting for what they believe in. Blatchford, that reprehensible little shrew, takes it upon herself to try and crush the voice of inspiration that he so thoughtfully provided. A lesser person would have said nothing and allowed the people that were inspired by him to pick up the pieces in his absence.

[cybercoma]

Humans are not all like you, August, trying to clamour for a better deal for themselves: some of them believe that there is a chance for a better world for all.

Great post. (I didn't want to repost the whole thing just to say that)

[Boges]

Yeah saying love is better than hate etc doesn't make him JFK or anything but it is nice that he spoke to the country when he knew he was on his way out, It's kinda nice.

I do grow tired of this outpouring of grief that follows the death of a public figure. It's more about the mourners than about the family of the dead person. It's been like this since the death of Princess Di.

But anyway he had to know he's kinda effed his party up. It's basically a Quebec Nationalist party and there is zero chance of the party not moving forward without a Quebec-based leader. Unless of course they do the sentimental thing and make Mrs. Chow the leader.

I wonder if Toronto City Councillor Mike Layton will run for his seat.

[William Ashley]

"... greater equality, justice, and opportunity... a society that shares its benefits more fairly." Fair, fairly. In this 21st century, what does "fair" mean? Should rich Canadians give to poor Africans?

I simply don't think that the English word "fair" is the basis of a sustainable political ideology.

Yes the rich should either insure work or the resources to provide a standard of life that meets basic expectations. It is a moral and human duty to care for those that are living in substandard conditions. This is a society not a corporation. It isn't about shareholder gains, unless the public itself is the shareholder. The bottom line is that every member of society should be working toward a society that removes the conditions of hardship among their brothers and sisters in this greater family called Canada.

My own policy sets as a basic fundamental to insure old age security and a work fair program that provides an above poverty line income for everyone willing to work under the program. I think that this would help enhance productivity and growth of the economy, which in turn will allow businesses to put wares to a global marketplace.

I think however that the line of Federal Government duties end at the border. Canadians however should be giving to those in trouble if they have more than they need and others are in lack. Ideally this is done through enterprise, through doing there what is done at home with providing missions that meet the needs of not only Canadian society but global society. We owe a moral obligation to our fellow kind globally, we owe a duty to the animals to insure their care and we owe a duty to the ecosystems that sustain us, for without them we would not be where we are today, and if our system ever fails it is our only way to stand again, but also it is a moral psychology that allows a welcome place to live otherwise I might as well just gun you down when I see you to remove the threat early on.

Government is suppose to be caretaker of the people, a right government will lift the conditions of society as to make things better for the weakest in society that are good citizens.

It is called

"Duty of Care"

http://www.claytonutz.com/docs/GDMG_DutyOfCare.pdf

Edited August 23, 2011 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Gee I dunno: a fucking politician maybe?

Oh? Is making partisan attacks in your final word to the world before you die a standard part of the job? Based on the evidence, I don't believe so. Layton made a choice to do that. It wouldn't have been mine. To each their own, however.

Again, I do appreciate his words to cancer sufferers. That was selfless and inspirational.

[Tilter]

He was not addressing the world and he was not addressing most Canadians throughout most of the letter.

He was addressing:

"other Canadians who are on journeys to defeat cancer"

"members of [his] party"

"members of [their] parliamentary caucus"

"Quebecers"

"young Canadians"

"And finally, to all Canadians"

Each step of the way he addressing specific groups of people.

Who brings partisan politics into their final letter to Canadians? A damn fine leader that needs to inspire a team that has been criticized for riding his coat-tails to success. When he's talking about being treated unfairly, he was talking to "young Canadians" who by far are under-represented politically (because they don't vote) and who are often overlooked in Ottawa (because they don't vote).

August, you talk about fairness not being a viable political ideology and perhaps that's exactly what the problem is with politics today. Fairness plays absolutely no part in it and is treated as a laughable, if not contemptible notion. If people truly don't understand how the cards are stacked against many Canadians from youth to women to the First Nations, then there's less to be hopeful for than Jack Layton promises.

If people truly don't understand how the cards are stacked against many Canadians from youth to women to the First Nations, then there's less to be hopeful for than Jack Layton promises.

Yes, Canada should invest at least another 100 billion per year into the Indian affairs ministry so that the Chiefs could live a better life & be able to afford to buy each of their offspring a new Caddy Escalade every year. Then there could even be enough money to maintain the schools & facilities on the reserves.

[William Ashley]

Yes the rich should either insure work or the resources to provide a standard of life that meets basic expectations. It is a moral and human duty to care for those that are living in substandard conditions. This is a society not a corporation. It isn't about shareholder gains, unless the public itself is the shareholder. The bottom line is that every member of society should be working toward a society that removes the conditions of hardship among their brothers and sisters in this greater family called Canada.

My own policy sets as a basic fundamental to insure old age security and a work fair program that provides an above poverty line income for everyone willing to work under the program. I think that this would help enhance productivity and growth of the economy, which in turn will allow businesses to put wares to a global marketplace.

I think however that the line of Federal Government duties end at the border. Canadians however should be giving to those in trouble if they have more than they need and others are in lack. Ideally this is done through enterprise, through doing there what is done at home with providing missions that meet the needs of not only Canadian society but global society. We owe a moral obligation to our fellow kind globally, we owe a duty to the animals to insure their care and we owe a duty to the ecosystems that sustain us, for without them we would not be where we are today, and if our system ever fails it is our only way to stand again, but also it is a moral psychology that allows a welcome place to live otherwise I might as well just gun you down when I see you to remove the threat early on.

Government is suppose to be caretaker of the people, a right government will lift the conditions of society as to make things better for the weakest in society that are good citizens.

It is called

"Duty of Care"

http://www.claytonutz.com/docs/GDMG_DutyOfCare.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

If it fails to perform then it looses the right of governance because it is failing to govern morally.

It would lead to a breach of peace or departure from the realm.

Loss of control of a soul which in turn will weaken the failed government. It will likewise weaken the social resolve to maintain society, for instance one another or an obligation to the state because there is no in kind duty of care.

Edited August 23, 2011 by William Ashley

[Black Dog]

Oh? Is making partisan attacks in your final word to the world before you die a standard part of the job?Based on the evidence, I don't believe so. Layton made a choice to do that. It wouldn't have been mine. To each their own, however.

Which political party do you lead, again?

[Tilter]

Jack Layton was a politician to the end. He has taken a party with communistic leanings to a new height of ridiculous (even for Canada) and made, by dint of a very disgruntled Quebec electorate, the party become the Official Opposition in Canada's Parliament. With Jack at the helm I expected the NDP to get at least 60 seats in the next election but without him they can expect at least 30. I think that the NDP's "song" will be that of the swan. RIP Jack & RIP NDP.

[TimG]

The idea of 'fairness' is perhaps so foreign to you who suspect the socialists of being simply thieves because you can't conceive of the feeling of universal brotherhood.

I believe the point that August is making is there is no universal standard for "fairness" and that the perception of "fairness" is a purely subjective process. In most cases what people mean when they say they want "fairness" is that they want a solution that benefits them. That is why August lead with the example of how Layton's concept of "fairness" does not extend to redistributing the income of lower and middle class Canadians to Africans.

Can you give me an example of anyone using the word "fairness" to express a sentiment that was not, at its core, self serving and intended to benefit the group targeted by the messsage?

Edited August 23, 2011 by TimG

[Sir Bandelot]

Good post Michael Hardner. Sure plenty of people disagreed with Jack's politics. Yes, in some areas of the letter it was partisan. He was addressing the party. THIS was his life's work, and just like anyone who has invested so much of themselves into a project, he wanted to see it continue beyond himself. So let every dog have his day.

[Michael Hardner]

In most cases what people mean when they say they want "fairness" is that they want a solution that benefits them. That is why August lead with the example of how Layton's concept of "fairness" does not extend to redistributing the income of lower and middle class Canadians to Africans.

Can you give me an example of anyone using the word "fairness" to express a sentiment that was not, at its core, self serving and intended to benefit the group targeted by the messsage?

You continue to make my point for me.

If I'm in the highest income bracket and I'm voting NDP, what am I ? A mutant ?

Why can't some people understand that those of us who have done well by this system want to make sure that the benefits we enjoy are shared out to those at the lowest income levels, including those in other countries ?

We've seen productivity gains, and great economic improvements overall in the last 20 years, but the lowest earners haven't seen their incomes improve. That should be of concern to everyone who knows how that can eat at the foundation of a country, not just the people directly affected.

[Michael Hardner]

Can you give me an example of anyone using the word "fairness" to express a sentiment that was not, at its core, self serving and intended to benefit the group targeted by the messsage?

What if the person making the statement is not in the group targeted by the message ? How is it self serving ? Why do right-wing people think that they can peer into the hearts of others and easily determine their motivation ?

[Thorn]

.When he's talking about being treated unfairly, he was talking to "young Canadians" who by far are under-represented politically (because they don't vote) and who are often overlooked in Ottawa (because they don't vote).

Sounds to me as if they're treated quite fairly. This is like saying lazy people who don't want to work are treated unfairly because they don't have as much money as energetic people who work hard...

[Thorn]

That says more about your personal political ideology than anything.

I think the problem lies in the fact that 'fair' is a concept which, in any given situation, is a judgement call. What you think is 'fair' is probably not what I think is 'fair'. What those on the Left think is 'fair' is unlikely to be what those on the Right think is 'fair'. You can't build an ideological stance on shifting sand.

[g_bambino]

Which political party do you lead, again?

Oh dear. Okay, to be absolutely clear: Had I been in Layton's position, it wouldn't have been my choice to pepper my adieu to the general public (and that's what it was; not a letter specifically to NDP supporters) with partisan attacks. I'd think that, by that point in my life, I'd want to be just a little more humble and cast a wider obesrvance of life a bit farther beyond the narrow borders of the campaign trail, especially since there was already a freshly appointed leader in place to take up the task of serious politicking from me. If I wanted to be inspirational specficially to the party itself and raise a battle call against our opponents, I would've penned a separate piece, for members' consumption only.

[+]

Edited August 23, 2011 by g_bambino

[Michael Hardner]

I think the problem lies in the fact that 'fair' is a concept which, in any given situation, is a judgement call. What you think is 'fair' is probably not what I think is 'fair'. What those on the Left think is 'fair' is unlikely to be what those on the Right think is 'fair'. You can't build an ideological stance on shifting sand.

Maybe so, but the fact is that a party that states that it's looking for 'fairness' - no matter how subjective that term is - is making a statement about their values. It implies setting up an agreement as an implicit contract wherein the parties to the contract agree to the terms. It implies dialogue, evaluation of alternatives and balance.

The Conservatives themselves use this term, and I'm thankful for it. It means: "let's talk about it". We can philosophize about perspectives, and so on but if you state it as a goal, then your party has an obligation to act on it.

[Thorn]

You continue to make my point for me.

If I'm in the highest income bracket and I'm voting NDP, what am I ? A mutant ?

I am also in the highest income bracket and I'm voting Conservative. What am I, cruel and evil? Do I hate fairness?

Why can't some people understand that those of us who have done well by this system want to make sure that the benefits we enjoy are shared out to those at the lowest income levels, including those in other countries ?

And what is a 'fair' level of sharing? If I work seventy hours a week in order to be successful and earn that money, is it fair to take a huge chunk of my earnings to give it to people who do no work at all by choice? Is it fair to give force me to give money to people in other countries because you want to be generous? These are the sorts of questions the Left rarely likes to address, but instead prefers to dismiss.

It's true that poverty can come to anyone, but it's also true that, barring sickness, most people's poverty, in this country, is the result of personal choices they've made, and continue to in their lives. Am I to wholly compensate them for that?

I am all for extending a helping hand insofar as helping people learn a skill, helping them get educated, helping them get into the work force, but I have little tolerance for people who screwed up their lives, feel sorry for themselves, do little or nothing to improve them, and then whine about their lot in life.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Thorn