Author
|
Topic: Yes, it's as easy as ABC.
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 17 September 2008 02:59 PM
But Duncan Cameron sees it more complicated than I: Not as Easy as A, B, C. quote: The NDP is the only left party. Granted, the membership is to the left of the leadership, and the party programme falls short of what the left would like to see happen nationally, but the NDP is the only party that consistently tacks left on the issues. Notably, the party leadership often fails to satisfy its supporters, as it trims its messages for the prevailing winds of opinion. "Crime" is a painful example. But, its supporters do not have to take issues to the public, past doorkeepers from a hostile media, and answer questions in front of reporters looking to score points by red-baiting.
I would rather think the difficulty stems from most of us on the left being unable-- sometimes intellectually, but mostly through confused communication-- to differentiate between the way the world is and the way we'd like it to be. NDP leadership has to grapple with the first, while the membership loves to live in the second. This, and the fact that NDP leadership is mostly from the middle to upper class. Middle to upper class people see themselves as having much to lose in any type of revolution, while us others either have little to lose or relish the fun of it. The NDP leadership is not of a revolutionary mind. They are very much in favour of continuing our rotten institutions, because the rotten institutions have been very good to many of them. And the membership is less so inclined, being on the other end of that stick for the most part. Which is why more economically secure members of the left might try to complicate things-- or as Barak Obama says "Bamboozel"-- us less secure into doing something that isn't in our interest. Like not voting for the NDP, as the most likely to represent-- or listen to your interests, like I have for the past 32 years. Whenever something seems complicated to me, or when I've been in trouble of one kind or another, the truth has always been a good companion. Truth is, "strategic voting" or "Anybody but Conservatives" is anything but "strategic". And breathing life into a Tory laden liberal party is hardly ensuring Conservatives don't get elected. In fact, in rather ensures that they do get elected. And, in the machinations of coalition politics, where would our voice be? Not heard above the Tory roar, that's for sure. So, tell the truth to yourself. Vote for who you want to see in government, not for who someone else wants to see in government.
And if the wrong people get in, and start to hurt you, then start to hurt back. It's easier than some would make it.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092
|
posted 17 September 2008 03:19 PM
Well said, Tommy. There's also an unfortunate tendency among NDP supporters to see the party as some sort of be-all and end-all of social movements, rather than just another part of the establishment, the part that is closest to our perspective. If something is right, then the NDP should support it, they say. I am so tired of hearing, "Where is the NDP on this issue!?! If they want my vote they'd better x, y, and z!!" The NDP is just a political party trying to get elected. It does not exist to right all the wrongs in the world, nor does it have that objective in mind. It votes on it's policies democratically and then does its best to get their candidates into the house. You can take them or leave them on those merits. If you want the NDP to take up your pet cause then it has to be more than just right, it has to have a certain popularity among the party's constituency so that you can dovetail your desire to promote this change with the party's desire get it's people elected. that's what they do. They are not an all-purpose leftist lobby group, they are a political party, and as such, subject to all the same cynical, machievellian limitations of any other party (though not, I would argue, to the same extent). It is up to YOU, the activist, to build that support, to make it feasible for the NDP to take up your cause without suffering electorally, which it is their clear mandate to avoid. The NDP has its limitations as an agent of social change. If it ever got in office, it would have even more. This needs to be realised and come to terms with by "the left" if they are to use the party effectively to move Canada forward.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 19 September 2008 10:28 PM
quote: Vote for who you want to see in government
Uhm .... quote: This, and the fact that NDP leadership is mostly from the middle to upper class. Middle to upper class people see themselves as having much to lose in any type of revolution, while us others either have little to lose or relish the fun of it.The NDP leadership is not of a revolutionary mind. They are very much in favour of continuing our rotten institutions, because the rotten institutions have been very good to many of them.
Why do I want to see comfortable middle to upper class people who represent interests other than mine and who support those rotten institutions in power?Because they're not Liberal or Conservative middle to upper class Canadians who support those rotten institutions? Wait, wait, wait ... I'm sure I missed something. Maybe in the translation.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683
|
posted 20 September 2008 10:01 AM
quote: I may have been George. And did you see the MP guy, Marc Emery, said his party had a deal with the NDP? Was that a backroom deal, George? Was that an affront to democracy, George? I am assuming all sorts of babblers are absolutely outraged and now have no place to park their votes.
Duncan Cameron was right, FM. And I have no problem parking my vote with the New Democrats.The "affront to democracy" is waiting in the wings. In my riding it's the chair of the ethics committee, for instance. Gary is beyond an affront to the institution, he's a goddamned disgrace. What outrages me is the stupidity of the party figure in B.C. or wherever who went "liberal" in listening to the happy gang of puffers out in the mountains. Wielding of the weed must be a strictly individual decision.
From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683
|
posted 20 September 2008 03:33 PM
Originally posted by james McCaul: Problems. I come from Saskatchewan and the NDP federally is a long way from tommy douglas. --------------------------------------------- I'd really like to hear from jM just what he saw as Tommy's strong points (what he can recall, from later, since Tommy had already been leading the federal New Democrats for 2 years at the time of jM's arrival in Sask.)
From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443
|
posted 20 September 2008 04:55 PM
quote: Originally posted by remind: How about, try for instance a notion that no candidate for public office should be viewed, "puffing" publically until the prohibition is gone, after all, it is still an illegal act.Funny how most people can distinguish that fact.
But "puffing" privately is somehow okay? Is it the principle of plausible deniability that is being followed? I am interested in this, how about staying on a picket line when the local constabulary has told you to disperse, would that disqualify someone as a candidate? My problem with the former candidate who was videotaped "puffing" was that he was operating a motor vehicle at the time.
From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 20 September 2008 06:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by bagkitty: But "puffing" privately is somehow okay?
Yep. quote: Is it the principle of plausible deniability that is being followed?
Nope, common sense. quote: I am interested in this, how about staying on a picket line when the local constabulary has told you to disperse, would that disqualify someone as a candidate?
Apples oranges. quote: My problem with the former candidate who was videotaped "puffing" was that he was operating a motor vehicle at the time.
I have issues with both and at the same time, I have no issues with either..
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 21 September 2008 06:36 AM
quote: Why do I want to see comfortable middle to upper class people who represent interests other than mine and who support those rotten institutions in power? Because they're not Liberal or Conservative middle to upper class Canadians who support those rotten institutions?Wait, wait, wait ... I'm sure I missed something. Maybe in the translation.
Truly, that is a good question. I'm still not entirely convinced that voting is a good idea to begin with. But if one must, I am suggesting that it is more likely that the middle to upper class NDP will listen to your interests than the others. I think the problem with NDP governments and activists, and lukewarm supporters is that we sit back and expect an NDP government to do for us what we perceive liberal and conservative tory governments do for their constiuentcies. I would guess, however, that tory governments are hectored by their corporate buddies as soon as they take office, to be reminded of the tune that was paid for. I don't think we do that. The time for activism doesn't stop with a majority government, it starts with a majority government. And the same tools one would develop fighting tory governments would be the same tools one would use to remind an NDP government just who paid for what tunes. quote: Idealists versus pragmatists?
quote: If you don't have a vision and a roadmap, how will you get anywhere?
I'm not sure anyone has a vision, idealists or pragmatists. The Benedict Rae type of "pragmatism" is what we end up with, I think, without vision. Rae should have done for us what Bill Davis did for his buddies, "government of all Ontarians" was, in as kind a light as I can manage, astoundingly naive. I might agree with the sentiment as something to change government to, but to use that as the philisophical starting point for Ontario's first NDP government, after about 200 years of unbroken Family Compact rule... as they say in chess: (!?)
We were dogs denied our day. Which went a long way in destroying the idealists in the ONDP. And, looking at where things sit today in Ontario, one has to wonder if that wasn't the plan all along. But I perhaps give too much credit. Happy accident? And while it's rhetorically fun to blame Benedict Rae, bottom line it was former activists like me who are ultimately culpable. Working class people and impoverished people have to find their own voice, their own politics removed from the system. A voice that says, do this for us, OR ELSE and our OR ELSE has to be scarier than corporate Canada's OR ELSE. And that stands for who ever has a majority in our legislatures or parliament.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|