Liberal-NDP merger and/or coalition talk is back in style again this week. Let's cut to the chase: Should the Liberal Party pursue merger talks with the NDP? Furthermore, should a merger even be on the Liberal radar at this point?
There are many arguments against a merger. The two parties have two very different histories, political cultures, and beliefs. Furthermore, a merged Liberal-NDP party wouldn't necessarily defeat Stephen Harper's Conservatives in a general election, with right-leaning Liberals and ultra-left New Democrats likely to withhold their support.
However, there are two principle issues that need to be taken into account by any Liberal when considering this issue. The first is historic, and the second is ideology.
From 1993 to 2003, the Conservative party's base was split. The 1993 federal election coincided with the Progressive Conservative party's "grand coalition" exploding and its support in the west moving toward the Reform Party. The forces of Quebec nationalism, fiscal conservatism, and Western alienation found themselves united and in power in 1984, and divided not too long thereafter.
The Liberal decline has, in contrast, been long-term. The Liberal party's base isn't split; it's gone.
This is evident both ideologically and regionally. On the ideological front, Liberal support has bled both left and right over recent elections as the Conservatives and NDP have moved closer to centre. From deficit spending to opposition to private health care -- among other issues both fiscal and social -- the Tories have clearly moderated their public stances, while the NDP's 2011 election platform actually called for reducing taxes on small businesses.
Regionally, the Liberal Party's base has slowly eroded as well. Liberal support in the West began to wane following the Diefenbaker landslide of 1958, and was lost for good following Trudeau's National Energy Policy in 1980. Similarly, Liberal support in Quebec hasn't been the same since the constitution was repatriated in 1982, and the party's image took a beating following AdScam. A united Conservative Party has slowly but surely eaten away at the Grits' support in Ontario.
A merger with the NDP would pull the Liberals away from the centre, and allow the Tories to occupy it for the foreseeable future. We all know that Canadian elections are won from the centre of the political spectrum. Rather, the natural corollary to other parties infringing on the centre is for the Liberal Party to redefine the political centre -- by outflanking the Tories on fiscal responsibility and the NDP on social progress while claiming particular issues for themselves. (For example, here is an old column of mine dealing with how the Liberals could do just that on the environment file.)
There is a deeper reason behind why Liberals should oppose a merger with the NDP: The NDP isn't a progressive party.
The word "progressive," for some reason, has earned the connotation of "left-wing" over the years. In reality, however, the word literally means "moving forward," as opposed to conservatives who seek to conserve the status quo (or worse -- return to the past).
Liberals must recognize that the NDP is in fact a conservative party. It is a party that wishes to conserve our current incarnations of public health care, welfare, and pensions without offering any tangible solutions to the upcoming demographic crisis. It is a party that wishes to maintain Canada's "traditional" international role as a peacekeeper, despite the fact that such a tactic is unlikely to function in the non-bipolar world that has been created following the demise of the Soviet Union.
And just like the Conservative party, the NDP appeals to the politics of fear in order to win votes -- fear of Stephen Harper. The Liberal party tried just that in the 2011 election and it didn't work. The Liberals' primary message during the writ was one rebuking the Conservatives for their undemocratic practices, not one offering a compelling vision for the future of the country. Never engage your enemy on the battlefield of his choice.
Putting the discussion of whether a merger would actually increase the odds of unseating Stephen Harper in 2015 aside -- and it is my belief that a merger would actually keep the Tories in power for longer -- there is a major problem behind the argument that Liberals and New Democrats must unite in order to defeat Harper: This argument is focused on Stephen Harper.
When Liberals appeal to this argument, they are in essence defining themselves in opposition to Stephen Harper. That's the opposite of being progressive -- it is in fact quite reactionary.
The act of simply contemplating a merger distracts Liberals from the task ahead -- a task that involves developing a comprehensive vision for the future of Canada, the job of any progressive party. Our job as Liberals isn't to "rise up", but rather to "rise above" the partisan field. It isn't to get angry, but to remain cool and collected. After all, the lawyer with the worst case bangs the table the hardest.
Those openly musing about a merger, coalition, or any form of cooperation with the NDP are undermining those Liberals who are pouring their hearts and souls into rebuilding the party from the ground up -- and we all know that rebuilding is tough enough as it is. It's time to put the entire merger discussion aside and get back to work.
Follow Zach Paikin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@zpaikin
Omar Alghabra: I am a Liberal. And I am Canadian.
Gerry Nicholls: Harper the Counter-Revolutionary
David Gratzer: Is the Liberal Party Dead?
Martha Hall Findlay: Diary From the Liberal Convention -- What an Atmosphere!
Of course there will be incremental reform proposals, but there is no reason to think the Liberal does, or will, have a monopoly on these proposals. Nor is there any basis to conclude that some of Paikin's proposals - a carbon tax with revenues used to lower income/corporate taxes (contrasted with inaction by conservatives, or the NDP cap and trade proposal with revenues used for new spending), essentially Dion's green-shift tax policy - would not be adopted by a merged NDP/Liberal party. Provincial NDP governments have proven to be fiscally responsible in many cases and they have enacted reforms, just as Liberal governments have been fiscally irresponsible and have maintained the status quo.
The proof is in the policy platforms that the parties have used in the last few elections - neither stands out as particularly "bold" and they have many similar priorities. That is the basis for the merger - rejecting it on the basis of some hypothetical Liberal revival (where they suddenly get inspirational leaders and bold, exciting policy proposals that are somehow different yet centrist) seems ill-advised.
The centre-left Liberals and the NDP need to cooperate or the unified right represented by the Conservatives will be re-elected. The ideological separation of the current Liberal and NDP parties is minor compared to the chasm that separates the Liberals and NDP from the Conservatives.
The Liberals and NDP have a shared vision of Canadian identity that includes a sense of social justice, environmental responsibility, and recognition that the private sector is to be encouraged but also regulated in the public interest. This is the vision of most citizens.
By contrast, the present Conservative regime is absolutely radical in its determination to reshape Canadian identity in a right-wing image. They are openly contemptuous of democracy, see government as the servant of business, think of environmental scientists as terrorists, and regard the whole notion of public interest as fiction.
In this dark current chapter of Canadian history, the Liberals and NDP need to act together. By splitting the centre left vote, the Liberals and NDP lost dozens of seats to the Conservatives in the last election. It will happen again unless the two parties put aside their differences and run a single candidate in key (or all) ridings in the next election.
Re"" peacekeeper ""
This is not true and as I was part of our Peace Keeping force I know better
You think what we just did in Libya is something to be proud of ??
Or Afghanistan??
What should really happen is my dream of the Common Sense Party and then with the ones I know of in the ndp, the liberals and the greens all get on board because it just makes sense then the remaining small shells of the hard core partisans wont matter one Iota !!!
Period
I think our differences are far outweighed by our common ground
As I was part of all three and on all executives after in fact just winning my seat yesterday on my Liberal EDA executive ...I say that what you say is just plain wrong and totally discounts how many are actually just forward thinking progressives looking for fair and just government
Simple things like what this country used to be...a beacon of freedom to the entire world
To fairness and freedom and I for one think maybe we should kill both the liberals and the ndp and maybe then create the liberal democrats or as I say the common sense party
There is no way either could be doing anything like this with the harpercrites not a chance yet they could with each other if they just drop the obvious partisans who only see the small picture it seems
It could be quite workable
Cheers
No thanks, you stay Lib, I'll vote NDP.
The political meanings of "progressive" and "conservative" are very different than their literal meanings.
The NDP likely will start trying to get the Armed forces soon with promises of unionizing them. If there was a war and they went on strike should be able to get a good raise
Everyone is aiming their vote to seniors... They're the major voting demographic, not to mention that any boomer who hasn't retired is going to be in the near future. Please send me a link showing this fear mongering you speak of, a video, a newspaper article, anything.
Also the NDP aren't exactly known for their love of wars and military. (Layton was the first leader to reall oppose Afghanistan, and if Ignatief had been the party leader as opposed to Martin we would have been in Iraq too)
Thanks for coming out and showing us how much change truly went on at the convention. Enjoy your place in history, there will be no come back.
American political culture is mired in fear and money for the past decade. Canada on the other hand has rather strict caps on monetary donations and contributions to any given party, and the only party that deals in the politics of fear in the past decade have been the Liberal party. Additionally it should be noted that when it comes to being in the pockets of corporations the Liberal party is still more guilty of it due to Adscam.
The questionable spending the Conservatives have done thus far is more akin to pork-barrelling than outright being corporate zombies, and I haven't seen any reports of how high ranking Conservative MPs stand to become filthy rich as the result of the policy they pass (which happens on a high basis in the States)
The kind of attack ads used by the Conservatives vs the Liberals are also rather different. The Liberals are the ones using fear based tactics such as "Destroying Canada, Harper's hidden agenda, in the pocket of big business, women's rights in danger" so on and so forth. This is compared to the Conservative tactics of painting the Liberals as "Out of touch, weak, and incompetent."
That is rather funny after reading Mr Colters article today. Politics of fear? The most important legislation he could think of was something to allow Canadians to sue terrorist states? That isn't playing on the fear card at all, in fact with the abundance of terrorists acts committed in Canada I can't believe it wasn't put in years ago. Which party was it again that got us into Afghanistan in the first place? Creating terror in all the civilians in that country? It was a politically motivated war which in the definition constitutes terrorism.
Ask yourself what is a terrorist , and then ask yourself what that terrorists family considers the terrorist. Like beauty a terrorist is all in the eyes of the beholder.
Maybe if we didn't act like Americans we could have an honest discourse with the other nations on the planet, but as it is our govt supports China at this point, so most hope is lost.