| Compared to leftist critics of the Liberal Party, Sisyphus had it easy. At least he didn’t have to engage in the seemingly futile job of challenging the most persistent and destructive myth in Canadian politics: that the Liberals are a progressive party. And he most certainly didn’t have to work unbelievably hard to keep in the electorate’s eye the appalling social, economic and environmental record of the Liberals in office between 1993 and 2006 (the 13 years when they could have actually done something proactive about essential issues).
However, former Jack Layton staff member Jamey Heath has taken up this challenge. As noted by Heath, promoting his book Dead Centre: Hope, Possibility and Unity for Canadian Progressives (John Wiley & Sons Canada, 272 pp.), if we want a more democratic society we need to ensure that this Liberal hegemony – the "dead centre" – is challenged and replaced with a partisan electoral entity based on progressive values. Demonstrating that the current political climate seems set to ensure a slew of minority parliaments that increase the negotiating power of the various parties (and leads to more effective public policy), Heath argues it is time for the growth of a truly progressive force in parliament.
Yet, despite the opportunity, the progressive left seems reluctant to embrace it. Reflecting on his experiences in the labour and environmental movements, Heath suggests many of his associates felt everything was "well and good as long as the Liberal Party wins elections." That way, the left can maintain some purity and ideological scoffing distance.
Ironically, however, during elections progressives throw their critique and antipathy away if the Liberals are in danger of losing, and tend to support the Liberal record of inaction against the ill-defined agenda of the Conservatives. As a result, the Liberals –– a patently unprogressive party – are able to set the boundaries for broader discourse and policy development. They frame the debate and serve to make elections not about the good of the country but, rather, about the fortunes and ongoing dominance of the Liberals.
Now, if there was a shade of difference between the Liberals and Conservatives (in practice, not rhetoric), there might be some validity to this point, and the people who encouraged strategic voting in both the 2004 and 2005-2006 elections to keep the Conservatives out of power might have some credibility. However, this is not the case. When in office, the Liberals used just about every opportunity to undermine the foundations of the welfare state, and foiled most attempts to create a more just, humane and inclusive society – surely the aim of progressive politics? During the Chrétien-Martin regime – to give just a few examples – social housing, unemployment insurance, the environment, fair taxation policy, transfer payments, domestic control of the economy and federal standards in medicare were all sacrificed, with unbridled glee, on the altar of fiscal conservatism. Reflecting on this deplorable record, Heath suggests we could "raise the bar a little higher. It’s the middle that, ironically, keeps us polarized." As a society, we "can’t have a meaningful debate as the Liberal Party is in between."
Therefore, Heath suggests progressives need to help reframe Canadian politics, and employ the class-based "Douglas Frame" based on the example, political strategies, aspirations and idealism of the "greatest Canadian," Tommy Douglas. We seem to forget that Douglas won tremendous gains for Canadian people through partisan politics. Heath opines this short memory is due to a certain "intellectual laziness in thinking it dropped from the heavens," rather than being the result of hard-won battles. Furthermore, in terms of partisanship, it is "dirty when we want to elect someone, but de rigueur when we want to defeat someone." And this is his key point. Essentially, "progressives" in Canada need to create a broad electoral coalition – perhaps under the NDP, perhaps not – that will actually implement relevant elements of the progressive agenda, rather than talking about them whilst in opposition, during leadership bids or on the campaign trail.
Heath notes he deliberately left the definition of "progressive" vague – "why open up a can of worms?" Instead, he has put it into a broader context and asks the question, whether "party politics really matters and whether elections matter to progressive people – not to stop something, but to win it?" To help achieve this, he recognizes that there has to be fundamental change and permanent electoral reform, suggesting the need to "change the voting system. Then you are not faced with a choice of voting not for what you want, but not for what you fear."
However, as with Sisyphus, this task can be exceedingly frustrating. Heath talks about the "self-defeating" nature of the left in Canada, noting that people frequently partake in "theoretical debates that are often removed from party politics," and activists – such as Jim Laxer, Jim Stanford and Buzz Hargrove – "who blame the NDP for not being ideologically pure and blast them for that." These people "constantly demand perfection from the political party component of the movement," while at the same time publicly and vocally stump for a form of strategic voting that ensures the continued survival of the Liberals. Heath argues that the "instant the politics becomes uncomfortable for the Liberal Party, the NDP becomes enemy number one. (Critics) seem to focus on the imperfections in partisan politics and miss the big picture." Heath, although recognizing the NDP has some faults in both presentation and policy, still suggests that rather than splitting the progressive vote between the NDP, elements of the Green Party and, perhaps, a few maverick Liberals, it is best to recognize that the solution is to "build a party that can get 2.5 million votes. (Basically), the solution is growing it (the progressive movement), not cleaving it." That is, recognizing the Liberal party for what they actually are – unabashedly right wing.
Heath knows his views are not well received by many in green, left and progressive circles. As mentioned – all evidence to the contrary – many people still stubbornly believe that the Liberals will build Jerusalem in our green and pleasant land or, at least, will do less damage than the Conservatives. However, despite hostile e-mails and cold shoulders, Heath remains oddly optimistic about the electoral chances of progressive forces in Canada – and that’s refreshing. After all, the left wants in! |
Copyright ©2007 FFWD. All rights reserved.