CKNW Editorial
for August 15, 2001

Alexa McDonough, the leader of the NDP nationally, is going across the country trying to revive her party’s fortunes, trying to remember that they never were any hell.

The socialist legend is, of course, that all the good social policies we have in this country came from the NDP prodding the right wing. There is some truth to that, of course … but there’s a lot of myth as well.

The first great social programs in the western world came in Germany during the premiership of the great autocrat himself – Otto Von Bismarck and they came in the last part of the 19th century. The great social upheaval in Britain came in two major doses – those of the Liberal party led by David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill just prior to World War I and then after the Second World War under the Labour government but based upon the famous report of Lord Beveridge, a lifelong Liberal. No one can quarrel with the proposition that the CCF/NDP did in fact prod the postwar Liberals and Tories but to say that great social reforms would not have happened had they not been there draws a pretty long bow. Ms McDonough argues that the NDP did facilitate these things and points to the United States saying that they don’t have the programs because they have never had a socialist party. This is simplistic in the extreme. The United States has a different history and social ethic. Independence from government has been the byword and every man for himself the slogan from the outset. There were many offerings of socialism to the Americans which they rejected. Because of their system of governance a two party system developed naturally meaning that the left had to join with the Democrats or perish on the vine. For all that their pension plan, Social Security, preceded Canada’s Pension Plan by 30 years. What the United States does demonstrate is that it is difficult for a right wing or left wing party to get elected unless they co-opt a good deal of the center. And herein lies the dilemma of the NDP.

Ms Mcdonough told us, without I’m sure meaning to, why her party is largely rejected in Canada. She said when the NDP plank supporting small business was debated a great many of the party vehemently argued against it.

This leads to a second truth, which Ms McDonough ignores – the labouring man and woman has never supported the NDP with any great enthusiasm. The union leadership has, both vocally and with money but not the rank and file, union or not. This was the lesson learned by Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair in the UK. When Margaret passed what to union leaders was draconian legislation, reining in their powers, the rank and file voted Tory in gratitude. The Labour party was always, like the NDP, very loath to admit this but after Mrs Thatcher won three straight victories Labour had to decide whether they wanted to be an intellectually and philosophically pure party or become the government. I make no case either way as to whether or not they made the correct choice but the fact is that they are in power and look to be for many years to come.

Being in power isn’t for everyone. There are many of the left who simply are not prepared to make the philosophical adjustments necessary to appeal to enough voters to get elected. There are others who truly think that it’s only a latter of time before the people see the error of their ways and flock to the socialist colours. The others have joined the Liberal Party.

Because the NDP has never been able to articulate a vision acceptable to the center-left, that spot is now the exclusive territory of the Liberal Party.

Here’s what happened in recent history that Ms McDonough seems to have missed. Socialism, after a 100 year struggle, lost in 1989 and it was not lost on the voter that if socialism wouldn’t work when government could coerce the people to their ways how the devil could it work when people were able to end the experiment next election out? It was not communism that fell in 1989 – it was socialism which, after all, has the same philosophical base, the only real difference being the means of implementation.

There is a New Left out there – led, if anyone leads it, by Naomi Klein and others. But this New Left doesn’t see the NDP as their lodestar. It is looking for a vehicle and the NDP ain’t it.

Does the NDP want to be "it"? Does it want to be the party of economic nationalism, which rejects corporations, and the reality of the new global economy? If it does it can attract this large and largely youthful mass along with its aging or even aged gurus like Mel Hurtig, Paul Hellyer, Maude Barlow and, of course, David Orchard. But it won’t be enough to gain power. It will certainly be enough to be the voice of the left but no more.

The British Labour Party simply prostituted itself. It severed its connections with the Union Movement and the loony left with which it was so often associated. Tony Blair went straight for the center, indeed perhaps even the center right, for in many people’s eyes the Liberal-Democrats have become the party of the left. Philosophically impure as it clearly was, this change of position brought power – real power not the ephemeral appearance of it from near misses nor short term wins … nor the pallid satisfaction of being able to claim influence without power itself.

I personally don’t care much what the NDP does although I do think the body politic healthier when there is a strong leftwing presence. But the choices are clear – one way to go is with Svend Robinson who would return the party to its roots and open the door to the exuberant young left that marches and demonstrates with such vigour but seldom votes. The other is to make a move on the center and center left, as did the British Labour Party.

What the NDP cannot do is both. And the reluctance of the party faithful to even give three cheers for small business much less support free enterprise on a larger scale indicates that they are doomed for a long time yet to remain amongst the politically irrelevant.