Alors qu'est-ce qu'on fait (part 3)

I'm back - again. I had two chaotic weeks after getting a job as research assistant to my Constitutional law professor But I should have more free time now. If anyone was happy of my absence - good for you. If anyone was unhappy (which I doubt), I'm sorry.

In a couple of previous posts I argued that the future of the Liberal party lies neither on the Left nor on the Right. Here is, finaly a (hopefully logical) conclusion of that argument:

Being a resolutely centrist party is the best option we have – by far. Of course, that’s what the Liberal party was always supposed to be. So we might be tempted to say that since it apparently hasn’t worked the last time around, it’s become a recipe for failure. I do not think such an assessment would be right. In fact, if I think we failed in the last election at least partly because we have not been good centrists. What then, does being a centrist party mean?

Pour commencer, contrairement aux prétentions de certains idéologues de gauche ou de droite, un parti centriste n’est pas un parti sans principes ou sans idées. C’est un parti qui, s’il considère un nombre moins important de principes comme fondamentaux et non-susceptibles d’être contrebalancés par d’autres, n’est est que plus dévoué à ceux qu’il conçoit comme tels. Ces principes, pour notre parti, ont historiquement été la liberté individuelle, la justice sociale, et l’unité de notre pays.

Once those basics are firmly established, being a centrist party means having an open mind. It means having the capacity to adapt and to adopt policy ideas that are consistent with these values, if they help make better the life of individual Canadians and of the Canadian society as a whole without exerting a price too heavy for Canada’s means. A centrist party should take on such policies whatever the label that some might attach to those policies – it doesn’t matter whether a balanced budget has been called a right-wing priority or that child care might have been a left-wing one. Since they serve purposes that are greater than the scale of the traditional political spectrum, whether it be prosperity or human development, they ought to be endorsed by a centrist party, for they inevitably have some “left-wing” and some “right wing” aspects. The challenges that we used to call those of tomorrow, but which have become those of today, such as environment and economic competitiveness in a knowledge economy, are not going to be met except by policies that have, to borrow an expression from constitutional law, a “double aspect”.

Un parti centriste doit, de plus, et c’est peut-être là que nous avons surtout failli lors des années que notre parti a passées au pouvoir, donner une cohérence à l’ensemble des politiques et des idées qu’il a ainsi adoptées. Cela peut, certes, être plus difficile à faire pour nous que pour un parti qui adhère obstinément à une seule idée fixe, mais cela n’est pas impossible pour autant. Il suffit de montrer comment chaque mesure prise se rattache à nos valeurs de base telles que la justice sociale, le développement économique et l’unité canadienne et comment elle nous aidera à s’approcher de ces objectifs. Tant et aussi longtemps que ce travail est fait rigoureusement, nous ne serons pas obligés de nous limités à nous limiter à un nombre arbitraire et nécessairement trop réduit de « priorités » hétéroclites comme Stephen Harper le fait, sans pour autant être le parti désorienté que nous avons trop souvent été ces dernières années.

In short, the political centre is our party’s “home” and should remain it. Being a centrist party requires that we be rigorous and coherent, but allows us to implement policies that will actually improve people’s lives, without worrying about the way they can be characterized by those opposed to them because of some narrow ideological viewpoint. What policies will those be? That, I think, is one of the things the leadership race will have to determine, maybe the most important thing. Personally, I would very much like to see a commitment to universities – but as a university student I have to admit to a “certain” bias.

Harper's War

A post by Blue Grit invites us to consider Harper's views on Liberalism so as to better understand him. It is very interesting (though scary) reading, and Blue Grit is clearly correct in saying that we ought to understand the adversary to better fight him. Unfortunately, I have to admit that now I understand Harper even less than I did before. As a good neo-con, Harper is waging a war. He's the good guy fighting evil. Evil can take many forms - a bearded guy with an AK47, a Supreme Court Justice, a university professor... evil must be so powerfully confusing that it seems to me Harper is fighting the wrong ennemy.

I a way Harper is obviously right... the neo-cons are always right... in a way. Bush was right when he was saying Saddam is a bad guy, and so is Harper when he's saying that moral nihilsm, or people who don't care for values of "free and democratic societies" is dangerous.

He is right... except that he is fighting the wrong ennemy. Moral nihilists - aren't they the Bloc people his party is sleeping with? If people who draw paycheques from the parliament of a country they are set to destroy and claim to be socialists - or something like that - yet support an hard-right government are not moral nihilists, who are? And people who don't care for freedom and democracy - aren't they Harper's very own conservative friends? If people who believe their fellow human beings should be denied rights because of their sexual orientation or switch parties two weeks after an election care for freedom and democray, who doesn't?

I have suggested this in the past, and I repeat my suggestion: Mr. Harper, you should join the Liberals. That's the party fighting moral nihilists and defending freedom and democracy for every Canadian. No you won't be our leader this time around. Even Bob Rae has been a member of the party longer than you by now. But next time, after we've tought you to smile without looking like you want to eat a baby right now, we might give you a chance!

P.S. Serously though, it's true that we need to make much clearer that we have principles - and what they are.

Alors qu'est-ce qu'on fait? (2nd part)

Après le petit commentaire sur le budget, je reviens à mon "principal" sujet - la future direction du Parti libéral:

One thing that seems quite clear is that we cannot go back, even though behind us are 12 years of some of the best management Canada has ever seen. Yet even in management, we have had spectacular failures, one of them costing us first our majority and then the government altogether. But more importantly, we have barely taken advantage of this management to implement our vision for the country. Many would say that the Liberal party had, in fact, no vision whatsoever. While I do not think it is true, we must admit that, more often than not, we lacked the will to translate it into tangible policy (which is why it is so important that our next leader be committed to the path we shall choose for the party).

Puisque nous ne pouvons revenir en arrière, et que rester sur place, c’est nous condamner à rester l’opposition loyale de Sa Majesté pour bien des années encore, nous devons avancer. À gauche, au centre ou à droite ? Voici, réduite à l’essentiel, la question que nous nous posons.

Most leadership candidates, it seems, and many Liberals, say that we should move left. Some Liberals and liberal-leaning participants in opinion polls even advocate a merger with the NDP. The thinking is that by “uniting the left” in opposition to Stephen Harper’s Conservatives we stand a better chance of defeating them sooner rather than later. I have strong doubts about this. However, even if it could work, it would be only a short term solution, which might well have unfortunate long-term consequences.

Unir la gauche risqué bien de nous faire faire autant de pertes que de gains, même à court terme. Les gains qu’on ferait seraient limités à une fraction des électeurs du NPD, et peut-être une fraction de ceux du Parti vert. Dans les deux cas, une part considérable des électeurs et des membres ont des positions trop arrêtées ou même extrêmes pour rejoindre le Parti libéral. Or, le nombre d’électeurs de gauche n’est pas si grand – environ 25% aux dernières élections, dans des conditions peut-être idéales pour le NPD et les verts, puisque plusieurs libéraux étaient trop découragés par le parti pour le soutenir. En même temps que le potentiel de gains à gauche est ainsi limité, celui de pertes à l’aile droite du parti n’est pas négligeable. Absorber une grande quantité de membres plutôt gauchistes forcerait le Parti libéral à changer ses principes, son programme, surtout au niveau fiscal et économique, ce qui les rendrait dès lors inacceptables à une partie des membres et d’électeurs de centre-droit, par exemple à des ex-progressistes-conservateurs qui se verraient poussés, une fois de plus, dans les bras de Stephen Harper. Ainsi, même à court terme, nous avons, au mieux, peu à gagner en tentant de s’approprier la gauche tout en aliénant le centre-droit.

The long-term consequences of such an operation can be even more disastrous. Except for the people who will vote for the Bloc, it leaves a polarised political scene, in which the Conservatives can posture as the only alternative to the Liberals, and, what’s more, as a moderate one. If the Liberal party is centre-left, they will get away with calling themselves centre-right. Yet the conservative party is not, not now anyway, a centre-right party – it is a right-wing, neoconservative one. Creating a polarised, two-party system will mean allowing this lie to continue forever. Furthermore, if they are the only alternative to a more-or-less left-wing Liberals, the Conservatives will never have to moderate. Whether this will do the Liberal party good, I don’t know, though I doubt it. What I do not doubt however is that it will do Canada no good – which means we shouldn’t be encouraging such a turn of events. Therefore, going left, in my humble opinion, is a bad idea, both for its immediate consequences and in the long run.

Je ne crois pas, non plus, qu’un mouvement vers la droite soit dans les intérêts de notre parti. D’ailleurs, il n’y a pas beaucoup de candidats à la direction qui défendent cette solution à la situation. De toute façon, on n’a qu’à regarder du côté des conservateurs pour voir qu’un programme de droite n’est pas la solution aux problèmes politiques d’un parti au Canada – si c’en était une, Stephen Harper n’aurait pas besoin d’empêcher ses ministres de présenter leurs positions aux journalistes !

(à suivre)

A conservative budget?

I didn't think I'd right on the budget, since that's what almost everyone does anyway. But I want to share this little thought:

Je trouve plutôt curieux qu'un budget "conservateur" soit plein de crédits d'impôts et d'autres incitatifs pour des groupes spécifiques (étudiants, usagers de transport en commun, parents etc). Essentiellement, cela revient à encourager certains comportements au détriment d'autres, à dire aux contribuables comment se comporter - plutôt qu'à simplement leur laisser plus d'argent pour qu'ils décident eux-mêmes ce qu'ils veulent en faire! C'était pourtant l'excuse pour abolir le programme des garderies - il fallait que les gens décident eux-mêmes. M. Harper, est-ce incohérence ou hypocrisie de votre part?

Alors qu'est-ce qu'on fait?

Following our loss in the last federal election, we Liberals are left wandering what should happen to our party. While we know well enough what our problems were – in short, complacency and lack of vision due to an over-devotion to management rather than leadership – we are still at a loss looking for the solutions to them. The party is at a crossroads, wonder at the same time whence to go and whom to trust to lead it there.

Je crois que la réponse à la deuxième question devra dépendre de celle à la première. On ne peut se choisir un guide avant de savoir la destination. On ne pourra, l’ayant choisi, lui demander d’aller avec un courage et une détermination sans réserves s’il ne fait pas entièrement confiance au chemin par lequel il doit nous mener – or, comme nous devrions l’avoir appris de la dernière campagne électorale, rien de moins qu’un tel courage et une telle détermination ne suffira pour couper court à la folie du gouvernement conservateur.

I will try, in the next few days, to answer both those questions. Instead of coming up with a single huge essay, I will do it in (relatively small parts). I hope it will be easier to follow. I also hope it will get me used to the idea of posting regularly, so that I don't do the same thing as last December when I just stopped working on the blog.

There and back again

Oh well... I haven't touched the blog since mid-Decembre. I have to admit I was too depressed by the election campaign, and then too taken by classes, assignments and finally exams. Now that these are over and I have no excuses left, I'll be publishing again very soon... hopefully this time I will last longer than back in Decembre.

À bientôt!