.jpg;w=960)
This week’s election results in the United States have shocked many, but are the voter demographics really that unexpected? The voting public’s growing tendency toward populism isn’t a phenomenon that exists in a vacuum, and it isn’t a phenomenon bound by borders (as federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, I’m sure, will soon learn).
Our next election will see Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives take control of the federal government and there are myriad reasons for this political shift in Canada. As we prepare for our own inevitable shuffle to the far right, we should be analytical of every factor that led us to this point, especially the failure of the federal NDP and its leadership.
The mistakes the Harris campaign have made directly mirror the downward spiral of the New Democrats since the passing of Jack Layton. In an effort to win over established voters of the opposing parties, the NDP directs focus toward the right, and those on the left who would have naturally aligned themselves with the NDP get left in the lurch without any viable candidate to represent them.
While Singh and his team busy themselves with simultaneously pandering to a centrist and right-wing voter base while vilifying right-wing leadership, they alienate the very people who would gladly champion their party and promote their platform.
Consider that Singh says he would never impose a pipeline project on a province or territory like Trudeau did, but he draws the line at giving them veto power. He also has no plans on legislating mandatory consultation with the Indigenous groups that hold the treaties to the land in question, making sure to not agitate any potential industrialist supporters.
The NDP is confident in the Indigenous vote and the environmentalist vote, so why take a clear stance against unbridled development when that could cost you a broken relationship with big business?
Singh doubles-down on his incoherence when the issue of Palestine is in question. On one hand, we see Singh calling for an end to Canada’s supplying Israel with weapons, but he draws the line at supporting the International Court of Justice’s ruling or acknowledging the war as a genocide (a decision we saw Harris make that alienated her from a large cohort of would-be supporters).
An Angus Reid poll from this summer shows that 68 per cent of NDP supporters believe Israel is committing genocide but, like many established politicians, Singh refuses to acknowledge that term, nor did he meet with Francesca Albanese (the United Nations special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories) on her recent visit to Canada.
Of course, the most notorious example of Singh’s political ambiguity is the recently dissolved coalition where the NDP offered unconditional support for the Liberals on any and all issues for the past two years. This deal succeeded in affording the minority Liberals security for the remainder of their term in exchange for pushing forward the Democrats’ agenda of pharmacare and universal dental coverage.
Two years later, Singh has dissolved the pact before either of his own goals could be fully realized, leaving both in jeopardy should an election be called. Moreover, the slow rollout of the complicated dental reimbursement model is already being claimed as a Liberal success, erasing the NDP completely from the narrative. From the NDP standpoint, this move was by no means a success.
But the issue is pushing forward policy is not how the NDP views success. Like the Americans, “success” for the political left in Canada has been redefined as “keeping the opposition at bay.”
At the formation of the coalition, we were told that a partnership between the two parties, despite their differences, was a better solution than the alternative (Poilievre). Again, mirroring the approach south of the border, we see our NDP engaging in a game where the goal is to impede the opposition’s plan rather than forwarding their own.
Make no mistake, Singh is quite talented at appearances and will jump at any opportunity to promote his own image as a David against a world of greedy Goliaths, but he stops short of throwing the stone.
Take the very public toe-to-toe hearings, where Singh eagerly confronted Galen Weston about Loblaws’ price gouging and record profits. While the NDP’s leader succeeded in getting media coverage and lobbing some sassy remarks toward Weston, what exactly came of this experiment? What solutions were presented by the NDP? What are the next steps?
Once again, we learn that policy and vision is the old way of politics, making way for a new theatrical display of virtue that the left seems to deem a fit replacement.
The commentary around the Harris defeat seems to be focused on why people of marginalized groups would possibly vote for an administration (Trump) that will enact policies in direct opposition to their interests.
I think it’s been made clear now that many voters are more than willing to sacrifice the prospect of individual liberty for a leader who promises them a vision of a collective future free of the struggles and disenfranchisement that they attribute to the political establishment. Poilievre’s Conservatives are very good at presenting that vision while the NDP has been visionless for over a decade now.
The current Conservative discourse in Canada around immigration, the environment, trans rights, abortion, and the use of deadly force against our indigenous population is threatening the safety of women, visual minorities, the LGBTQIA+ community, and their allies — a safety we have all spent decades trying to establish.
Those of us who still feel strongly about progress in these areas have absolutely nowhere to turn, because the parties and leaders who are supposed to be representative of our needs have their sights fixed on the other side. Make no mistake, we on the left don’t want a Conservative majority government either, but we also are through with being taken for granted by a party who assumes our support every voting season.
I’m sure the thinking at NDP headquarters is: Why develop policies and fight for change for groups of people who will cast a ballot in our favour regardless of what we do?
The American Democrats learned this week that taking the Latinx and Arab votes for granted was a grave mistake. Assuming voters will be on your side simply because your opponent is a ‘bad guy’ is a grave mistake. Defending the military and police force over innocent civilians is a grave mistake. A message was sent from the left to Kamala Harris: you need to stop counting on our vote and start earning it.
I truly hope the federal NDP learns that lesson before the next election, but I see no signs at present of that party changing course. The NDP needs to abandon their pathetic scramble to scoop up centrist votes from the Conservatives and start paying attention to the people who have been asking for vision and direction and leadership from an increasingly arrogant and out-of-touch leftist party.
We will not be there for you this time. Like the hordes of populist voters flocking towards Poilievre’s Conservatives, we too are fed up with the system. We too are skeptical of the establishment. We too are tired of a partisan approach that leaves us divided, feuding and helpless.
How much longer should we hold out for leadership and vision? How much longer should we be content with being ignored by the NDP candidates who collect paycheques as a direct result of our votes?
As the mechanics of Canadian politics continue to churn in favour of those who run the machine, the voters become increasingly more skeptical of any potential for substantial change. One day a reckoning will come where the NDP — content, for now, with their self-interested approach to elections — will discover that they should have been interested in the people casting the ballots all along.
Maty Ralph
Greater Sudbury