Reflections on what Trump's win does and doesn't mean

Like most Canadians, I watched in relative horror as I saw Donald J. Trump rise to the office of President last night. And while I wouldn't have bet a whole lot of money on him winning , I did say as early as February that Clinton was a poor match-up against Trump, and how Sanders' democratic  socialist populism was a bulwark against Trump's xenophobia.

But what does this election mean right now, about 24 hours later?

***

The spectre of racism and sexism can't be ignored in this election: many have pointed out how America is less safe today for women and most minority populations. This is unacceptable, and the election is a sad reminder that white people--especially men but also women--supported a man for president based in part on his misogyny and white supremacy.

***

But the narrative around this being a massive racial shift in American politics is not in accordance with emerging data. While it is certainly the case that Clinton did substantively better among non-whites, the reality is that her numbers fell in relation to Obama's in 2012: not just among blacks, but among Asians and even Latinos. According to the New York Times' exit polling, Trump gained no fewer than 7 points from each of these minority groups.

This says a couple things: American politics is deeply racially-segregated, has always been so, and is likely to remain so. But it also says that race was less polarizing among actual voters than it was when Obama ran. It was--from the voters' aggregate perspective on racial terms--an election like any other.

And despite Trump's pervasive misogyny, much the same can be said about gender. Exit polling data here demonstrates that while Trump did indeed gain 5 points from men, he only lost 1 point from women. The 5 point male pickup could very well be due to the appeal of his anti-feminist rhetoric, but the collapse of female support for the Republican nominee failed to materialize, whatever the media narrative.

So while many activists are right to be skeptical of class-based analyses that patch over Trump's white misogyny, we really do have to examine the stark trends in income demographics

***

One of the narratives that came out of the election was that Trump's win was based on a 'lower class' revolt against the liberal elite. And while this has been tempered by people noting that Clinton won a majority of support among those making 50,000 or less, many of the same people failed to acknowledge relative trends in income data vis-a-vis 2012.

What this shows is that while that the richest Americas stayed more or less static in their preferences (which were evenly divided between the parties), there were shifts among populations making less than 200,000 dollars. And those shifts do demonstrate a revolt against the Democratic status quo among lower and middle income Americans. Clinton picked up negligible support among those making 50 to 100k, but gained nearly 10 points among 100-200K earners.

Trump is the real story-maker here, picking up 16 points among the lowest income Americans, and another 6 points among those in the 30-50K range.

In a sense, this is a rejection of the general Democratic strategy to ignore the struggles of working Americans. When Michelle Obama said that America was already the greatest country on earth, she--and the Democratic establishment--were happy with a status quo that is predicated on growing inequality of both opportunity and condition. Clearly, the message was lost among the masses.

***

Perhaps one factor which can be emphasized above all is the general turnout. As the below image shows, the issue was less a mass racist turnout for Trump, and more an enthusiasm gap for the Democratic coalition, which was extremely effective in the two Obama campaigns. Simply put, Trump got fewer raw votes than either Romney or McCain, but was still able to eke out a Electoral College victory.

At the end of the day, this was a sad day for American politics, and a partial indictment of the white working class there, but it was also a failure of the Clinton campaign, and the broader DNC. 

They failed to acknowledge working-class discontent, failed to visit key battleground states, failed to marshal their massive warchest, failed to pull the vote, and failed to select a candidate that was--above all--a generator of much-needed enthusiasm.

My radio Interview on Tom Mulcair and the Leadership Review

What Hassan Yussuff's Comments mean for Tom Mulcair's Leadership Review

--NDP leader Tom Mulcair (left) with Canadian Labour Congress President Hassan Yussuff (right)

As I have noted on this blog and in the media, including Calgary News Talk 770, the question of if Tom Mulcair should stay or go is proving to be the primary one going into the NDP convention taking place this weekend in Edmonton.

Up until last week, it appeared that while Mulcair was facing criticisms from members, the media, the NDP Socialist Caucus, and isolated MPPs like Cheri DiNovo, it was unlikely that he would face any substantive institutional challenge to his leadership.

In a format where every single NDP member could cast a vote, the role of institutions would be less imperative, because a member could have a say even if they couldn't afford a trip to the convention.

But at this convention decisions will be determined by the people in the room, and only the people in the room. Beyond a discussion of if this model is democratic and accessible (it isn't), the reality is that those institutions with logistical and financial resources are vital in the course of convention debate.

With all this in mind, the voice of organized labour is the biggest variable in Mulcair's hope of keeping his job. And as of a few days ago, the narrative was that major unions were backing Mulcair to lead the party, if not into the next election, than for at least the next two years. These unions include the United Steel Workers, Canadian Union of Public Employees, United Food and Commercial Workers, and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

But a crack in this wall of labour support came in a recent Globe and Mail piece, where Canadian Labour Congress President Hassan Yussuff declared that a new NDP leader is needed, and that Mulcair has no valid claim to a continued leadership tenure.

The importance of Yussuff's claims, especially given their timing and unambiguousness, cannot be overstated. The CLC is the single largest federation of unionized workers in Canada and Yussuff's claims put him at odds with the above-mentioned pro-Mulcair unions, most of whom are chief affiliates to the CLC. It also matters that he is a planned speaker at the convention, which brings these tensions right to the mainstage in Edmonton

The main question here, however, is just how this might serve to affect the convention:

1. The vote on Mulcair's leadership: If the vote on keeping Mulcair turns out to be a close one, then Yussuff's claims might well make all the difference.

But we should keep in mind that the effect might not be as strong as expected. First, pro-Mulcair unions have been proactive, and have organized their delegations better; Yussuff's claims come rather late, and the CLC lacks the same structures to send delegates that major pro- Mulcair unions have.

But perhaps more important than how it affects the vote itself is how it changes the general 'feel' of the convention:

2. The tone of the convention: Beyond the simple yes or no question about Tom, the convention is about policy and intra-party politics. There has been a vocal and passionate anti-Mulcair contingent in the party that has only grown since the October defeat, but it remains fractured without institutional linchpins. Yussuff's claims will serve to embolden these delegates, who now know that Canada's number one labour leader supports a change agenda in the party.

My view is that these claims, which underline existing divisions between Canadian labour's upper echelons, will increase the convention's intensity, leading to more tensions between delegates, more pointed debates, and a greater sense of opposition between the pro- and anti-Mulcair camps. Not even the convention's various social events will escape unscathed from these 11th hour remarks

Again: if Mulcair turns out to have a healthy delegate lead right now, Yussuff's comments won't likely change the game. But in a close race, they will. One caveat here, however, is that a super-charged convention floor might well add volatility to all aspects of the debate, including on Mulcair's job. For Mulcair, a peaceful and routine convention is the ideal environment for preserving his job. Any sort of tumult only increases his risk.

And beyond this--whether Mulcair survives or not--the way this plays out as labour and the NDP work towards the next election, is bound to be affected, as is next year's CLC convention, where Yussuff himself faces a re-election test.

Only one thing is certain, however: this convention just got a lot more interesting

Why the Liberals' Approach to Federal Public Sector Bargaining could Spell Trouble for Unions

The Harper era was one of antagonism towards the federal public service, especially once he formed a majority in 2011. There were deep cuts to budgets and staffing, along with a growing distrust between public servants and the government, which led to censorship of the former, even in cases where experts simply wished to share research with the public or professional associations. 

As such, federal public service unions like the Public Service Alliance of Canada, The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and the Canadian Association of Professional Employees engaged in a historic campaign to remove Harper from power. It's no stretch to say that the defeat of the Conservatives was due in part to the work of labour to oppose Harper's message and policy. 

But the 'stop Harper' approach wasn't uncontroversial in labour circles. While most every major union wanted a new government, there were stark divisions between those that advocated an Anything But Conservative approach, and those more wedded to the NDP. In the end, the former approach won handily, as the Trudeau Liberals stormed to a majority government, with the NDP--and not the Conservatives--being the primary losers.

The federal public sector unions were linked to an ABC mentality, largely because their respective memberships were wary of partisanship beyond anti-Conservatism. Ultimately, and whatever the Liberals' long history--stretching back to the first Trudeau era--of attacking public servants, they were welcomed into power.

So when the new government came to power on a platform contrasted to the austere Harper years, there was optimism from labour. This feeling has continued into last week's budget announcement. On both fronts, leaders like Robyn Benson and Debi Daviau have cautiously praised the rolling back of laws like C-377, along with a general commitment reverse cuts, restore professional autonomy, and limit the contracting-out of work in the public service.

But there are signs that, with bargaining looming, the tone from both sides is set to change. As I've noted in other sources, the real test of this new relationship will be in how the parties address issues around general compensation, hiring, and sick leave. On that latter issue, the government has already faced opposition from the PSAC among others.

Indeed, the government's approach is hard to pin down, because while the budget has laid out expansionary elements for the public service, claims by Finance Minister Bill Morneau, and Treasury Board President Scott Brison have emphasized the continued need for concessions from civil servants. Specifically, They want to offset the supposed 900 million dollar cost of sick leave, and have also stressed the need for restraint more generally, whatever the budget's tone.

Speaking in broad terms, my biggest takeaway here is that should tensions rise between the government and civil service unions, the options for the latter will be far more limited than under the Harper Conservatives. This is for three primary reasons:

1. The unions' ABC tactics have given a mandate to the Trudeau government's actions:

Unlike with any of Harper's victories, Canadian unions are at least partially responsible for this government's rise to power. This means that should the government take positions unpopular with labour leadership, they will have less of a political mandate to oppose them.

While it was easy for unions like the PSAC to rally members around a Fightback plan when Harper won in 2011, the messaging on why the Liberals may need to be opposed will be much more difficult to draft and proliferate. Members will rightly ask why the union is opposing a government they worked to put into power only months prior.

2. The Liberals' messaging, if not their actions, are much more tactful:

Harper was a shrewd leader, and a gifted political tactician. He knew is base well, and despite being unpopular with a majority of Canadians, was able to hold power for the better part of a decade. But when it came to dealing with labour and the public service, his government was often brash, confrontational, and inflammatory. The result was that rank-and-file public servants--who may not have been politically motivated historically--now had an affirmative interest in seeing the government change. Further, the media's coverage of such an approach made labour much more sympathetic to the average Canadian, meaning that leaders could correlate Harper's general unpopularity with his attacks on public services and those who provide them

The Trudeau Liberals, conversely, will not be so forward in their conflicts with public servants. They understand that image and tone are vitally important, and that even if they take actions similar in intent and effect to Harper, they can limit the activation of rank-and-file and public animosity to decisions.

Liking to point 1, this will limit union leadership's ability to win supportive voices from voters, members, and the media, all of which were imperative in the effectiveness of the Stop Harper campaign.

3. The anti-Harper alliance is no longer in play:

As noted above, Stephen Harper, even when basking his majority government glow, was disliked by a majority of Canadians, who were divided between supporting the four other federal parties, all seen as nominally 'left of centre.' This meant that even as his party wielded absolute parliamentary power between 2011 and 2015, he face opposition at every corner.

The public service unions were able to capitalize on this environment, winning numerous allies to their cause because even though they might not normally be pro-labour forces, they had a common goal in ousting Harper. The PSAC especially was able to may media hay with the "Harper Hates X" buttons, allowing Canadians of all classes to unite in their opposition to the Conservatives.

But the Liberals, even if they take right-wing action, are never as polarizing as the Conservatives. They are consistently the top second choice of Canadian voters, and their actions are less likely to be seen as vindictive or ideologically-motivated. The result is that should the Trudeau regime turn against its civil service, there won't be a pan-Canadian movement willing to stand with them. Most small business people, students, professionals, environmentalists, and non-old-stock Canadian groups will stand with Trudeau as he attacks the rights and standards of unionized workers.

*** 

My concern is that the Liberals will be able to get away with attacks on public servants that wouldn't be tolerated from Conservatives. People forget that, however bad Harper was, Chretien and Martin were at least a step worst, and Pierre Trudeau violated fundamental labour rights in a manner that would make today's Conservatives blush.

Much like how the turfing of Mulroney allowed a right-wing Liberal regime to sneak into power on vague left promises, so too might we be entering another era of Liberal austerity and anti-worker animus that will prove much more difficult to withstand.

My expectation and hope is that labour leadership, if only hypothetically, is working on how exactly they can energize members should they need to against the solidly popular Trudeau regime. With oil prices low, a deficit quickly increasing, and a government demanding concessions, unions will need to find allies, lest they find themselves an isolated scapegoat of the Liberals once again.

Ed Broadbent and the Promise of Canadian Socialism

--Ed Broadbent (centre), with David Lewis (left), and Sanley Knowles (right)

Over the past few weeks, many have been celebrating Ed Broadbent's 80th birthday by reflecting on his venerable legacy. Some of these tributes have come from his own Broadbent Institute, and some from world-renowned scholars like Charles Taylor. People have emphasized his political longevity, his personal kindness, his passion, and the effect he's had on our society and democracy. Some, like Luke Savage, have honed on how Broadbent--especially the young Broadbent--was an ardent champion of a democracy beyond the ballot box:

“Political democracy is not enough. Social democracy is our goal...We must not take refuge in the rhetoric of modern conservatives who say political democracy is sufficient: Nor must we be lulled into accepting battlegrounds established by others. On the contrary, we must face all issues of work squarely, certainly recognizing both priorities and complexities, and yet remaining firmly committed to the building of that fuller kind of democracy which alone can make it possible for the lives of Canadians to be both just and exciting.”

Ultimately, while many have lauded Ed's life as a social democrat, I feel his most poignant legacy is his democratic socialism, which was centred less on reforming capitalism to improve it, but enacting reforms as means to building a socialist society north of the 49th parallel. This was a consistent value-statement of Broadbent, at least until the early 1980s.

Broadbent, for instance, looked at unions, public control, and socialism as essential to democracy. He suggested socialism must be won in a two-front battle, whereby labour pushed for increasing power over capitalists in the workplace and the NDP pushed for laws that undermined the anti-democratic rights of property. The result would be the supersession of liberal democracy, leading to “the eventual passing of a law which will remove all rights of control from those who own companies or who own shares in companies.”

This was all part of what Broadbent deemed a socialist citizenship, which included recognizing unions as a fundamental aspect of citizenship within the realm of the workplace:

"Just as a native in a modern nation is not required to decide whether or not to become a citizen of a country so too in a place of work, men should not be required to show cause for the formation of a union. It should be an automatic right, i.e., no stipulated minimum support should be required before a union local can be formed. Unions should exist where working people exist, just as citizens exist where nations exist"

Indeed, Broadbent was a proud socialist. Even as the neo-liberal consensus was growing in the 1980s, he was adamant that socialism continue to be the NDP's raison d'être:

"Whatever happens, we must retain our socialist faith and use this to inspire the creation of a better Canada. We believe in equality not because it’s popular. We believe in liberty not because it’s a winner. We believe in social ownership not because of the polls. We believe in these because they are right, we must never forget it"

Much more could said about Ed, but what's important is that the NDP had a leader within many Canadians' lifetimes who was a proud democratic socialist with a vision of a post capitalist Canada. Over the years, he has moderated his views, arguing now that social democrats in the NDP vein seek to build a fairer capitalism more than anything else. But as history unfolds, I believe his lasting legacy--along with the legacies of other leaders like David Lewis and Tommy Douglas--will be as voices prophetically crying out into the wilderness, presaging a post-capitalist age which will come, even if we have yet to see its glint over the horizon.

Happy Birthday, Ed. Here's to plenty more, so that we can see a socialist Canada, together.

Three Things I Want to See at the NDP Convention

As I will be a delegate to the upcoming NDP convention next month in Edmonton, I'll be devoting a series of blog posts to some key questions. This will build upon my recent article, in which I argued that Tom Mulcair's merits need to be debated in a context beyond the belief that there are no replacements for him.

But as we build to the convention, I want to see at least three things not directly related to the leadership vote of confidence:

1.  The Ideological Direction of the Party

As some of been quick--and largely correct--to note, the broader ideological trends of the NDP are not solely due to Mulcair. Before Tom, before Jack, and even into the later days of Ed Broadbent's leadership tenure in the 1980s, the party has been on a fairly gradual rightward trajectory. Blaming Tom for all this is unfair.

If the party is to take a leftward move, it goes beyond the leadership question and into the bones of the party. Much has said about changing the constitutional preamble in 2013, but what is inarguable is that the amendments have ended commitments to production beyond profit motives, to social ownership, and to the abolition of poverty.

In my view, those three concepts are essentials in building a society based on economic and social democracy. Without them, we offer only marginal differences from the Liberals and Conservatives. I will support those resolutions that emphasize a democratic socialist economy and society, and reject all those that emphasize a continued turn towards the right.

Again: it isn't all about Tom, so with this in mind, delegates, party members, and the media should be wary of ignoring policy debates.

2.  The Election of Party Officers

Deeply important are the elected women and men who lead the party mostly behind the scenes. These officials have importance in and of themselves, but also via what they represent through their campaigns and candidacies.

On the face of it, there will likely be two broad slates of candidates, one representing the party's mainstream  and institutional consensus, and another put forward by the Socialist Caucus. These two slates will likely face off across most positions, with additional 'independent' candidates running for select spots.

More than specific endorsements--which I feel unqualified to make until I've heard speeches and had to time to more directly parse platforms--I wish to see broad diversity among the executive. This includes diversity in terms of traditional equity-seeking groups, but also in terms of social class, geography, and profession.

Equally important is at least some indication that the national executive contains some unabashed democratic socialist elements. Its unlikely at this stage that the executive will be filled with left voices, but for the party to move forward, socialism needs to be consistently present at the its institutional zenith.

3. Tom Mulcair's Plan for the Future

Beyond the direct question of yes-or-no to Tom, vital is his 2019 road-map to victory, as well as his vision for what Canada the NDP should endeavour to build.

I want to see evidence that Mulciar has taken responsibility for the electoral failure. In some ways, he already has, noting that whatever the strategic blunders, he as leader bears the full brunt. But I want to see that he recognizes that party's liberal turn to be a big part of the 2015 defeat.

While strategic voting played a role, so did it in Ontario, where despite a prominent Stop Hudak campaign, the NDP managed to increase its vote share and maintain its seat count. The federal loss of seats and votes cannot be drawn fully to strategy: ideology factors in, too.

With this in mind, I want to see Tom in some fashion address the following issues:

1. The zero deficit pledge: I am not opposed deficit-free governance, but made as a promise without substantive tax increases was a recipe to endorse austerity measures so familiar under Conservative and Liberal governments. If we're going to promise no deficits, we must pair that with the promise that, if needed, taxes will be raised before we entertain cuts. While Mulcair in the run up to convention is backing away from this policy, I want to see a more forceful rejection of this key election platform.
2. The refusal to raise income taxes: Tom has repeatedly proclaimed that income taxes are bordering on unjust for Canada's wealthiest. This position is in opposition to equality of condition and opportunity, and needs to be changed as soon as possible. We need, as I've argued on this blog before, substantive tax increases, including on middle class Canadians. Socialism isn't cheap, and we can't (and shouldn't) trick Canadians into thinking it is.
3. A Deeper Embrace of the Canadian Left: One personal issue I've had with Mulcair is the feeling that he sees himself as outside of Canada's socialist tradition. This is in part driven by his long ties to the Liberal Party, but more than that: Its his skittishness around the word 'socialism,' his defense and praise of Margaret Thatcher, his continued support of the Quebec Liberals over the socialist--whatever the federalist question--Quebec Solidaire.
   
   All of these points make me feel that Tom really isn't one of us. He can better attempt to address this in the run up to the convention, and seems to have already started, terming himself a "democratic socialist" only days ago. But he needs to keep showing us that he's willing to move in the right (left) direction. 

For me to make my decision on the leadership question, I need to see the outcome of the above points over the following weeks. My hope is that we can turn to a position that emphasizes economic equality, security, and democracy for all Canadians. If we can do that with Mulcair, then so be it. If we can't, then the party can and should be prepared to move in an alternative direction.

Progressive Alternatives to Corporate Tax Increases

Since Tom Mulcair has become leader of the NDP, the party has fervently opposed the concept of tax increases on the wealthy, which Mulcair deemed confiscatory. As an alternative, the NDP put forward modest increases to the corporate taxes, along with closing some loopholes that have given tax relief to executives.

  

All this meant that Justin Trudeau and the Liberals were able to position themselves as the only party raising taxes on the rich to offer tax breaks to the middle class. And while the Liberal tax increases have given not helped the vast majority of Canadian tax filers, the perception was that the Liberals took the NDP's left flank on taxation. 

The purpose of this piece isn't about if the NDP was to the left or right of the Liberals on taxation. Rather, the goal is to explore the limitations of corporate taxes, as well as the benefit of increases to other taxes. The two we're going to focus on here--given that income tax is more of a topic on its own--are capital gains and sales taxes.

The Problem with Corporate Taxes 

The issue with corporate taxes isn't a total one; such taxes have value, and shouldn't be slashed without consideration. The corporate tax rate is likely in a good position right now. But as a mechanism to promote a stable and equal tax base, it is far from ideal. 

This is largely because they are among the easiest taxes to evade, given that corporations can move much more easily than individuals bound by matters of citizenship and the desire to live in a nation like Canada.

Many studies have indicated that a hike in the corporate tax rate is among the least efficient to raise revenue, because  corporations are adept at artificially lowering their tax burden through the employ of accountants and lawyers. 

The issue of corporate taxes in Canada is also fraught with arbitrary definitions, with many people arguing that the rate should be set, not on some universal standard, but on the nebulous concept of what a 'small' or 'large' business is. Ultimately, the very definition of corporation is more political than technical.

The evidence that high corporate taxes are not required for strong social programs and redistribution is how many Scandinavian countries--known for high levels of social security and equality--don't have high tax rates on businesses, instead choosing to tax individual incomes and habits. 

Sales or Value Added Taxes

Under the recent Conservative government, the federal sales tax was cut from 7 to 5%, meaning that in provinces like Ontario, the sales tax is 12%. Many people argue--correctly--that sales taxes in and of themselves are regressive, meaning that the burden of this taxation is higher on those with less ability to pay. From this perspective, a sales tax has the appearance of an inegalitarian flat tax. 

But it doesn't need to be this way. Already today we offer low-income Canadians GST/HST rebates to help offset sales taxes, and there is no reason that should these sales tax rates rise, that the rebate won't rise as well. And while rebates come quarterly, meaning that low income people have to up-front the little money they have, an increased tax base can improve social services, which may well make lives easier for poorer Canadians

A final point on this: we currently have a arbitrary sales tax distinction between goods that are necessities and those that are not. In recent years, this has been a matter of political debate, with the Ontario NDP demanding that home heating be deemed a necessity, and many women successfully making the case that products like tampons were as well.  

I feel that excessive energy is wasted on the classification of goods in terms of their essentiality. Why buying a hot pizza from a restaurant carries a tax, but an identical cold pizza carries does not offers no meaningful distinction. Its  just an exercise in hair splitting.

We should end necessity exemptions. All purchases--whether diapers or diamonds--should be taxed. Again, concerns about effects on lower-income people can be offset by changes to the GST/HST rebate. 

If the purpose of a sales tax is to tax consumption, then all consumption needs to be factored in. Sales taxes are not a directly progressive form of taxation, but they are an efficient way of raising funds.

Capital gains Taxes

 In basic terms, a capital gain is the profit made from the sale of an asset, usually applied to things like businesses, stocks, bonds, or property. If you buy a stock at 100 dollars, and sell at 200 dollars, you've obtained a capital gain of 100 dollars. 

Capital gains are currently taxed in Canada, but at a significantly lower rate than income tax. In other words, making 50,000 dollars a year working as a teacher or electrician constitutes a higher tax burden than an investor selling a portion of her stocks for a profit of 50,000 dollars.

I would propose--in agreement with the 1968 Carter Report--that capital gains income not be given a 50% reduction in taxation vis-a-vis income. That, in the words of the report, 'a buck is a buck' and capital gains be taxed at the full rate. This means that 100,000 dollars of income would be taxed identically, regardless of if one made it as a nurse or as a real-estate flipper.

An increase to capital gains tax rates also wouldn't hit the average person too hard. For most Canadians, they see capital gains primarily through the sale of their family home, which is already exempt from taxation.

In short, a capital gains tax which doesn't reward investment more than labour, but would also help address part of the concern with corporate profits. Because as investors sell stocks in profitable corporations derive their capital gains, they will be taxed at a much higher level. 

***

With increases to these two tax rates, we can raise additional money, continue to protect the poor's standard of living, and hopefully move on to productive discussions around increasing income taxes for all those but the poorest Canadians. For what makes Scandinavia Scandinavia isn't corporate taxes, but higher sales taxes along with higher taxes across the wealth spectrum.  

Its not All About Tom Mulcair

Since The NDP's disappointing results in October, no discussion has been more prominent than on the question of Tom Mulcair's leadership. Many have written pieces for and against Mulcair continuing to lead the NDP into the next election, likely in 2019. This article isn't about these well-treaded topics. 

Rather, its about how the claim that there is no one to replace Mulcair does a disservice to the party, and to Mulcair himself. It implies not only that the NDP lacks the drive to shake things up after a resounding defeat, but that its current crop of MPs and voices outside Parliament don't have what it takes to lead. 

And if only Mulcair is a viable leader, how can the NDP sell itself in 2019. not just as 'Tom and company,' but as an accomplished slate of people who can lead Canada towards a social democratic future? 

Therefore, I am offering a few individuals--in no particular order--who I feel can lead the NDP, especially given that they will have time--as Mulcair did--to grow into the role. Some of these people would be likely challengers to Mulcair if his leadership review goes poorly, while others I feel would make interesting and effective candidates in a more general sense.

1. Niki Ashton

Ashton ran for the leadership in 2012, and though she was eliminated on the first ballot, she was regarded as running a positive and engaging campaign. Still only 33, she has the potential to represent the hopes and interests of younger Canadians. 

She has been an excellent voice for women, first nations, young people, and workers, and has demonstrated a propensity to build alliances with the international left, giving public support to both SYRIZA and Bernie Sanders. Perhaps most indicative of her hard work and compassion for regular Canadians is her tireless efforts for her constituents.

Her star in the NDP has been rising quickly over the past couple years, and she is highly regarded by the party's left-leaning activists. She would be a great leader going forward.

2.  Megan Leslie

Like Ashton, Leslie's NDP star has soared since 2011, becoming deputy leader in 2012. She also held high-profile critic roles on health and the environment. Though she lost her seat in the Liberal sweep of Atlantic Canada, many still feel Leslie has a role to play going forward. 

Her best contributions have come through tapping into the NDP's activist tradition. For instance, she has been a stalwart ally of the transgender community, which has lacked until recently supportive voices in Parliament. 

Leslie has demonstrated the ability to fight for those who often have limited social and economic power. While some might see her recent defeat--and her new job with World Wildlife Federation--as a barrier to a leadership run, I would be surprised if she was finished with electoral politics.

3. Nathan Cullen

Cullen placing a strong third in the 2012 leadership contest, running on a pledge to cooperate electorally with the Liberals and Greens to remove the Conservatives from power. While the Trudeau majority--combined with the potential for electoral reform--make Cullen's platform obsolete, many still feel he has the chops to lead the NDP going forward. He did, after all, consider a run for the BCNDP leadership in 2014.

Cullen in many ways would be a continuation of Mulcair's rightward reorientation of the party, but he is charismatic, youthful, and has room to grow into the job.

4. Gary Doer

Gary Doer served as NDP Manitoba premier for more than a decade, and is the current Ambassador to the United States. His age of 67 might be a roadblock, but as one of the most popular NDP politicians in recent memory, he can't be automatically overlooked. So popular and formidable was Doer that its not unreasonable to assume he was offered the ambassadorship to pull him away from electoral politics, be they provincial or federal. 

Doer has indicated his future is up in the air, and while he suspects he will continue to work in the frame of international relations, I would argue that a political comeback isn't impossible. 

5. Alexandre Boulerice

Part of the Quebec contingency that arose during the 2011 election, Boulerice has made a name for himself with important shadow appointments and now serving as Quebec Lieutenant. A bright and passionate MP, Boulerice would bolster the NDP left. And while some might say that his candidness--such as decrying World War 1 as a "purely capitalist" waste of worker and peasant life--is unfitting of the leadership, I feel its the sort of blunt honesty the NDP needs to provide the membership, the electorate, and itself. 

6. Brian Topp

Topp, despite a strong second place finish to Mulcair in 2012, is known more for his back-room efforts. Topp was integral to the historic results in the 2011 federal election, as well as the 2015 Alberta election. So while his role in the 2013 BCNDP defeat cannot be discounted, Topp is still deeply in the NDP game, serving as Rachel Notley's chief of staff

I feel he merits another go at the leadership, and might be seen as a rebuke of Mulcair's rightward reorientation, which he attacked in 2012, stating prophetically that "if there are two Liberal parties in front of the people of Canada in the next election, then people will vote for the real one."

7. Naomi Klein

Naomi Klein might well be the most famous person on this list, given her international prominence as a left intellectual unafraid to ensure that critiques of western society are not divorced from the capitalism that underwrites it. Most recently, she has been the lead figure behind the Leap Manifesto, which aims to reshape the Canadian economy in a green, cooperative, and democratic image. The Manifesto, as I've noted before, is increasingly popular among NDP riding associations and activists.

I feel her intellect, ideas, recognition, and strength would be great assets to a renewal of a democratic socialist NDP.  

8. Libby Davies

Though Davies chose not to run in 2015, I feel she might well return for a leadership contest. As the first female federal MP in an open same-sex relationship, Davies is no stranger to being a leader. She was recently a deputy leader in the party, and was one of the NDP's longest-serving MPs, holding her seat since 1997, and being a long-time Vancouver city Councillor from 1982-93. 

While she in the past has cited her unilingualism as a barrier, I feel that she can learn the language much easier than others can accomplish her record of activism on everything from gay rights to Palestine--an issue which put her at odds with Tom Mulcair and the party establishment. 

***

The above list likely isn't without criticisms, and it certainly isn't comprehensive. Rather, it should serve as a discussion-starter: I hope that people consider the above figures before assuming that Mulcair is the default option. After all, if Mulcair merits holding onto his job, it should be based on his record and skill set, not on the erroneous suggestion that there's no other choice.

The Leap Manifesto and the NDP Going Forward

The New Democratic Party and its predecessor, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, have always had manifestos and other defining documents. From the Calgary Program to Regina Manifesto to Winnipeg Declaration to NDP constitutional preamble to Waffle Manifesto, to New Regina Manifesto, and even to the recent constitutional amendments, the party has been Canada's most eager to encapsulate its views in a single, overarching analysis. 

But in the here and now, the next chapter might well lie with the Leap Manifesto. 

Previous CCF-NDP declarations are varied, but themes emerge from all iterations, excepting the most recent reforms. They all, for instance, show a distrust of capitalist modes of ownership, production, and distribution. While this was most intense in earlier documents, which emphasized the party never resting until capitalism had been eradicated, even later pieces emphasized the immorality of capitalism, and the need to supersede it with commitments to end poverty and market-centred economics.

The major divergence came in 2013, when the NDP changed its constitutional preamble to de-emphasize social ownership, production for use, and the abolition of poverty, signalling that the NDP was now a largely pro-capitalist party.

But with the Leap Manifesto, the NDP's left might well see a re-invigoration, because even though the document is external to the party, it was designed by many associated with the NDP, has garnered over 33,000 signatures, and has been endorsed by multiple riding associations. Its signatories include party titans, labour leaders, environmentalists, clergy-people, and artists, all of national or international renown. It includes former Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis, Canadian Labour Congress President Hassan Yussuff, world-class philosopher Charles Taylor, and prominent socialist author Naomi Klein.  But more important than the who is the what of the Leap.

Like previous CCF-NDP manifestos, the Leap emphasizes the injustice and inequality that scars Canadian society. It also notes the centrality of human rights, civil liberties, and democracy to a progressive society.  It argues, in essence, that both political and economic equality are part of a just society, and that incremental changes are no longer viable to reach these goals, hence the name Leap.

But a partial departure from the previous NDP documents is the focus on indigenous rights and environmental justice, which while not excluded from previous iterations, was subjugated to a more traditional language of socialism. Here, indigenous rights are not one among many, but are the precondition for the manifesto itself. 

Likewise, environmental concerns take centre stage, arguing that traditional socialism is meaningless if publicly-controlled industries are detrimental to the future of humanity. While past CCF-NDPers would emphasize the public control of petroleum-based industries, the Leap calls for public control with the expressed interest of ending the use of carbon energy. 

In this, the Leap manifesto rejects a capitalist approach, including the increasingly en vogue green capitalism. Rather, it offers energy democracy as the path towards a just and sustainable economy. This is a third way between the autocratic energy politics of today, and the state-centred models that past CCF-NDP platforms championed. Here, community ownership of energy production and distribution is vital, especially for indigenous communities. 

Also a radical inclusion in the Leap is the move away from the market-centred allocation of resources and priorities, which privileges social benefit over profit motives. Most important here is the recognition that the dichotomy we have set between public and private property is in need of a re-conception, which is characterized by guaranteeing an annual income, and by acknowledging that historic levels of wealth in our society can be used to promote the Leap agenda. As the manifesto notes, "public scarcity in times of unprecedented private wealth is a manufactured crisis, designed to extinguish our dreams before they have a chance to be born."

This is all predicated on Canadian autonomy in terms of its international economic destiny, because trade deals that inhibit the economy from being driven by the democratic priorities of Canadians is not the sort that sets the conditions for the Leap. 

In my view, I feel this Manifesto offers a strong basis upon which to build a democratic socialist Canada. While its informal language and lack of direct mention of socialism sets it apart from previous CCF-NDP declarations,  it still captures what the democratic socialist movements' founders have desired for more than a century, though updated for 21st century sensibilities and realities. 

The NDP with the Leap has the opportunity to reverse its rightward course with a mix of both new and old ideas. In the Leap Manifesto, the party finds traditional clarion calls towards economic equality and democracy, with modern understandings of the environment and settler-indigenous relationships. I support the process by which riding associations are choosing to Leap forward, and I feel that this document, at least in part, will play an influential role in the NDP's soul-searching process over the coming months and years.

Capitalism, based on its anti-democratic notions of profit and private property, must go, and while the Leap doesn't explicitly call for a socialist Canada as CCF-NDPers-gone-by have, it nevertheless offers a road map to start the journey.

What Bernie Sanders can Teach the Canadian Left

Bernie Sanders has captured the imagination of leftists across Canada with his rhetoric, passion, and ability to appeal to millions of American electors, in a manner thought impossible only months ago. This is all the more impressive because he is proclaiming the language of democratic socialism as part of his campaign.

The point of this piece--and of Sanders' broader effect on Canadian politics--isn't so much based on whether or not he actually is a democratic socialist. Neither is it a debate on whether or not Sanders is running to the left of the NDP. These questions matter, but more productive for us is to look at how his campaign style and political linguistics demonstrate the viability of leftist endeavors. Most importantly, what is working so well for Sanders underscores the deficiencies of the contemporary NDP. 

In my view, Sanders offers lessons to the NDP on three key themes: Taxes, class conflict, and the language of socialism. Again, the point isn't if Sanders actually espouses socialism, or even Scandinavian social democracy, but that associating with such positions has served only to propel him to all-time polling highs, and rouse up working and middle class voters, who are donating historic amounts of money to his campaign.

The politics of personal income taxes showcase a notable divergence between Sanders and the NDP. Especially since Tom Mulcair became leader, the party has stood against any sort tax increases excepting modest corporate tax increases. In this, the NDP has tried to show itself as a party for all classes, arguing that while corporate taxes must be levied, higher taxes on the rich are unjust and confiscatory.

In this way, the timid NDP strategy is to try and make their taxation policy all things to all people. But what Bernie Sanders articulates frankly is that that the politics of taxation is inherently a politics of class conflict that has largely been dominated by the wealthy since the 1970s.

So while Tom Mulcair emphasized a tax system that served rich and poor alike, Sanders has been more strident about in whose interest he works. Not only has he railed against the 'millionaire and billionaire' classes, but he has reveled in--rather than shied away from--the class conflict implied in his campaign. Sanders understands, more than any NDP strategist is willing to admit, that a left victory doesn't require the consent and contentment of the economic elite. If he was a wealthy hedge fund manager, Sanders would never vote for someone like himself:

“‘I’m not going to reassure them,’ he says. ‘Their greed, their recklessness, their illegal behavior has destroyed the lives of millions of Americans. Frankly, if I were a hedge fund manager, I would not vote for Bernie Sanders. And I would contribute money to my opponents to try to defeat him.’”

Additionally, Sanders has stated blatantly that he not only expects disdain from America's wealthy, but welcomes it as FDR did in 1936.

And beyond this, Sanders is more honest about the need a democratic socialist society has for taxes. His plan entails tax increases on large swaths of the American population. The reasoning for this is sound: while undeniable that increased burdens should fall on those with disproportionate abilities to pay, democratic socialism is expensive, and requires greater contributions from all but the poorest.

This is a position the NDP has been too afraid to take choosing instead a cynical approach to the debt-taxation balance precisely because they could not square their desire to expand social programs, keep debt low, and not tax the nearly-oppressed rich. These are the tactics of fear, and the NDP needs to be brave in proclaiming that democratic socialism is going to be expensive. Hiding this from the voters won't endear the party to them.

But most intriguing is that while the CCF-NDP for much of its existence has proudly utilized terms like democratic socialism to describe the party, in recent years it has officially and strategically excised socialism from the party vocabulary.  This is being done just as the word socialism is gaining new prominence, due in no small part to the Sanders campaign

Now, to be fair, Sanders in efforts to expand upon his definition of democratic socialism differs quite substantially from prior generations of NDP leaders. While his definition is predicated on socialized healthcare and post-secondary education, economic redistribution, and other mild forms of market intervention, he largely wishes to forge a more equitable capitalism. This is contrasted from the desires of CCF-NDP leaders from Woodsworth to Broadbent, who saw reforms as a means towards the end of a capitalist Canada.

But Sanders' democratic socialism, even if not fitting my personal definition of the term, still offers a great deal to Canada's left in the here and now. The NDP, with a call for a democratic socialist society, can emphasize equality of opportunity, the importance of  guaranteed basic standards of living, and the drive towards economic democracy as emphasized by public ownership in strategic and monopolistic sectors, and more forms of worker and community ownership within the commercial sector.

While democratic socialism may well take a different form in Canada than with Sanders, the latter has shown us that the public, even in a conservative nation like the United States, is clamoring for social and economic equality and democracy.

Americans are listening to Bernie Sanders; Canadians are listening to Bernie Sanders; NDP parliamentarians like Niki and Steve Ashton are listening to Bernie Sanders; the question remains: is the NDP as a whole listening?
 

Tom Mulcair's Personal Reflection, and the NDP Going Forward

Last week, NDP leader Tom Mulcair released a statement to the party faithful that addressed his reflections on October's electoral defeat. Mulcair spoke of what went wrong in the election, and step going forward.  

To start, Mulcair notes the election's disappointing results, yet bounces quickly to an assertion that within the party remains a commitment to, and confidence in, social democratic values, and that the key flaw of the election wasn't so much a deviation from those values, but rather a failure to effectively communicate them. 

After speaking to the early highs of the electoral campaign translating into deep lows, Mulcair assumes full responsibility for the defeat, pledging to continue his leadership in an aim to ensure that such mistakes never reoccur.  

First, Mulcair admits that the party was too cautious in the campaign and lead-up, being more concerned with portraying a controversy-free image than it was about sharing the NDP worldview with the electorate. Likewise, Muclair suggested that the party leadership had insufficient ties to the grassroots, which likely manifested as part of a general failure to communicate a cohesive vision.  

On this question of vision, Mulcair conceded that the campaign lacked one, meaning that while individual policy points were strong--and reflected in Mulcair's mind progressive, social democratic values--there was no connective tissue between them to offer a snapshot of what an NDP-led Canada would look like. Something along this line came later in the campaign, when the party released a platform document titled "Building the Country of Our Dreams," but the narrative was seldom, if at all, emphasized  

Related to this was the NDP's somewhat negative approach in the election and the months preceding it, where Mulcair speaks of how he was more focused on attacking the platforms of the other parties more than he was concerned with putting forth a positive path to the voters.

Ultimately, the solution here for Mulcair isn't to craft a new vision, but rather to flesh out and articulate the one that was percolating below the surface during the previous campaign. This would be predicated on emphasizing income inequality's injustice, the lack of equal opportunity in Canadian  society, and the role that the Canadian state plays in ensuring a just society for everyone. 

AN ANALYSIS OF MULCAIR'S REFLECTION

In general, I found the piece to be a helpful window into Mulcair's mindset during the election and its post-mortem. 

I think his points around a lack of communication with the grassroots is valid, and manifested in a feeling from our local campaign that we weren't selling a grand vision. Mulcair is also correct that while we had some decent policy points (childcare, federal minimum wage, etc...), we weren't able to tie those to a short statement encapsulating the NDP vision for Canada. Most troubling was how certain policy points became too central to the campaign, and were never never utilized in a fashion that put forth a social democratic narrative of Canada's past and future. 

Key here was the zero-deficit pledge, which while compatible with socialist approaches to financing, was sold merely as a method of fiscal responsibility, leaving little rhetorical room between Mulcair and Harper. This can be contrasted with Tommy Douglas and other NDPers who claimed that the Old Parties loved debt because the banking class got to make its profit. Also pertinent was the discussion around Senate abolition, which while a position I largely supported, was not one that merited a main plank in an election where the economy was front and centre. 

This also played a role in the politicking for the election, because much of the focus was on attacking the Harper legacy, or showing how Justin Trudeau was unfit for leadership. This materialized with repetitive statements, a negative demeanour, and a largely dubious appeal to strategic voters based on the 2011-15 parliament's seat totals. Frustratingly, the party largely failed to hone in on the legitimate weaknesses of Trudeau's policies, especially in that his tax plan was less a distribution to beleaguered middle class families, and more a modest distribution from the rich to the nearly-rich, offering the vast majority of low-income tax filers no benefit.

But I feel the most important omission from this report is the reality that this campaign, while chock-full of tactical blunders, was a failure of the NDP's growing affinity to capitalism. The reality from Mulcair's statement is that the campaign's core philosophy was strong, and that the presentation and organization is what lost. Though this may be true, it speaks to my assertion that Tom Mulcair is less enamored with Canada's social democratic tradition than he claims to be.

Again, his campaign offered some excellent policy morsels for the left; items that will be essential in ushering in a society that trends toward equality. Things like the National Childcare Program would have transformed Canada, becoming the single most influential federal program since Medicare itself. 

And in fairness, since the election, Mulcair has been more frankly speaking about the issues of social and economic injustice, and has mused about introducing things like anti-scab legislation, which addresses a core NDP constituency. In this, Mulcair has tried to brand his NDP as Canada's progressive opposition to the Trudeau Liberals.

But beyond this, the campaign was weak in its approach to forge a society in the vein of previous NDP leaders like Douglas, David Lewis, and Ed Broadbent. Generally, Mulcair's platform largely accepts the primacy of private enterprise in the Canadian economy, and offers no real declination from that position in this reflection. 

While this isn't surprising, moreso is his personal view that higher taxes on Canada's wealthy would constitute a confiscatory approach that he can't support. It seems like he has remained steadfast in this position, as well. 

Ultimately, I feel Mulcair learned a great deal from his maiden campaign as leader, but his lessons were less on ideology than they were on tactics. My desire is to see the NDP return to a left orientation, because for the party to win with the platform championed last election, the mandate for foundational change would not exist. The following are just some of the options which can be taken to offer Canadians a genuine left option in 2019:

• A concrete rejection of Mulcair's pledge to not raise top-marginal tax rates. 
• A re-examination of the Carter Report, which in the 1960s recommended that all forms of income be taxed at the same rate, meaning that capital gains earners won't be given preference over wage and salary earners.
• a reversal of the Harper GST cuts, offset by increased GST rebates for low-income Canadians
• a honest examination of the Leap Manifesto--increasingly supported by NDP riding associations and figures--and how it can be incorporated into an electoral endeavor
• a reversal on the short-sighted amendments to the NDP constitutional preamble, especially as it concerns the party's commitment to anti-poverty and social ownership. 
• An exploration of a Guaranteed Annual Income policy that doesn't merely serve to slash public service institutions, but instead focuses on providing basic standards of living as a universal human right.
• The start of a longer term discussion of how increased technological unemployment can be harnessed, not just by profit and property-oriented forces, but by a drive for economic equality and democracy.

The purpose of this piece isn't to talk about whether or not Mulcair needs to go as NDP leader. Rather, its focused on what I feel were the key points around his reflective letter. It may well be the case that Mulcair could adopt these positions and take up the mantle of his predecessors. But he might also maintain his personal status quo, where Margaret Thatcher is held up as a positive voice, and where his concern lies more with the overtaxed rich than with Canadian workers. In any case, Mulcair, should he survive his confidence vote, has a lot of time to plan his next campaign; my hope is that he turns left, comfortable with the fact that should he lose, he did so fighting the good fight.   

The Purpose, Intent, and Philosophy of this Blog

We live in conservative times. And in this light, I've started this blog titled Make this your Canada, which borrows its title from foundational CCFers David Lewis and Frank Scott's 1944 book. 

In that book, Lewis and Scott proclaimed that while the depression and war that ravaged the previous generation was still being felt, out of that darkness could arise a just, equal, and dynamic Canada. Their argument was, in simple terms, that socialism offered the path toward social, economic, cultural, and political equality. More forcefully, they argued that the vaunted principles of democracy and equal opportunity--values supposedly held as sacrosanct within capitalism--were unattainable without analogous democracy and equality within the realm of industry. It was not enough to have the universal franchise or other liberal freedoms. At its core, and in echoing an earlier work from the 1930s by the League for Social Reconstruction, democracy needed socialism to fully manifest itself.

It is in this spirit that I start this blog, based off the idea that in 21st century Canada, we talk too little about the role of economic justice in providing Canadians with a genuine democracy. Even many self-identified leftist and progressives fall in this category. Within the matrices of this broader discussion, I will focus on issues ranging from labour unions, to electoral politics, to culture, to economics, often from a historical perspective, but also with a contemporary lens. 

While this coverage will vary in temporal and geographic focus, the blog will be centred on three broad principles, inspired by factors such as my research, activism, and my secular and Christian faith in the power of regular people to, when united, do extraordinary things. Specifically, I hold 

1. That capitalism, either to a substantial or total degree, must fade away in order to usher in an era of social and economic equality
2. That private property must be reformed to such an extent that it becomes only a representation of one's personal possessions, and not a mechanism for exploitation
3.  That equality of opportunity, however much of a strong middle point, must not be seen as the end goal
4. That, in the views once held by CCF-NDP stalwarts, democracy requires socialism

While not all pieces will focus on the above themes directly, they act as rough guidelines going forward, to be expanded upon where appropriate; not as ends in themselves, but as a means to more accessible and engaging discussions. 

With all this said, I hope people find these blog posts interesting, thought-provoking, and of a worthy contribution to Canada's historical and contemporary discourse 

Christo Aivalis