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