The Liberals must create a better social platform
As much as it was Stephen Harper’s victory that defined May 2nd, it was the losses suffered by Michael Ignatieff’s liberals that were also noteworthy. Routed beyond their dismal showing under John Turner in 1988, the Liberal party increasingly seems doomed to several more years in the wilderness. Some doubt whether the Liberals can survive such a blow and wonder whether it is time that the party contemplate a merger with the strengthened New Democrats and perhaps the Greens. What is clear is that no new leader, no matter how attractive to voters or attuned to the times, will be enough to quickly restore the Liberals’ place in Canadian politics.
Luckily — barring a snap election — Canadians will not return to the polls before the fall of 2015. This gives the Liberals some much-needed time to reflect and plan for their future. They will not be forced to rush their next leadership convention and indeed, seem inclined to delay it. Hopefully, this will let them carefully consider whom the next leader should be, but could also easily degenerate into a protracted internal fight. Perhaps they will also use renewal efforts shelved by Stéphane Dion when he became leader in 2007. This too could deepen divisions within the party.
The most crucial factor in the success of the Liberals, however, is that they begin to believe in something again. The party has lost its sense of common purpose. By contrast, the Conservatives certainly believe in something, as do the New Democrats. Even the Greens, whose membership is arguably broader than the other three parties, have clear, definitive beliefs. These change over time, to be sure, but what remains is a sense of togetherness. The Liberals once had this, but have lost it in recent years.
Simply wanting to form a government is not enough. Voters may be nostalgic for the Canada of Pearson and Trudeau or Chrétien and Martin. However, these leaders were successful not because of the party they represented, but because of what they accomplished. Unless the Liberals can agree on what they want to accomplish they will fail to capture the imaginations of voters.
Neither is it enough for the Liberals to simply revive their old policies. Protecting education and health care means more than just guaranteeing spending increases. It means making sure that spending is kept within reasonable limits and that cost-saving innovations are made a priority. Likewise, restoring Canada’s place in the world is an admirable goal, but we should not make the mistake of doing so with the world of the 1960s in mind. The challenges of the 2010s and beyond are likely to be quite different from those of 1960s and require new ways of thinking and acting. This disconnect is true for much of the 2011 Liberal platform.
If Liberals are as serious about meeting the challenges of the 21st century as they were about those of the 20th, then they must stop looking backwards.
For instance, they might draw on the insights of behavioural economics to try to create better incentives for Canadians to save more and keep healthier. They might make engagement and participation a centrepiece of the way they run their party (and by extension, how they would like to run government), rather than an afterthought. Likewise, they could learn from British Prime Minister David Cameron’s “Big Society” initiatives and rather than using those initiatives as a mask for deep cuts to public spending, use them to further social inclusion and strengthen our connections to our communities.
That way, rather than merely reacting to the political debates of this country, the Liberals could once again begin to shape them. This would help underline the problems with the Conservative approach to the challenges facing Canadians and the lacklustre nature of the Green and New Democrat alternatives. In turn, that would be good politics and help, along with a new leader, restore the Liberals to success. -Patrick Baud
*The Liberals must return to free minds and free markets *
With the Liberals having suffered the worst defeat in their history, opinions are circulating about how, or even if, the party will rebuild itself as a national entity. Bob Rae has floated the idea of a merger with the NDP, while others think the party needs an inspiring young leader. Some feel the 39-year-old Justin Trudeau could take the party back to the glory days of his father, Pierre, who led the Liberals in government for over fifteen years. However, there is another past leader the Liberals should look to if they desire to offer a real alternative to Canadians and re-establish themselves as a national party — Canada’s first francophone prime minister: Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Laurier’s intellectual descendants in federal politics include the likes of Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Scott Brison, and the recently defeated Martha Hall Findlay. These politicians espouse a vision of free markets and social tolerance. By merging aspects from both sides of the political spectrum, they offer ideals generally appealing to Canadians. It could be argued that Harper was able to win his majority by following a similar path — playing the centre and thereby shaking the fears of those who saw his party as socially regressive. The Liberals need to embrace their heritage of free minds and free markets and push themselves as the socially progressive, fiscally responsible answer to the Tories.
Appealing to the left economically will not help the Grits. The NDP have their base. In the most recent election they were augmented by left-leaning voters who used to vote Liberal in an attempt to stop Harper, but who saw an opportunity to vote with their hearts, electing the largest New Democratic caucus in Commons history. It is unlikely they will return, at least in the short term, to the Liberals. But the Liberals do not need them. Elections are won by the party that best appeals to the centre, which is where Laurier’s example comes into play.
It has been said that no Liberal government can be formed without the support of Quebec; that the West is the exclusive domain of the Tories and in order to secure a future win, the Liberals’ main focus should be la Belle Province. The idea that a party can only win either Quebec or the West is extraordinarily narrow thinking. There is much common ground between the concerns of these two provinces.
Laurier’s vision of Confederation was that of a federal government that ensured Canadians were safe from foreign invasion and as free as possible in their personal affairs, while leaving all other matters with the provinces. A Liberal party that fought for decentralized federalism – not just special exceptions for Quebec, but more authority to all provinces – and clearer lines between federal and provincial duties, could easily appeal to the self-rule instincts of both Quebec and the West.
Laurier was an avid free trader, wanting to end tariffs between the US and Canada almost a century before NAFTA came into existence. The Liberals need to distance themselves from the chic xenophobia of protectionism and support measures to expand Canada’s free trade with the EU, China, India, and beyond.
Perhaps Laurier’s most difficult task while prime minister was establishing Canada as both an autonomous nation and a loyal member of the British Empire. Replace the British Empire with American-led NATO and Canada is in the same tough position today. How do we show ourselves to be a reliable ally while not becoming America’s lackey? Laurier claimed the British Empire was only defensible if it ensured “absolute liberty political and commercial” and refused to commit Canadian troops to wars he thought did not meet these criteria. The Liberals need to ensure that Canada’s relationship with NATO truly does promote absolute liberty, while pushing for a vision of our foreign policy that embraces the Canadian preference for peaceful ways of solving problems, that is, diplomatic, cultural and economic engagement instead of bombs.
This is no modest undertaking. The Liberals cannot simply support these ideas in the run-up to an election. They need to establish a political consistency Canadians do not currently associate with the Grits. The Liberals need to stick with the same clearly defined set of values not for the next four years, but the next eight, ten or twelve. These ideas, strictly held to, offer the broad appeal that can re-establish the Liberals as a truly national party. -David Woolley
