Electoral False Choices or False Options (RE: Nathan, Bill Bradley, CALPERS, and the Left)

Ken Hanly khanly at mb.sympatico.ca
Tue Feb 1 14:58:56 PST 2000


In the NDP and other parties too I believe, candidates are nominated at the local level at constituency meetings. Of course at times party brass may try to influence choice or even try to get a constituency to accept "their" candidates. The most radical reformers were the CCFers, predecessors of the NDP. They were a union of socialists, workers, and farmers--not that the latter two can't be socialist! The Regina Manifesto which set forth their original platform called for the eradication of capitalism and its replacement by a co-operative commonwealth hence the name Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. In Saskatchewan where the CCF first gained power the main voting bloc for the CCF were farmers. Saskatchewan was and still is a predominantly agrarian society. Lipset has a good book that discusses the CCF at length Agrarian Socialism I believe it is called. Unions became a more powerful force after the CCF became the NDP. Some of the key figures in forming the new party such as David Lewis wanted to model the NDP on the British Labour party. Labor was given a bloc of seats at national conventions to supplement the majority who are chosen by constituencies. The NDP still represented a significant reformist choice on the left. But even in the CCF the radical manifesto had long been replaced by a watered down Winnipeg Declaration. Nowadays the NDP has gone so far right that it is virtually indistinguishable from the Liberals and the federal party is loosening any ties to labor. Alexa McDonogh the federal leader wants to introduce a made-in-Canada version of the Tony Blair type transforation of Labor. Federally the party seems to be going nowhere and the NDP in BC is doomed to defeat. However, the NDP was just recently elected in Manitoba and squeaked through another term in Saskatchewan.

In Canada at least, third parties are often most successful at the provincial level although there are exceptions. The Bloc Quebecois is a federal party of Quebec separatists!

Cheers, Ken Hanly

Nathan Newman wrote:


> >On Behalf Of Ken Hanly
> >In Canada, the CCF pioneered medicare and introduced many
> > other reforms while in power in Saskatchewan...To a lesser
> > extent the CCF's successor also introduced
> > significant reforms.
> > Perhaps one of the reasons that third parties in the US have not been
> > successful is that activists such as Nathan have continued to work for the
> > Democrats.
>
> Except my point was that I have worked in third party efforts, probably more
> than most of those from the US who complain about the Democrats, but have
> probably never worked a precinct or manned a phone bank for the Greens or
> other third party. I actually would take all the accusations of being a
> Democratic hack more seriously, if I didn't know that I had spent more time
> campaigning for third party candidates than almost all the accusers on this
> list.
>
> It's precisely because a large portion of third party advocates like it in
> theory, but do nothing to advance it that makes me so pissed off that they
> denigrate the hard work of those working to elect the best progressive
> candidates they can, even if they happen to be Democrats. I have the
> general activist bias that if you aren't doing organizing yourself, don't
> piss on other peoples work. If you want to prove your point, organize,
> demonstrate a successful model and then pursuade others to emulate it.
>
> The problem is that almost all the third party campaigns in the US have been
> abysmal failures that have left successive waves of activists skeptical that
> it is a useful approach. There are no useful models, so most organizers are
> unpursuaded to do it themselves.
>
> The Canada example is a good illustration of exactly why US leftists
> continue to be mesmerized by the lure of third party politics, yet I think
> miss the point. What most illustrates the difference between the US and
> Canada is that in 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act criminalized most union weapons
> in the US and made union elections much harder. Canada retained card-check
> recognition and while the US union numbers began their slow plunge to their
> present pathetic level, Canada's unionization rate continued to rise.
>
> Given that union power, grassroots forces were able to push through more
> reforms than in the US. Whether the label was CCF, New Democratic, or had
> it been Liberal, the key issue is non-electoral power, not the party name or
> other electoral gimmicks. Union and other forces had power, so they could
> push through reforms. The electoral vehicle is pretty much besides the
> point.
>
> As to the question- Why Canadian unions went third party from the Liberals,
> that probably has to do with party rules there. Information question, do
> parties in Canada have control of who the candidate is in each district or
> is each district free to choose their candidate on the party list? I was
> under the impression that parties had strong power to pick the candidate
> lists (as they do in England), so dissident party members have no option but
> third party since they can't run candidates in specific districts against
> the party's wishes. In the US, local activists and unions have almost
> always had the power to take over party selection if they had the voting
> power to do so in a particular district, whatever the national party might
> desire. This allowed unions in the US to fund and control the selection of
> Democratic party candidates in districts where they were strong, making a
> third party label unnecessary. The problem was that the unions are not
> strong enough in enough districts to wield as much power proportionately as
> Canadaian unions were able to.
>
> -- Nathan Newman



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list