The Progressives' Dilemma: Vote NDP or Liberal?

Long before Jack Layton, the New Democratic Party had already begun its inexorable drift to the centre, or at least away from its working-class roots. So why are we supposed to vote NDP exactly?

That's the main question I'm asking in my Tyee column today.

It's not a working-class party anymore. It's pretty well tapped out the identity politics racket. Its tenuous claim on a distinctive "environmental" voice disappeared as soon as the Greens revved back up, and now the Liberals are taking even that. Even Canada's aboriginal leadership is now just as likely to be fervently Liberal, and the Liberals are rejuvenated, rebuilding, and back in trim.

So where are the New Democrats' votes going to come from now, exactly? Disaffected Tories? An epic struggle for the disheartened remnants of the Joe Volpe campaign? Trench warfare with the Greens' Elizabeth May for the vast, uncommitted sections of the hippie vote?

New Democrats would do us all a big favour by admitting that their party is not the only one available to Canada's centre-left voters, and the NDP is not automatically entitled to the votes of progressive Canadians, and the NDP actually doesn't possess any greater claim to the mantle of progressive politics in Canada than the Liberal Party does.

Meanwhile, in Britain, the editors of The Liberal magazine weigh in with some healthy liberal critique of left orthodoxy:

A heady mixture of colonial guilt and politically ‘correct’ prejudice – one that identifies Muslim victims by their religion only when they are murdered by non-Muslims – has encouraged too many on the Left to neglect or downplay the urgency of the situation in Sudan (“The aid evaded and the cold delay”, as Byron put it). The fact that refugee rations in the region were cut by half in May due to a lack of funds puts to shame the EU countries who have sought to offer themselves as a moral counterpoint to American hegemony, only to offer in response less than 1% of the amount of aid allocated by the US. Moreover, the Left’s unwillingness to comprehensively critique the UN, and in particular the inept and ineffective leadership of Kofi Annan, has done a disservice to the organisation at a time when it desperately needs critical friends.

In Ottawa yesterday, Howar Ziad, a true progressive whose ideas I wrote about in a recent Tyee column, offered a properly ripping critique of the UN under Kofi Annan.

"Instead of spearheading the Saddam Nostalgia Club, we expect the UN secretary general to be constructive and to contribute positive ideas to the democratic process in Iraq," he said in a statement, and added that they expect Mr. Annan to help the people of Iraq confront terrorism that is undermining Iraqis' interests.

Mr. Ziad said Mr. Annan's "parting shots" remind him of other failures of the UN secretariat under his leadership. It did not, for example, address the human rights of Iraqis struggling under the genocidal regime of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Annan's remarks, Mr. Ziad said, also serve as a reminder of the UN oil-for-food scandal, "in which the UN secretariat assisted Saddam's regime in the pillaging of Iraq.

"The UN secretariat ignored the way in which Saddam manipulated the wealth of the people of Iraq to corruptly buy politicians and others around the world," he continued.
Further, Mr. Ziad said, Mr. Annan dismisses the mismanagement of the UN oil-for food program as a footnote. Mr. Ziad considers it the "greatest financial scandal in international affairs."