tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6647515310011140964.post6345914265104795375..comments2023-03-26T06:09:15.100-07:00Comments on The Leftist Lens: What to Make of the Ideology of "Centrism"?Joel Frenchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17336963426049098139noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6647515310011140964.post-69802279773067958582011-07-02T09:41:32.536-07:002011-07-02T09:41:32.536-07:00The fact is Harper never believed in red toryism a...The fact is Harper never believed in red toryism and said it was essentially watered-down conservatism. I think the merger was all about giving blue tories the main keys to the party and red tories are not given a voice at all. there needs to be a new party between the liberals and conservatives for business liberals and blue liberals, red tories or moderate conservatives and old progressive conservatives and there needs to be a place for the purple tories who believe in small government, some privatization while at the same time wanting to keep the social order. that is the direction a new party should offer. also a new party between the liberals and conservatives must try to win over the people i have listed but try to form policies on a strong law and order policy. therefore, the party must liberal conservative in nature to win over liberals and conservatives and make sure it governs at the centre to centre-right to gain the people in the spectrum who want strong economic policies, social progressive policies, and social conservative policies but not abolishing gay marriage or abortion and law and order policies that are truly balanced. if a party used these policies then i feel people would turn away. also in the most recent election atlantic canadians and quebeckers are not being given a voice since harper just wanted to win ontario and the west so they would not be given a major voice. i think we need a moderate conservative voice for those in eastern canada with no voice in this government.<br /><br />This has to be a future or the Conservatives will dominate Canada forever so there needs to be a party of business liberals and red tories with a compassionate sense of government or the Conservatives will do what they please without any checks and balances.<br /><br />Therefore a party replacing the old PC party is needed to bring balance to the system.<br /><br />There is currently no party on the centre to centre-right on the political spectrum. I have done a lot of research on this and found that Harper's party is far-right while the NDP and Liberals are centre to centre-left with no centrist to centre-right party in Canada.CentristPartyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17770992872791112779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6647515310011140964.post-46004216995538993522011-06-12T22:48:59.225-07:002011-06-12T22:48:59.225-07:00In the second paragraph I say, "Some of these...In the second paragraph I say, "Some of these such parties refer to themselves as being in the centre of the political spectrum and others claim to transcend the political spectrum. Both claims mean the same thing to me."<br /><br />I wouldn't consider the CPC centrist, but it is definitely diverse. I think the "right-centre-left" trichotomy is relative. Because the CPC is the furthest right in our system, I don't consider them centrist. Likewise with the NDP on the left. If the trichotomy was objective, it would be much more difficult to analyze. After all, I would argue that the Democrats in the US are at a similar point on the political spectrum to Harper's Conservatives (if not further right). So what does that make the Democrats?<br /><br />I just think when you've got a party that is stuck in between two other parties ideologically, it creates for much more complex strategic decisions than one would see in a dichotomous system like the American one. That's what I was trying to analyze, and my goal was to exploit it for the progressive cause.<br /><br />As for my comment about the relationship between "big-tent" parties and "centrist" parties, I see it this way: Centrist parties always TRY to be big-tent. When they shrink down to a small enough size, I think the extent to which they accomplish that goal is quite limited. Maybe that makes more sense?<br /><br />To be honest, this blog was kind of a "write-as-I-go" piece, so if it's not the most cohesively-written thing I've put out, I'm not 100% surprised. ;)Joel Frenchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336963426049098139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6647515310011140964.post-25996923119353397142011-06-09T22:49:08.863-07:002011-06-09T22:49:08.863-07:00Joel,
Thanks for the response. Still a few questi...Joel,<br /><br />Thanks for the response. Still a few questions though:<br /><br />I can't seem to find where in your post you state explicitly that you believe centrist parties and big tent parties are the same thing, though you are certainly drawing an implicit link between the two. But I'm still left wondering, what about the case of the CPC? Would you consider them 'centrist', because they are a 'big tent' party? Or would you not consider them a big tent party? Or would you not consider them centrist? To be clear: my argument is that the CPC IS a big tent party, but that it is NOT a centrist party. The point of me making this argument is to challenge your claim that big-tent parties are a solely centrist phenomenon. And the purpose of me challenging that claim, is ultimately to suggest that centrist parties are no more or less valid, or legitimate, or ideologically grounded, than left-wing parties or right-wing parties. And your second comment to Alastair - <br />"I don't think a centrist party inherently have a broader range of political views than other parties either." - seems to contradict your earlier claim that centrist parties are inherently 'big-tent' parties.<br /><br />Sorry, I know you said your focus was on Alberta politics. I was just intrigued by your argument, and wanted to engage with it - I assume that because you include federal parties in your discussion, that my questions about the CPC are fair game. Plus, I'm a progressive - if not an Alberta party-insider - so I'm at least partially your targeted demographic, right?<br /><br />Yyaredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15370896256466438699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6647515310011140964.post-34436117948691006572011-06-07T21:39:37.141-07:002011-06-07T21:39:37.141-07:00Alastair,
I'll take this point by point (in t...Alastair,<br /><br />I'll take this point by point (in the same order you did):<br /><br />1) I made the same point both to Yared and in the blog itself, but I take "centrist" and "big-tent", as well as "brokerage", parties to be the same thing.<br /><br />2) I don't think a centrist party inherently have a broader range of political views than other parties either.<br /><br />3) Let's do this in point 5.<br /><br />4) George Lakoff would disagree. Try reading his book "The Political Mind". I've never referred to anything as a "staunch centrist". I don't believe they exist. There are people who are indecisive and also people who think progressively on some issues and conservatively on others (Lakoff calls them "biconceptualists"). However, their values are very hard to define, which is why they float in the middle of the political spectrum. Lastly, I agree that political views are very complex (refer to my reply to Yared).<br /><br />5) My main point is that I believe progressives would be best to advocate for progressive policies within progressive parties, rather than centrist parties.<br /><br />6) My point was not that centrist parties never take firm political positions. Of course they do that. If they want anyone to vote for them, they need to. They will even deliberately target certain segments of the population from election to election. Ignatieff targeted Harper when he first became Leader, and when that didn't work, he began targeting Layton's territory. Perhaps that's why he failed so miserably. He couldn't really make up his mind. My comment was more about the big picture, and I believe in the big picture, centrist parties do try to pull in everyone and anyone, regardless of their views. I believe the Liberals say "Come on into the big red tent."Joel Frenchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336963426049098139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6647515310011140964.post-8604409118439040732011-06-07T21:23:01.130-07:002011-06-07T21:23:01.130-07:00Yared,
I don't make a distinction between &qu...Yared,<br /><br />I don't make a distinction between "centrist" parties and "big-tent" parties. I state explicitly that I believe they are the same thing.<br /><br />I do acknowledge that there is diversity within each party. That much I think is obvious anyway. That's why there are debates at policy conventions.<br /><br />I want to make a couple of points that I think will clear up some things:<br /><br />1. My target audience with this blog is progressives. I am also writing to and about Albertans who are very politically engaged. These are people who are involved or may get involved in the electoral process beyond just voting.<br /><br />2. The reason I am targeting what we might call "activists" in this way (and not general voters) is because if you asked the large majority of voters where they sit on the political spectrum, they would have no idea. If you went further and asked them their political positions on the policy issues of the day, then asked them how they voted in the last election, you would likely be wildly surprised at how little correlation there often is. Many Conservative voters from 2008 did vote NDP in 2011, and vice versa. As nice as it would be if we could just strategize by picking parts of the political spectrum to target, politics is much more complex than that (which is why this blog is targeting such a narrow segment of the population).Joel Frenchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336963426049098139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6647515310011140964.post-46206929870257642002011-06-06T20:17:02.152-07:002011-06-06T20:17:02.152-07:00Hey Joel, thanks for the post!
Yared covered many...Hey Joel, thanks for the post!<br /><br />Yared covered many of my thoughts, but I'll expand.<br /><br />1.) It appears you're conflating brokerage parties with centrist parties. Even if the liberals have historically been both, but you can't conflate them or criticize centrist politics on the basis of a particular party having historically been both centrist and brokerage.<br /><br />2.) Why is it the case that a centrist party has a broader set of views within it than a left or right party? In fact, a centrist party in some cases may have a narrower set of views, as it only needs to appeal to the "center", where as parties on the left and right must appeal to both their left/right base and try and pick up centrist<br />voters. I imagine there is an analogy in politics to Hotelling's Law.<br /><br />3.) What is inherently wrong with a big-tent party that tries to find compromise, rather than a narrow ideological party? You seem to be<br />implying there is.<br /><br />4.) "What is the purpose of such a party? If the party does not want to necessarily represent progressive or conservative views, then why<br />does it exist?" Political positions are more complex than just progressive or conservative views. Thats why centrist parties, or parties like the Green Party, exist, and it's not just to take power.<br /><br />5.) "Centrist parties usually distort the political views of the province or country in which they exist." <br />How so? You seem to be saying that because a centrist party takes votes away from a left or right party, that is distortion of a political system. That's not "distortion" that's just people voting for a different set of views. Politics doesn't have to be divided into just a polarized right and left camp.<br /><br />6.) "One of the key tactics a centrist party will use to attempt to grow themselves is to tell everyone at any given place on the<br />ideological spectrum they are welcome within the party."<br />Not true. Eg remember Ignatieffs statement on I.A.W? That sure alienated me.<br />All parties try to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. In this regard the NDP is no different than the Liberals. Because a party is appealing to voters on the both the "right" and "left" does not mean it is necessarily appealing to a broader spectrum.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />AlastairAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00011781455657606956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6647515310011140964.post-38913567186022212422011-06-06T14:15:57.706-07:002011-06-06T14:15:57.706-07:00Hi Joel,
I'm new to your blog... it looks gre...Hi Joel,<br /><br />I'm new to your blog... it looks great though! i look forward to reading more of your insightful posts.<br /><br />I enjoyed this post; I learned quite a bit about the Alberta political scene that I didn't know before, and I found your analysis very interesting and thought-provoking.<br /><br />I wonder, though: it seems like what you're expressing is less a contention with centrist ideology specifically, and more with the phenomenon of big-tent parties in general. To be sure, you certainly hint at the problems that you have with centrist parties in your 'sidenote', but the main thrust of your piece seems to be that when large parties try to appeal to multiple segments of the political spectrum, many people end up voting for them whose views could be more accurately represented by another (albeit smaller) party. But I would argue that this phenomenon is not particular to centrist parties. For example: couldn't one make the same argument about the current Conservative Party of Canada? I would argue that the CPC is just as 'big' a party as the Liberals were, in terms of the diversity of political views it currently represents (from as far right as it goes, to 'red tory', to 'I'm progressive, I swear, I just don't like Layton or the Liberals!'). True, it is unlikely that a tried-and-true progressive would ever vote for the Conservatives, but by the same token, it's quite unlikely that an extreme right voter, or an extreme left voter, would ever vote for a centrist party. So while a large centrist party, like the Liberal Party of Canada in the 90's, can trick left-leaning and right-leaning voters into voting for them to the detriment of the truly left- and right-parties, but will never really succeed in attracting hard left or hard right voters, likewise a large right wing party (like the current CPC) can trick huge numbers of centrist voters into voting for them, at the expense of the truly centrist party (which, as we know, was practically obliterated in the recent election), though they will never succeed in attracting the hard left, or even left-leaning, voters. It seems to me that a party's chances of benefitting from the bleeding of votes from other parties is just proportional to the party's size, and not necessarily its proximity to the political 'centre'. <br /><br />Thoughts?<br /><br />Cheers,<br />Yaredyaredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15370896256466438699noreply@blogger.com