Mulcair had a vision but…….

Comments.    Considerations.     Questions.

                 by Kenneth Bagnell

    An essayist of some renown once said something that befits Thomas Mulcair’s recent months: “Uncertainty doesn’t make life worth living but it makes striving worth attempting.” He’s spent the last few months facing more adversity than advantage from his own NDP colleagues. Moreover, the shadow of irrelevance has hung over him after his sad and frail showing in the federal election of 2015 when the Trudeau Liberals triumphed. They won 184 seats; the Harper Conservatives sagged with 99, and Mulcair’s NDP stood at 44.  As Mulcair courageously prepared to face the recent gathering in Edmonton he needed 70 percent to firmly retain the leadership. Virtually every journalist, including those who respect his intellect and his values, slowly shook their heads when weighing his ambition. They turned out to be only too right.

      Mr. Mulcair began his campaign in the last federal election with, as stated, high promise. But it flagged in part because of the positive appeal of Justin Trudeau but also because of the skepticism of many Canadians in light of Mulcair’s surprising opposition to the Nigab so unlike an NDP person. He may have meant well, but his criticism – calling for women wearing it to remove it when taking the oath – was too readily interpreted as prejudice. That’s an attitude that the NDP — as Tommy Douglas’ CCF before it — would never ever accept. I believe Mulcair is not intolerant. But his argument that Muslim women would have to remove their Nigab at citizenship ceremonies — simply didn’t suit the broad tolerance of most Canadian citizens, excluding of course the inevitable Bingo crowd. Furthermore, the courts also accepted allowing Muslim women who wear the Nigab taking the oath without removing it. That’s the Canadian way. As for Canada’s general attitude to Muslims you only have to look at the numbers of refugees the country has recently welcomed – its ambition is 25,000. Mulcair simply, no matter the intention, struck a wrong political note. The UN’s chief of refugees called Canada’s refugee program, “a model for the world.” Hence given that attitude, even a slight political criticism on the Nigab was uncalled for. Hence, he was, if slightly, tainted by prejudice. NDPers won’t stand for it.

    So where was he as the leader selection neared. One mystery was his position on an issue which virtually absorbs every supporter of the NDP. (It’s known coast to coast as the most committed environmental political party.) Early on Mulcair said he was “appalled” when a year or so ago, the Liberals appeared to accept the Harper legislative pipeline plan that Mulcair called disastrous: “That bill threatens the rights of every person in Canada who would stand up against a project that they think will harm their children, grandchildren, the environment and their community…. I was even more appalled when the Liberal Party supported it..” To complicate matters more, the Premier of Alberta, Rachel Notley said a day or two days ago, on the matter of the pipeline: “We’re not just thinking of it.”  Then she added the Alberta government was hard at work to see it done. If so, there’s not much support for Mulcair in Alberta. As the CBC in Alberta put it: “Hundreds of mayors and reeves across Alberta rallied in support of the Energy East pipeline during Alberta’s Premier Rachel Notley’s address to the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association.” To add a bit more complexity to all this, Avy Lewis, a deeply committed environmentalist and the NDP son of Stephen Lewis, called, as he attended the Calgary convention, for an environmentally safe system of extraction, one that will be non-polluting: “We want a universal extraction program,” his document reads, “to build energy efficient homes, and retrofit existing houses, ensuring that the lowest income communities and neighborhoods will benefit first…. We want training and other resources for workers in carbon-intensive jobs, ensuring they are fully able to take part in the clean energy economy…” That’s an NDP’s vision alright.

     Mulcair’s speech, just over a half hour, had its moments, though some NDPers said it was a speech they’d heard before. Perhaps, but he didn’t focus on why he should remain the leader, something that would require him to have a 70 percent support, which, as I write and the votes are being counted, that I’d say isn’t an easy attainment. His speech however, was well formed and sincerely delivered. It conveyed honesty and humility, all of which suggested he was truly prepared to stay at the helm. On matters of policy he might as well have been David Lewis, Ed Broadbent, or Stephen Lewis ranting against the indecency of CEO salaries and the modesty of the corporate culture’s taxation. The NDP, he said, would see to the security of universal health care which he actually claimed was in danger of collapsing.  “We’ll never stop fighting to grow our party and stand together for equality” said one of his workers, “we are hopeful and together we can do this to create the country of our dreams.”  It all seemed so casual, so calm, so sincerely promising.

    But no.  Early on election day, an insightful journalist caught a dark hint, early on when Mulcair was backstage and the crowds streaming in. Chantal Hebert, a senior and shrewd journalist from The Toronto Star knew where to look for what was happening: the registration desk. “Most,” she wrote, next day, “declined to pick up Mulcair buttons at the registration desk.” Moreover she listened in on floor conversations and hardly anybody was enthusiastically talking about the potential of Thomas Mulcair. So he lost by a wide margin.

     What happened? Articles, books, programs will be examining it for the next year, while poor Mulcair will do his best as he always did to lead the party where he longed it to be. Journalists for weeks to come will portray the campaign as a disaster. But the worst aspect for the rest of us is that the party tried to appeal to voters who, like me, tend to look for the center where we believe the country’s best interests are served. They certainly weren’t well served under the Harper government. On the other hand many of us – certainly myself – feel that our best interests aren’t served by the hard left or the hard right. Already as I write the left wing of the NDP is saying that centrist thinking was the problem with the Mulcair campaign and it’s time to move back to where it belongs: on the firm left. As I listen now a  woman just said: “If only we had Bernie Sanders.”  (Madam, I watched and hoped for Bernie Sanders for an entire month in Florida. So, I regret to say it but in the United States, a socialist is just not in the Presidential cards. I wish it were so, but that’s the way it is the American mass culture. The future will be tough and rough for good people with admirable ideals. Especially if there’s lots of diversity in the party. I just read today’s National Post front page headline. It’s both telling and saddening:  “A sharp turn to the right.” Is that all there is? 

***************** 

All past blogs are archived on my website: your comments are welcome there: www.kennethbagnell.com.

.