On Planet Liberal

Leftdog notes that the Libs' troubles lately have been met with a series of attacks on Jack Layton and the NDP - and indeed the blog response noted by Leftdog looks to be only a relatively mild example. But it's worth offering a reminder as to why that's the Libs' knee-jerk response.

It's never too hard to figure out what the Libs' primary strategy is in opposition: relying on the assumption that they're the country's "natural governing party", they bide their time waiting for the party in power to self-destruct, and plan to pounce when there's a perceived opportunity to emerge on top in a two-party race.

But the NDP's growth has thrown a monkey wrench into that plan, as the Libs have recognized the potential for another party to present itself as a governing alternative. And knowing that they probably don't have the strength to win a political fight against the Cons, the Libs have thus concluded that their best bet in the short term is to try to sandbag the NDP so as to cling to second place - even if that means helping out the Cons.

Of course, the most vivid example came during the course of the 2008 campaign. There, a Lib party which didn't trust its leader enough to inform him as to how the campaign was going (and which was in the process of ramping down its campaign as a whole) managed to make the effort to send Bob Rae into Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar - the Libs' weakest riding in the entire province, where they held little prospect of improving on their 12% share of the vote from 2006.

In fact, the Libs dropped to fourth place behind the Greens in Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar. But presumably thanks in part to Rae's visit, their candidate did manage to siphon off just enough support to elect Con Kelly Block over the NDP's Nettie Wiebe. Which would seem to have been the goal all along, even if it brought the Cons one seat closer to a majority.

As a general rule, the Rae principle seems to have been a fairly common theme whenever the Libs have faced problems: when in trouble, attack the NDP in hopes of clinging to second-party status, even if it means strengthening the Cons' hand.

Of course, there's one notable exception to the rule: the Libs' response to the Cons' 2008 fiscal update, where Stephane Dion had the nerve to conclude that his party was better off working with and validating the NDP than allowing itself to be steamrollered by Stephen Harper. And it's that moment of cooperation - not the worst election showing ever for his party - which caused the Libs to decide that they couldn't bear to leave Dion in a leadership role for a minute longer.

So in answer to Leftdog's question, it's fairly obvious why the Libs think it's a "good strategy" to respond to adversity by projecting their problems onto the NDP, or otherwise doing more to attack the fourth party in Parliament than the government they claim to oppose. But the more important question is whether progressive Canadians share the view that the Libs' standing as the default alternative is more important than what happens under Con government. And if not, then it's long past time to recognize that the Libs' party structure is a barrier to better government rather than a means to achieve it.

(Edit: fixed typo, wording.)