The road to realignment

In one sense, I'll hope that Andrew Coyne's evaluation of the future of the Libs is on target. But there's reason to think he's off base in his assessment of the NDP's intentions and incentives:

Consider first the implications of a simple coalition—a coalition struck not in the chaotic aftermath of an indecisive election, but anticipated well in advance. For left-leaning voters tempted to stray into the NDP camp, there is no longer any reason to stick with the Liberals, as they have been traditionally admonished, just to keep the Conservatives out: the coalition can see to that now. Indeed, as Chantal Hébert has pointed out, all the more reason to vote NDP, to strengthen its hand in coalition talks.
...
And as Liberal support continues to bleed away, (the internal divisions) can only grow worse. The left will take this as further evidence of the necessity of striking some sort of deal with the NDP. The right can be expected to push back just as hard: though it is unlikely to prevail, it can probably forestall any decision until after the election. But what are the party’s chances in an election in which it is so painfully divided?

And what is the NDP’s likely response to that calamity? It is true that it was the NDP that first approached the Liberals about a coalition, in the parliamentary crisis of November 2008. And, to be sure, the NDP has benefited handsomely from the recent resurgence of interest in the idea: it is the centre of everyone’s attention, no longer merely a party of protest but potentially taking a hand in government. But that does not mean it will remain committed to the project—or that it ever was.

I do not think it is the ambition of the present NDP leadership to play helpmate to the Grits. Their aim is to replace them. It has served their purposes to keep the coalition talk alive, not least for the mischief it causes inside the Liberal party. But if the Liberal slide continues, the (NDP) will have less and less incentive to agree to anything. Rather, they will raise their demands, and raise them again, until at last they walk away from the talks outright, and leave the Liberals to collapse.

Now, I'd agree with the view that one of NDP's better-case scenarios is to replace the Libs as one of Canada's primary competitors for government. But that ambition raises a couple of obvious questions: can the NDP get there without winning much of the left of the Libs to its side? And if not, what does the NDP need to do in order to actually win them over?

It might be possible to imagine an alternate scenario where the NDP ekes out a plurality by, say, completely co-opting the Bloc and Greens. But within the realm of realistic possibility, the NDP needs to win over the left side of the Lib division described by Coyne in order to win power on its own. And while that means detaching the progressive branch of the Libs from the corporate wing, it also involves leading it into the NDP's camp in the longer term - i.e., developing enough links to overcome the tribal instincts that lead so many current Libs to cling to their own party as it stands (dominant right wing and all) rather than joining a party closer to their values.

And I don't see a way for the NDP to get there without working as a good faith partner in a coalition to replace the Harper government that now serves as the obvious common enemy.

That may result from a coalition government where the NDP takes the opportunity to deal with the Lib wings on equal terms and builds links which might lead left-leaning Libs to change their allegiances. Or it may result from the Libs' right wing deciding once again that it prefers being controlled by Stephen Harper to giving Jack Layton a seat at the table, finally and decisively orphaning Lib voters who don't share that view and pushing them into the NDP's camp. But either way, the NDP's long-term interests are best served by it making every effort to cooperate with members of the coalition it ultimately hopes to win into its own tent.

In contrast, a scenario along the lines described by Coyne would allow the blue Libs to portray the NDP as the villain in a failed attempt to put together a coalition - serving only to reinforce the party's current tribal loyalties. And in fact, that might well be the easiest way for the Libs to reassemble in their previous form without working through the divergent values that make the party's stability so tenuous to begin with. (Not to mention that plenty of NDPers, while expecting to see positive results from a coalition, would also be less than pleased with any overreach that leaves Harper in power.)

So while there's certainly a long-term goal of winning government at play in the NDP's actions, that doesn't mean Coyne is right in thinking the Libs should be suspicious of its bona fides in working toward mutually agreeable goals now.

(Edit: fixed wording.)