Chantal Hebert draws pretty much the exact opposite conclusion as I do from the opportunities raised by a close leadership race. But yesterday's debate offered us a neat reminder as to whether we should buy into the theory that the NDP will continue its success in Quebec if and only if it hands a completely open-ended mandate to Thomas Mulcair.
While there were plenty of jokes about Mario Dumont's ideological positioning compared to that of the NDP, it's worth keeping in mind the track record of the ADQ which so many commentators have pointed to as an example of fleeting success in Quebec.
For 13 years, the ADQ was identified almost entirely with an increasingly popular leader in Dumont - leading to the 2007 election where Dumont's coattails led it to official opposition status despite an organization far weaker than that of its main opponents. So how did that total reliance on a single charismatic leader turn out?
Well, Dumont led the party into another election in 2008 - where his profile couldn't stop the ADQ from losing official party status. And so its machinery mostly went idle until this past year, when it's been repurposed to support another leader-based effort focused on Francois Legault.
Naturally, I'd think there are lessons to be learned from the ADQ's quick rise and fall. But surely "don't rely too much on a single leader" has to be near the top of the list - making it downright bizarre how many commentators seem eager to push the NDP into doing just that.
You are right, no one should vote for Mulcair just because he's the Quebec golden-boy.
ReplyDeleteThe leader should be chosen on the basis of charisma & adherence to the party platform. Based on his debate performances & policy releases...it's clear Mulcair meets those conditions.
You are wrong in suggesting the NDP "not rely too much on a single leader".
We are the party of "Jack", "Ed", & "Tommy". In the last election, we were the ones who referred to Jack as "the STRONG leader". The reason we do this is because it helps us over-come the monopolistic media-backing Lbs & Cons enjoy. We also do this because we've always trusted that our leadership process produced a finalist worthy of wielding such power.
Charisma and (apparent) adherence to the party's platform. That's it? That's all you want anyone to consider?!
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, Stockboy Day adhered to his party's platform, and was considered to have charisma when he first became Alliance leader. Not that Mulcair is a Stockboy Day, but this is an amazingly impoverished approach to leadership.
PLG,
ReplyDeleteUm...yeah. That's it.
Party forms policy. Party starts hiring process to find salesman for those policies. Salesman needs to be trustworthy (to his employer) & charismatic (to you know, attract voters). Votes lead to government. Government leads to implementation of policy.
Did I miss something?
To me charisma encompasses intelligence. I was in highschool when Stockwell Day was leader. If I'm not mistaken, he was undone by his own stupidity. Maybe it was his ability to magically fire water out of his anus...or perhaps it was his insistence that the Flintstones was a documentary...
That's incredibly naive. But you don't strike me as incredibly naive, so presumably you're trying to sell other people on being so. In the real world, leaders are not mere stenographers figureheading a movement. Mulcair certainly isn't, he's a man with a strong personality and strong personal priorities, some of which I agree with, some of which I definitely don't, and some of which seem decidedly unclear. Leaders put their stamp on an organization and its priorities. You know that perfectly well. So it matters what a leader's actual personal politics are, and it matters what their personal ethics are, and it matters what their organizational abilities are like, and it matters whether they're a centralizer. It matters whether they favour "free trade", it matters whether they back imperialism in general, or US/Israel in specific, it matters whether their environmental convictions are filtered through a "market approaches" lens.
ReplyDeleteJust saying "I will abide by NDP platforms as written, trust me!" is not particularly to the point. To the contrary, if a leader had publicly expressed positions that struck me as *better* than the party's platform, it would not bother me that they were deviating from the party line. I'm really not interested in subordinating my political beliefs to the NDP. I'll support the NDP, but critically. That includes critiquing the politics of candidates on their merits, not on whether they can be considered to jibe with checkpoints you can find on a platform.
<span>When I say: </span>
ReplyDelete<span>"Salesman needs to be trustworthy (to his employer)"</span>
And you say:
<span>"it matters what a leader's actual personal politics are"</span>
<span>"it matters what their personal ethics are"</span>
<span>"it matters what their organizational abilities are" </span>
<span>"it matters whether they're a centralizer"</span>
We are saying the same thing.