On disillusionment

John Warnock's response to last week's column (which focused on how anybody with an interest in Saskatchewan's future direction should be interested in acting on that interest through party involvement) is worth a read in its suggestions as to the policies the NDP should stand for. But Warnock looks to go thoroughly off the rails on at least two points.

First, there's his assertion about the content of the leadership debates so far:

The next election, like the last, will focus on the state of the economy, ownership and control of the resource industries, and general taxation policy. Brad Wall has made this clear. But these issues have been ignored in the NDP leadership debates.

To which I can only question: has Warnock actually watched a single one of the debates? Because they're fairly readily accessible - and I don't recall a single one where it would be accurate to describe Warnock's preferred slate of issues as being "ignored" past the end of any of Erin Weir's opening addresses. (And to be clear, Weir has been far from the only candidate raising such issues: some of the most noteworthy exchanges between all of the other candidates have also involved economic choices, tax policy and perspectives on public enterprise, with a range of choices including strong stances on Warnock's priorities along with more reserved positions.)

That wilful blindness leads into the other and more fundamental problem. By limiting his focus to perceived slights from past NDP governments (some fair, some not) instead of listening to what the leadership candidates are actually discussing, Warnock only sends the message that he has no interest in doing anything which might actually bring about the goals which he appears to share in common with many NDP members and leadership voters.

Fortunately, there isn't much evidence to suggest others are following Warnock down his path to nowhere. But it's well worth keeping in mind that even if they succeed in achieving their intended purpose, gratuitous demotivational rants serve only to limit the possibilities available to any political movement.

[Edit: fixed typo.]