Although I think one dimensional discussions of our political landscape are part of the problem, I'll stick with the terms liberal and conservative for this comment.

I agree "we liberals should be planning for the day after doomsday" and as an alternative to "Bush is leading us into a political and economic quagmire," "we liberals" should work to lead to a better future.

However here is the problem: Bush and kind are able to get power and lead because they have the support of corporate (including a majority of media) and similarly moneyed interests. "We Liberals" will only be able to lead if we make up for the moneyed-power support with overwhelming populism.

In a better world a stronger culture that includes a free and balanced media would allow the potential for education to such a populist movement. However this world and culture will not. Thus I fear we are left to wearing sandwich boards to inform a few, while waiting for the current conservative path to drag us down.

Too bad we will have to fall much further and so few of us will have prepared for it.

There has been a general move to the right that started way back around WW1. A turn of the century moderate social democrat would be considered a flaming leftist today. The original meaning of socialism - empowerment of the working class - became increasingly forgotten and replaced by Fabian welfare statism. Thus when these reforms had been accomplished and social democracy came under attack from the right, the left did not have any realistic programmatic response. This is beginning to change thanks to the anti-globalist movement and the Argentine factory occupations. The old socialism of workers self-management is coming back and we don't need the liberals in our way.

I have read several of JK Galbraith's books, and I wish I had them with me right now so I might look up the actual reference, but I can't. They're in boxes downstairs!

In one essay, Galbraith advises that the liberal/social democratic agenda is far from endless. Once a welfare state consisting of contributory pensions (SS/CPP), unemployment insurance, and basic medical care has been provided, along with universal education and some other industry specific aid (agriculture in many instances) there really isn't a lot left to do. I would differ with Galbraith on only one point, child care. That remains a program needed, but not yet established, that will cost considerable dollars.

Still the point remains that once the welfare state has reached a kind of natural limit, its expansion halts. And at that point the basic dynamic as between conservative and liberal political forces is going to change.

So it is that in Canada today the NDP's biggest priority is "saving Medicare". And it has been since about the late 1970s. (I am overlooking the re-deployment of Agent Dosanjh to Liberal ranks where he is propounding the benefits of public health care.)

I think another thing Kilian has overlooked is the role of moral and social issues. Drugs, sex and lifestyle issues have become the new litmus test of who is right and who is left. A liberal is now someone who is in favour of gay marriage, not someone who is in favour of a higher pension support level for CPP recipients. This move away from economic to social issues may be partly a result of the welfare state having reached its natural proportions, and it may be partly the success that conservatives have had in finding new vote-getting gadgets of their own. But it also reflects a failure of the left, both in the US and Canada, to fearlessly recommned what Gerald Le Dain did 30 years ago, total marijuana legalization. This failure has helped to quel very considerably the enthusiasm many might otherwise feel for the left and has undoubtedly driven down their voter turnout for at least the last quarter century.

You know I will be back to participate in this thread. :-) Right now though, the woods are flush with Huckleberries that I will attempt to share with the bears.

That said Anarcho, Lynn and any others out there who "might" be interested, I'm going to set up a separate email account through which we can separately and privately correspond with each other, from time to time. Once it is set up, I will post it in an article.

Yup Anarcho, "liberals" stand aside. You are part of the problem too, too often. (Which ain't the precise same thing as saying you are The Enemy. Just that you are too often neither fish nor fowl, but mugwamps.) Though y'all can choose to become part of the solution too, of course, anytime.

As it is, you are part of the constipation of the times. :-)

I agree with Budd that economic issues are less definitive than societal/moral issues when discussing right vs. left. It seems that the neo con has hijacked traditional leftists - the working class - by convincing them that traditional liberal values are an attack on the working men and women. But i think that it also comes full circle back to the economy. Just as "liberal" social values attack the "status quo", they also attack to economy of the "status quo". Social programs cost money, money that comes from our pockets, money that could otherwise be spent at wal-mart or at the hummer dealership. Therefore, "liberal" values also attack the very economic systems under which we are all supposed to prosper.

I had some good laughs (and shed a few tears) at the comments posted on the canada.com site regarding wal-mart. it seems that people have really bought into this train (wreck) of thought. Liberals have stoped wal-mart; therefore, our consumer choices have been limited. It's also the liberals fault the we pay taxes. Because of the liberals, i have less stuff than i ought to have.

Blame the liberal (mythical) monster so that the masses will vote conservative.

Most political scientists identify the Republican success as largely due to the massive switch in voting preferences of working class voters, especially Catholics. These people are social conservatives, and abandonned the Democrats because they did not share its agenda of social liberalism. In particular, working class people are tough on crime. Sorry to say, the Democrats have to win back their working class constituency. Perhaps, as in the words of Bertold Brecht, they wish to "dissolve the people and elect a new one".

Jean Chretien was elected twice after he lied about tearing up the Free Trade Agreement and went on to sign the NAFTA in 1994. I am not convinced that Canada has benefitted from this arrangement: we rely on one country for 85% of our exports and increasingly lose our sovereignty to legislate in issues that have been 'resolved' by some unelected trade body somewhere. Brian Mulrooney's gerrymandering of Senate seats in 1988 (which allowed him to appoint government-friendly puppets) ensured that the bill would pass through the Senate and become law.
State socialism saved the American economy in the 1930's, led by a 'traitor to his class' who was pragmatic enough to understand that
capitalism, as practised, was not working. But lease-lend revved up the factories until the US entered the war in 1941.
It is impossible to know whether FDR's New Deal would have finished the job because it was overtaken with events, but it is simplistic to say that the war ended the depression. The privations suffered by average persons that started in the depression continued well after the war,with rationing, until the economy was back on a peacetime track.
In Canada the main conservative ideology is libertarian with an element of Christian fundamentalism. That is: smaller and smaller government with a mandate to return our country to a virtuous state where we respect God and persecute gays, lesbians, non-whites, women, and anyone different.
In the US, it is similar, only the libertarianism is more emphatic (only the rich deserve 'their' money, the poor don't know what to do with it) and the Christian fundamentalism has been extended to killing innocents in Iraq and elsewhere in the name of freedom. Our Conservatives wanted to join this war.
Beware of people's IDEAS not their labels!

The fact is that government, whether Liberal, Conservative or New Democratic have become too big and have created a multitude rules and regulations that the average person cannot ever absorb. I think this has largely been caused by governments addressing too many 'special interest' groups so as to attract votes. Many programs are not adding any 'value added' substance to our life.

Quite frankly, when one tries to establish wat the current philosopy might be for each political entity now in vogue, one does have a hard time doing so. It seems that folks vote on the basis of who can produce the best advertizzing program without even understanding the stated political platform. This of course causes problems as most political parties today do not follow through on their platforms or otherwise do things that are not included in their platforms. This has created significant abuse of governance in Canada.

Abuse of political power by the leading parties is obvious and has created a sense of negative opinion of most of our political leaders and parties. Witness the voter turnouts.

We all want the same thing in one form or another. We want to be employed. We want to have the freedom to do things. We want to advance our lot in life. We want to have logical social and family values. ... and we want our governments to provide the vehicle to make those things happen. In my mind our successive goverments have not achieved what most folks really want.

In my mind the Liberal thinking folks have moved from the center to the left, while the NDP are somewhat isolated without too many issues to attract voters. Conservative folks do think that government needs to be smaller, that current programs need to be tested for validity. Then of course we have elements in our society that just want to be left alone, like Quebec and to some extent Alberta.

It is my view that our governments, not withstanding stated name or philosophy need to get back to basics. We do need to review our current programs. And we need to focus on enhancing critical programs for people.

Again, no matter what political entity we talk about, waste of public funds is enormous for very little gain.

What we need is a 'true' centerist government with a platform that provides concrete achievable goals that focus on employment, freedom, and values.

To review the past as indicated in the above narrative is folly and leads no where.

"But it also reflects a failure of the left, both in the US and Canada, to fearlessly recommned what Gerald Le Dain did 30 years ago, total marijuana legalization."

This is indeed part of the problem. The other side of it is the left, particularly those in the new social movements, lost faith in the ability of the government to be a force of good in society. Their critque of government untentionally dove tailed with what the right was saying about government being the problem. Many on the left are still loath to get involved with dirty world of party politics and prefer the role of detached critic.

Further adding to the problem is that many inside the NDP, for example, prefer to push "meater" issues than "fluff" like marijuana legalization and more vacation days for Canadians.

JK Galbraith is a good man. The policies he backed married capitalist efficiency with a strong regard for the common man and the weakest among us. Classic 'liberal" in a sense as he advocated what he thought was the best policy regardless of where on the ideology line it came from. I would encourage those on both the left and right to pick up one of his books.

And on that note I would also recommend What's the Matter with Kansas by Barney Frank as to why people vote against their own economic well-being. As others have said, gay marriage seems to trump livelihood when they get in the voting booth. Strange times.

As for the strength of the right, its already passed its peak. GWB hasn't been able to rekindle the spirit of Reagan, in Britain the Conservatives are still recovering from Thatcher and of course Harper will never be in power in Canada. The right's day in the sun seems to be pretty weak actually. Where they do get power they meekly try to slide legislation through the backdoor while using words like freedom and choice as often as possible because they know the less said about their actual policies the better.

this particular thread definitely wins the blather of the month award. my god, what a bunch of self-righteous garbage. hey coyote, don't forget to include me on your email list.

Harper is the perfect leader for the Conservatives. He will never get into power, and the longer he stays there, the more Canadians are spooked off conservatism.

Camgra: Historical correction for you. Mulroney didn't stack the Senate to pass the FTA in 1988, he stacked the Senate to pass the GST in 1990. The Liberal majority in the Senate allowed the FTA legislation to pass after Mulroney won a majority in the 1988 election, which was clearly fought on pro- and anti-FTA lines. (The fact that Mulroney won a majority government while the two parties that opposed FTA at the time, the Liberals and NDP, won more than 50% of the popular vote is another kettle of fish altogether).

As a true conservative let me explain what's really going on in Canadian Politics.

Federally
The Liberals are liberals. The Conservatives are conservative.

Provincially
The Liberals are fascists. The NDP are conservative.

Sorry if I offend anyone.

According to sirjohnna the present alignment goes this way:

Federally
The Liberals are liberals. The Conservatives are conservative.

Provincially
The Liberals are fascists. The NDP are conservative.

Well, ... I am afraid not.

Federally.
The Liberals are conservatives economically, with some liberal social tendencies. The Conservatives are also conservatives economically, but with some decidedly reactionary social tendencies, coupled with a penchant for political loserism. The NDP are social democrats, economic and social liberals, but with a Conservative-like, though more intense, penchant for political loserism.

Provincially.
The Liberals are indeed somewhat fascist economically, but try real hard to save themselves with liberal tendencies on some social matters. The are also Liberals with a very large L, something they and all their press attaches vigorously deny, as do many ordinary voters who vote Liberal federally. The NDP are the NDP, social democrats, liberals economically and socially, with a Tory-NDP like penchant for political loserism, but a somewhat less advanced case than the affliction their Federal counterparts suffer from.

If this is none to clear, it should be no surprise, as the party strategists have arranged the shells and peas with a certain amount of plausible deniability and strategic uncertainty in mind.

Couldn't be because "successive governments" of all stripes in this country have invested too much in listening and doing what one "special interest group" wants, the ruling corporate/big business class, could it?

Indeed, the blather is excessive, though none more than that of her ladyship, Sirjohna.

The reality is, until recently, we have lived in a social product, being post WW2 capitalism, that was in part shaped by the rise of the "organized/unionized" working class of the 1930s and 40s, and the threat of the end of "private capitalism" that was, at least, the early promise of what came to be, I say, inaccurately called "Communism". (I generally see it as more a kind of "state run" capitalism. Which is what it effectively became.)

The fear of both the politically Conservative and Liberal ruling class and its lower strata "supporters", of both these above related social forces, was the driving force towards the "social contract" and compromise with "the working class" that emerged out of that period-, to create what has until recently been. (To this degree, this fear of organized militant labour and of "Communism" shaped the character of post WW2 capitalism.)

The rise of the, more accurately, neo-liberal economists, politically manifested as Neo-Cons (Neo-Conservatives), who came in the 70s to reflect a "change in the thinking" of the main ruling class elements at that time, saw the opportunity to, and are now set about changing the John Kenneth Galbraith "Welfare State" model of capitalism that was the outcome of the great post WW2 "liberal compromise" within capitalism. The reasons for this change of heart are many, but primarily because the old threat of official "Communism" is diminished, if not absolutely destroyed, making possible the more Triumphalist Capitalism of the current period, and additionally facilitated by the effective "absorption" or "co-opting" of the "official" labour movement into becoming the mere "labour management arm" of major capitalism. This latter co-opting, in my view, having come to the point where much of extant Big Labour has lost the effective loyallty and support of the vast working-class, itself, much of it, having come over the previous "prosperity period", to embrace capitalism's "consumer and market values."

The great liberal compromises of capitalism with the "militant left" at the end of the Second World War have come full circle through all this, and evolved in their consequences to become part of the Neocon reaction of the late 1970s down to the present. Only now the main character of "liberal values", within the NDP, the so-called "left" of the Liberal Party and Progressive Conservatives is its new set of compromises currently being shaped and implemented with what have become, the new Neo-Conservative world view of the ruling economic and political class of capitalism. In summary, where they had previously sought a compromise with the militant left and labour, they now seek one with Neocon Capital.

The post WW2 social outcome has been turned on its head, and much facilitated, or more accurately enabled by "liberal" thinking and values, to become the new and rising Neo-conservative period now underway, attacking the "Welfare State" model of capitalism (save to the extent it applies to corporate welfare, of course) and working class incomes and socio-political interests, its poor, the special interests of its women and families, communities etc.

That a new and "titanic" struggle is shaping up, I think, is the emerging evidence of the times. This new extreme Neoconazi vision and model of capitalism cannot be allowed to stand, in my view, and will most likely come, over time, to be challenged. And the "new forces" that will be needed to mount and carry through this struggle, evident some even here on Tyee, are endeavouring to find common ground and organize. This is the response inevitably to be expected, generated by the extremism of the Neocon vision and practice, and its effect on the lives of ordinary people.

Yet, neither do I think society is likely to evolve backward in time, to any previous Golden Age, not for the Neocons, who look more fondly back to before trade unions and an organized working class, and the time when capital and its management ruled, and workers did what they were told, and were greatful for whatever they got. Nor will there likely be a return to the Galbraithian vision of The Welfare State of capitalism, certainly not as it previously existed and with its own limitations on working class interests. People's understanding and expectations change, and History moves on, as it will here too.

To here, throughout the post-war prosperity period even, but most evident since the late 70s, "liberals" have played a "surrendering ground" role, frankly, if not an outright traitorous one. And their back bones are unlikely to be stiffened in the least, or them turned around to be more supportive of "common folk" values and interests over "ruling class" ones, until we see that "resistance" to the new Neocon period is already a fact of life, threatening to capitalism itself, and powerful. Then, true to their historic role, they will seek to cut a new deal to save the old ruling class, of that one can be just about certain.

And a compromise may be posible there. We shall all have to see. Though I would say, it must involve a new "power" position for the working class and ordinary folks, and their communities, within the economy, its management and direction, and a new political culture that gives them a more "participatory" role, rather than excludes them to the margins as mere Xs on ballots, as at present.

But beware the "liberals", is my own experience with them. They can be well meaning, and are preferable to the Neocons. Which doesn't mean they lack all capacity for treachery, or compromises that effectively, nontheless, maintain the status quo. Typically "liberals" emerge out of class strata that occupy more favourable positions in relation to priviledge and the ruling class, and while their hearts may want to be in the right place, most folks, in fact, go most of the time with their wallets, or real material interests. They as much as we. They are just better positioned is all.

Which should be "grateful" rather than "greatful" above, of course. Even I do not understand how that slipped by my editor. :-)

Coyote

The word "liberal" has come to mean something very different than it did 100 years ago, which adds to the confusion with this topic.

Liberals used to simply mean free-trading laissez-faire capitalists. Conservatives were pro-empire and pro-protectionist.

Now in North America, liberal has come to mean progressive, or left-leaning, emphasizing the social aspects of liberalism, and straying from classical, or laissez-faire, economic liberalism.

Conservatives today are classic liberals economically, but are not liberal socially. I don't really understand why in North America classical economic liberalism is paired with religiousity and oppressive social views.

On the other hand, there is a link between classical liberal theory and how it morphed into "progressive" liberal theory. Pragmatist Dewey argued that classical liberal economic policy was a great innovation in the 19th century struggle against theocratically-flavoured monarchy, yet failed to develop a program on what to do next. Early 20th century classical liberals started to recognize the shortcomings of the marketplace as a central organizing principle and argued that the principle of liberty required greater equality of opportunity and equality of result among economically disadvantaged groups. Maybe this was the beginning of grouping what was laissez-faire liberalism with more progressive wealth redistribution?

And then there is the NDP -- liberal socially, but a mixed bag in other ways. In one sense, sirjohna is right that they have conservative elements -- that is, they support state intervention in the marketplace to protect local industry. On the other hand, they have non-liberal economic policy, in which they advocate greater re-distribution of wealth to the benefit of less advantaged people.

In conclusion, I find the "switcheroo" between what liberal and conservative means to make this kind of conversation very difficult!

Ah, the plaintive cry of the modern man! :-)

Unless, of course, one is more prepared to take one's head and understanding out of the past, with its many mutations moving forward, on all ideological economic and political fronts, and accept what is, and current understandings and realities.

Additionally, Liberal and "liberal" are not necessarily, and indeed, in the modern context, typically NOT the same thing. Nor is "officially" Conservative necessarily "conservative" in reality, anymore than Communist is "communist", I would say. :-)

Nobody ever promised us that life would be a rose garden, but it is, in that it has many thorns in the "appearance" of simple surface order and beauty.

Life, its economics and politics no less, I would argue, has to be seen in motion, not standing still and immutable, an absolute, save in a very short historical time frame-, but is in fact ever changing and evolving in all its aspects, even when that is not immediately apparent to our consciousness. Like all other human relationships and interactions-, even love. :-)

The NDP, I would argue, is but a branch of small L "liberalism", or so it has become since the early CCF. In so far as it represents an early manifestation of the "liberal" compromisewith capitalism, within the intelligentsia, professional and managerial strata of the working class, small business and "the union boss leadership" of the mainstream "labour movement".

Its time/their time, in my view, has about run its course, with the collapse of the post war prosperity period and its social contract, and with the rise of the new extreme neo-conservative capitalism. "The mass" will likely continue to turn to them for awhile yet, out of desparation, but "the masses" eventual disappoinment with them has already begun, and there will soon begin a casting about for another alternative, in my humble view-, which at the extreme danger end, opens the door for either fascism, or, at the other end, a newly constituted and invigorated left-, assuming the latter can find a workable vision and practical "radical politic".

The "muddy middle" which now seems so attractive is but a temporary way station, in which everyone and current politics is parked, whilst everyone tries to get a handle on what the hell is happening. It cannot hold, again in my view, but is destined to give way to movements fanning out towards the left and right extremes, as the class war character of the times becomes clearer, and sides are taken up.

My analysis anyway, for what it proves to be worth eventually.

Coyote

Just for the record: What's the Matter With Kansas is by Tommy, not Barney, Frank. He's the founding editor of the late, lamented Baffler (as opposed to a U.S. member of Congress).

"What's the Matter with Liberals?" by Tommy Frank
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17982

Nero fiddled, while Rome burned...and this is quite a symphony, on the pyre of partisanship.

"The "muddy middle" which now seems so attractive is but a temporary way station, in which everyone and current politics is parked, whilst everyone tries to get a handle on what the hell is happening."

Hello, Coyote. Not to be unduly pedantic, but I think you meant "mushy middle", a phrase concocted by the late Svend Robinson before his untimely death in a jewelry heist.

Actually, I meant "muddy", as in well trampled in the bog by the stampeding political herd, and made "murky". Which actually is a usage that predates poor old Svend, and may be what he actually meant.

Though "mushy" does work, no doubt. :-)

Eh, I would never accuse you of being "pedantic", Budd! I might just get it hurled back at me-, with just a wee bit of justification. :-)

CBC's Fifth Estate presented a wonderful, repeat, wonderful documentary on U.S. media liberalism vs conservatism.. and is very revealing. I highly recommend it to anyone and everyone. It can be watched on your computer screen simply by clicking on the following website....

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html

Then click on "watch entire documentary". It's about 40 minutes long...

next we'll get into the libertarian versus conservationist debate. any takers.

My belated thanks to SQUISHY for the factual correction about gerrymandering and Mulrooney.

Lib vs Cons debate: classic libertarians hack away at the notion of government right up until they need and consume a government service.(Corporate or high income tax cut?) Conservatives seem to vent their nonsense on the judicial arm of society.Judges are too activist, blah blah blah.
One attacks the very idea that the people have the right to invent a mediator (responsible government) on behalf of the common interest.The other attacks those who are entrusted to interpret our constitution, which , whatever its drawbacks, was created by people we elected. The libertarian position is inherently hypocritical, while the conservative one tends to resemble the bleats of losers who can handle a little more government than the libertarians but want to inject more of their outdated values about religion into the affairs of state.

Both Liberals & Conservatives, until the end of WW2, were both right of centre, and completely pro-business. The People were expected to benefit and prosper by supporting business. That's why the CCF (NDP) became etablished: there was no one to speak for The Little people [TLP].

Post WW2, the Liberals came to represent the advancment of the Social Contract through private enterprise, whereas the Conservatives chose to let social services take care of themselves, maintaining that the Trickle Down Theory [TDT] is the one to serve the nation the best.

The NDP began a move to counter the TDT, by proposing that money, fed into the bottom of the "pyramid" instead of the top, would generate prosperity as the citizens looked to spend their largesse.

Then the Liberals took a turn to the right, and began to regard TLP as "the enemy". The Conservatives, not to be outdone, moved further to the right, and came to regard TLP as "suckers".

The NDP entered into stasis, and have become what used to be called "liberal".
http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/cash-johnny/the-one-on-the-right-is-on-the-left-2223.html

Well said, RickW...and Johnny Cash.