Time Will Merge What Liberals & NDPers Can't

Up upon an isolated mountain top, in a dark and long forgotten manor, underneath thunderous clouds, a large titanic body of gears and motors emblazoned in red stands motionless. The large lifeless liberal leviathan, composed of parts gathered from across the land and across time is all but complete except for a spark, that force of life that is not of the physical world but of the ideal one. 

The physical body, the shell that is this hulking machine would have its motors whir, its cylinders fire, and its eyes open, if just the bright orange lightning was to strike, if just the incorporeal essence that flashes far above was to impart itself into this earthly machine. There would be no better embodiment of reality and theory, of realism and idealism than the merger of physical pragmatism and immaterial hope that this political being, Liberal and NDP, would be.
 
At this time in Canadian politics, as lightning and thunder fill the sky, talk of a merger between the Liberals and the New Democrats has been forgotten. With the federal election far off such luxuries appear to be permitted, but like all philosophical and ideological discussions, time should not be the determiner of actions, but finding the truth should. And in finding the truth, an important question to ask is not whether the Liberals and NDP should merge but whether there are differences in values that should keep them apart.

Seeing as the NDP will in all probability abandon its socialist principles at its next convention, the NDP will be nothing more than the heart that the Liberals seem to have left out of their big red machine; which perhaps explains why it has stood motionless for some time. And seeing as the Liberal Party has failed to build purpose into its blueprints, the Grits are nothing more than the physical construct of progressiveness immersed in the reality the NDP neglects as it occasionally flashes in the sky above.

With the Grits' strong focus on real change, in their belief in science, research, and pragmatism, they truly are the substance, the physical embodiment of the governance Canada needs. However without the NDP heart and spirit serving as direction for the Liberal brain and body both lack consequence, or the ability to really achieve results, to really achieve change.

The NDP lack the connection to realism and Liberals lack the connection to idealism. Whether one agrees or not that a merger is necessary, without each other, without a merger, for either party to succeed, they'll need to at the very least borrow aspects of each other. And coincidentally, as one approximates the other, over time, just as the two parties have already moved closer to each other, the argument for a merger will only strengthen.

Liberal and New Democratic Party members may think they can ignore the philosophical demand of contemplating a merger of the two parties, but they cannot ignore time; and it would appear time and a merger are, ironically, already inexorably linked to give a new life to Canadian politics.

Outshining Trudeau

Just as Liberals look at Justin Trudeau and ask if he is like his father, many are asking if he will run for leader; the answer to one question is the answer to the other.

Though Justin Trudeau has stated he will not be running for Liberal Leader, citing his duty as a father to his young children, there are still two years till the leadership race. And besides the fact children grow fast, one just needs to look at Bob Rae, who signed an agreement not to run, to see how things can change.

Justin Trudeau's reason for not running is his young family (though he has given other reasons at different times), but as leadership is in the minds of Liberals, whether he likes it or not, Liberals are wondering if leadership is in Justin; not just an aspiration to be leader, but an aspiration to be a leader like his father.

If Justin Trudeau decides this is the time and this is the place for running to lead this nation, in putting country first, he will be just like his father, not just in being Liberal leader, but in being Liberal leader at the possible cost of family.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau had a young family, shortly after forming his first majority, Justin was born in 1971. The elder statesman however didn't dedicate the time to raise a family like his son is currently contemplating, he didn't step down, but instead immersed himself in governing our nation running again as Prime Minister, not just in 1972, but 1974, 1979, and lastly in 1980. When Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Canada's greatest Prime Minister finally retired, Justin was thirteen.

Few sons outshine their famous fathers, to the public anyway, to their own kids, like Justin's young children, it's probably going to be a different story.

Many people wonder if Justin Trudeau will ever be like his dad, if he doesn't run this time I don't think he will be, and I don't think that is a bad thing.

Does Stephen Harper Support Coalitions?

If coalitions are undemocratic and a threat to Canada, why hasn't this strong stable Conservative majority government done anything to make sure they don't ravage our nation? Simple, Stephen Harper supports coalitions.

Just over three years ago Stephen Harper and members of his party said coalitions were a threat to our nation, that they were undemocratic and that Conservatives would use all legal means necessary to ensure a coalition never took power. Yet it's 2012 and Stephen Harper is Prime Minister, he has a large majority, his opposition parties are in disarray, and still this Conservative Leader has done nothing to prevent future coalitions from forming government.

At a Christmas party in 2008 Stephen Harper, referencing the Liberal-NDP coalition, said he would "use all legal means to resist this undemocratic seizure of power." The Conservative Leader spoke with such passion, adding, "My friends, such an illegitimate government would be a catastrophe, for our democracy, our unity and our economy." Now years later with a majority government that same Stephen Harper has done nothing and is continuing to do nothing to end the coalition threat that was described to stalk our nation.

With his majority, why hasn't our Prime Minister drafted legislation to stop coalitions? Why, if they're such a threat to our country does he not amend our constitution? Why hasn't he done these things? Because he supports our constitution, and in doing so, he supports coalitions. He doesn't just support them today, he supported them in 2008 just as he had done in 2004.

Stephen Harper can say he's against coalitions, that they're undemocratic and will bring economic collapse, he's said these things before, but his words never match his actions. In 2004 as Leader of the Conservatives Harper sought to form a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois, and then just four years later he denounced coalitions as undemocratic. In 2008 he said he would use all legal means necessary to end the threat of coalitions but years later, with a majority he's done nothing.

Stephen Harper promised to do everything possible to prevent coalitions from taking power, yet he hasn't done anything to stop them. In fact a coalition could take power tomorrow, Conservative MPs would have to defect, but a coalition could form government by Friday, and Stephen Harper would allow it. He would say he's opposed to it and describe how it's ending our country, but he would allow it to happen, because in the end Stephen Harper supports our constitution and he supports coalitions, his words might not, but most importantly his actions do.

Liberal Invisibility Is Liberal Non-Existence

Liberals like to pretend, and this is reinforced by public opinion, that the Liberal Party didn't stand for anything in the last election and that's why they lost. Liberal members and the public both say this, both acknowledge this, both perpetuate this, that the party led by Michael Ignatieff offered nothing on May 2nd 2011 and that is why it was reduced to a historic low in Parliament. Though the Liberal Party and the public share little in common, as recent polling indicates, they do share this, they're both wrong.

For the public, it's easy to understand why Canadians thought the Liberal Party didn't stand for anything in the last election, they didn't offer anything new, and when something doesn't perceptually change, just like the Liberal platform, it's existence is ignored.

How Canadians came to ignore Liberal policies is similar to how we all see in general. When light enters our eye it must go through blood vessels to reach our retina on its back wall, but because those blood vessels are stationary our brain has adapted to ignore the shadows they cast. Just like a stagnate political party, stabilized images are unvarying stimuli which disappear from our awareness:

For example, if a small piece of paper is dropped on the inside of one's forearm, it is felt for a few seconds, then the sensation is no longer present; this is because the tactile neurons have adapted. But if one jiggles one's arm up and down, giving varying stimulation, one continues to feel the paper until it falls off one's arm.

Much like our sensory system if Canadians are presented with a constant and unchanging stimulus it will be grown accustomed to and ignored. It is no wonder then that Canadians saw the Liberal Party as not standing for anything when Liberals offered nothing the public hadn't seen before.

For Liberals, it's all too easy to understand why members cling to the idea that they didn't stand for anything on May 2nd. It certainly feels a lot better to convince oneself that the Liberals lost by not trying than trying and losing. Liberals in believing they didn't offer policies to Canadians have turned a fatal indictment of their policies to a mere recommendation to advertise them better.

With this false belief that the Liberal Party lost because they didn't offer Canadians a real platform, Liberals have fooled themselves into believing they don't have to make substantive policy changes or reform for the next election, all they have to do is have better public relations.

The fact of the matter is Michael Ignatieff offered one of the most in-depth platforms, Liberals offered policies on every major issue, and announcements were made by caucus members almost every day. The problem was and is that the Liberals have stood on the same policies of a national childcare program, targeted post-secondary funding, the Kelowna Accord, Kyoto and many others for far too many elections.

The Party has adopted Marijuana legalization, a new policy, but all too similar to decriminalization which also has been touted by Liberals for a decade.  To be relevant, to be seen Grits need to not just take a stand, but to stand for something new, something different. It doesn't require an abdication of liberal principles but an abdication of stagnate Liberal policies.

It was not that the Liberals didn't stand for anything in the last election, it was that they stood for the same things they have always stood for, and unfortunately, in reality to be seen one has to change or they're ignored. It's not just basic politics, it's basic biology.

A Chump Can Occupy Wall Street

"It’s not so good to refer to what you’re going to do as a sit-in. That right there castrates you. Right there it brings you down. What goes with it? Think of the image of someone sitting. An old woman can sit. An old man can sit. A chump can sit. A coward can sit. Anything can sit. Well you and I been sitting long enough, and it’s time today for us to start doing some standing, and some fighting to back that up." - Malcolm X, The Ballot or the Bullet, 1964

Though the Occupy movement is waning or regrouping, depending on who you ask, it is failing to deliver substantial change. While protesting has merit and can garner publicity to a cause, it is not a means to an end, but a means for someone else to act, and in the United States and in Canada no one is. For the Occupy movement to achieve change, it itself must change, and what better movement to emulate than the Civil Rights movement.

Occupy Wall Street and its subsidiaries cannot be compared to the Civil Rights movement that occurred in the United States however that movement led by Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X and others certainly had methods that the group of Occupiers today should borrow if they truly want to end the great income disparity between the rich and poor, corporate subsidies, lobbying and corporate political campaign fundraising.

The Occupy movement has validity in its pursuit of ending corporate greed, especially as corporations are currently limiting investment while at the same time still benefitting from government funding and tax incentives, but the methods Occupiers are using are ultimately ineffectual.

The very term "Occupy" inspires the criticism Malcolm X levelled against the peaceful sit-in's that many African American church leaders promoted in the fifties and sixties. The remarks Malcolm X made calling for less sitting and more acting are perhaps even more valid today than they were then. Where before the issue was almost entirely political, today the problem is just as much political as it is economical, and in economics action ultimately determines everything.

The Civil Rights movement utilized methods that should be used by the protesters today, with which they can stop merely occupying a park and start making a difference.

Boycotting was an important and successful tool used repeatedly against policies of segregation, most notably with the Montgomery Bus Boycott after the arrest of Rosa Parks for her refusal to move to the back of the bus. Operation Breadbasket was as an organization to utlize strategic boycotts to improve the living conditions of African Americans. The creation of African American-owned banks was also instrumental in providing equality in financial services and in providing opportunity to alleviate poverty through loans and mortgages.

The Occupy movement should boycott corporations that practice unfair business practices or corporations that value only greed and ignore social and national welfare. The Occupy movement should create its own institutions, be they banks or otherwise, or support and strengthen those institutions they agree with. But no matter what lesson they learn from the Civil Rights movement, to paraphrase Malcolm X, Occupiers have been occupying long enough, it's time today to start doing some standing and fighting to back that up.