Monday, February 06, 2012

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.

10 comments:

tarobins said...

Dude, if you want to communicate with people, try writing in a way that actually communicates your message rather than showing off your ability to use lofty language. I had to read every paragraph three times to understand what you were trying to say.

You should read or re-read "The Elements of Style" by Strunk and White.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Thanks "Dude"

kirbycairo said...

I think the NDP de facto abandoned its "socialist" principles years ago in the same way that "New Labour" did even if they kept constitutional language that was vaguely socialist.

Having said that, I believe that you may be correct that in a couple of years it may look absurd for the NDP and the LPC not to merge.

My last point is this -- if anyone had trouble reading and understanding your sentences it is a sad indictment of our educational system. My spouse teaches literacy and clear language and it seems clear to me that given your audience (which presumably is educated and politically minded) there is no need to over-simplify your language.

tarobins said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tarobins said...

First, I'm not sure why the fact your spouse teaches literacy gives you credibility in what you say. If your spouse was a surgeon, his or her profession wouldn't make you an expert on surgery. I just find that a bizarre claim to make in an argument.

I'm not sure writing only for a very well educated audience is going to serve the Liberal party well. People already view the Liberal party as one that enjoys speaking only to itself. If people in groups with in the party also enjoy speaking only to other members in those groups, the party won't be served well either.

Finally, if you want someone to clearly understand an idea, you should express that idea without extraneous words that detract from that idea. Humans, educated or not, can only process a few elements at a time in working memory, probably about four. If you crowd your main idea with extra stuff, it becomes less likely someone reading what you write will be able to process and understand your idea. Writing clearly and without extraneous words does not mean that you are less educated or writing for a less educated audience; it's the good ideas that should demonstrate your knowledge.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

tarobins, thank you for your advice, but I like how I write. Considering this isn't a paying gig, writing something I'm proud of and something that friends and colleagues appreciate is all that I care about.

kirbycairo said...

The reason it makes a difference, my dear tarobins, is that for years I have been exposed to and emersed in the issues surrounding literacy and clear language, and as a professional writer with a graduate degree in English, I have also helped her with her work. I understand the arguments for clear language, but I also understand the fact that different audiences accept different degrees of complexity. (Your surgeon argument is absurd because it, unlike literacy and clear language, is an extreme technical speciality, nice try, but it will not wash). I will, on the other hand, continue to stand by my claim that if you had to read those paragraphs several times to simply understand them, then the problem is not with Scott but with your reading comprehension and basic abstract reasoning.

tarobins said...

Please define "basic abstract reasoning".

The Dude said...

Mulcair wants to move the NDP to the centre. So we will have 2 centrist parties. Both parties are so entrenched in partisan politics and ambitious leaders would sooner lead opposition parties than do what is necessary to get rid of the cons.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

The Dude, I agree with you 100% except the implication that Mulcair will be the next NDP Leader.