Sunday, March 18, 2012

Legalize Same-Ideology Unions

The Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party shouldn't merge to defeat the Conservatives, they should merge to be better than themselves.

Liberals often cite diversity is strength but at the same time rebuff making the party stronger, making a new party stronger by uniting with the NDP. New Democrats often take pride in socialist principles but at the same time endorse harsh capitalistic electoral competition where both parties lose.

These two parties should not merge to be a united progressive coalition, as if any such union should be strategic, no, they should merge for the same reason that each party was respectively created, to better Canada, to make a difference.

We do not live so others die, we do not wed so our neighbours divorce, and we do not unite as a country so another dissolves. The act of participating in society, of uniting with others, is not so others lose, but that we all win.

The reason to merge the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party is the same reason why Lower Canada and Upper Canada united, not because they were identical or because they wanted to defeat the United States but they united because together they were better than they were separate.

The Liberal Party lacks heart, the New Democratic Party lacks realism, a party created by both would take their halves and make a whole. These parties should not merge to defeat the Conservatives, they should merge to be better than what they are now.

8 comments:

rww said...

... and would we call it the "Liberals In A Hurry Party of Canada" or the "Wishy Washy Social Democratic Party of Canada" ?

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Rww, if for you six years is hurry and wishy washy is never changing what you believe in than you can call them whatever you want... Just don't call them late for dinner. That joke is still funny right?

rww said...

On a more serious note, following that strategy led to the demise of the once proud and principled Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Yes a merger takes away one identity but adds another. Some principles are inevitably surrendered to compromise but that's democracy.

I gave up throwing bananas at strangers to be part of civil society because I gained more from being part of it; so too is the case with mergers.

Volkov said...

I'm not a member of the NDP, I'm a member of the Liberal Party. Why is it that I should feel that mashing them together is a good idea? Why should I not prefer working to strengthen the Liberal Party? Explain that without alluding to false arguments like "it guarantees 60% of the vote in Canada!" and other nonsense.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Volkov, I too am a member of the party crimson, and the point of my post was not to reiterate the need to form a party that can win, but a party that is better.

The Liberal Party is a fine party but it has weaknesses, the most general is it lacks passion, heart, and basically motivation. The whole articulation that Liberals stand for reason, science, research, etc. is not something that excites the spirit. Those are not values, but outcomes.

You can work within the Liberal Party to give it heart but you'd only be trying to replicate something that already exists strongly in the NDP. New Democrats embody a passion for community yet lack tempered realism that is found institutionalized in our members.

To merge the two parties is not creating something foreign, keeping them separate is.

Volkov said...

Lol, I'm not interested in metaphysical notions of "heart" and a "passion for community," and how this somehow automatically infects Liberal supporters in the event of a merger.

Besides, nothing I've ever seen somehow points towards a lack of passion in the Liberals, versus tonnes of passion in the NDP. I've moved between both communities here, and I can tell you both have passion.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Volkov, I respect your ability to attempt to take things literally, (though I don't think you understand what metaphysical means) but let me explain.

Liberals do not display or more importantly invoke the impression that they care about ordinary people as much as the NDP does. You can disagree all you want, I am confident in that assertion.

And again we can disagree that the Liberals lack passion, but the evidence is quite strong to indicate this is so. Liberals often describe what they stand for not in terms of values but in terms of outcomes. Science, reason, research, balance etc. are all great but they don't inspire, they aren't the motivation to perpetuate a party, they are the mere results of one.

In terms of institutionalization within the respective parties, each has deficiencies, one would not infect the other, but the parts of each would constitute a better whole.