Values on the Verge

Recall my past comments on the Liberal Party – how they do so well equating supposed Liberal “values” with supposed Canadian “values” – it looks like that approach is going to be the thesis for part two of their campaign. Why abandon a winning formula. (See the excerpt below from Paul Martin’s speech today in Winter-peg, kicking off the second half of his campaign.)

I wrote in our past discussions that it was a shame the NDP does such a poor job packaging their politics in natural/shared national values, or that they lack a nationalist rhetoric in their political pitch. A concept that I think is being validated by Liberal successes. Canadians need valuation (in the sense that they appreciate a discourse that speaks positively, even nebulously, about the possibilty of pan-Canadian values).

Canadians will approve of this rhetoric even if it comes from a increasingly corrupt political group. More importantly, a good many of our fellow citizens will vote to hear more of it. The NDP will never succeed in electoral politics without adopting these tactics. A letter to the editor was published in the Globe yesterday on the subject of that paper nominating Ed Broadbent “Nationbuilder of the Year,” it reads:

What a pleasure to read that the Globe selected Edward Broadbent as the Nation Builder of 2005 on the eve of his departure from federal politics. Mr Broadbent is, as you say, a decent and honourable person. But, it’s a shame the The Globe has never been able to see the connections between these characteristics and the political principles that compelled Mr. Broadbent to struggle for social and economic inclusion. It’s no accident that he was leader of the NDP, and that, indeed, one of your runners-up was Stephen Lewis, another former NDP leader who similarly never received electoral support from Canada’s national newspaper. That you revere their values and dismiss their politics is one of the true mysteries of Canadian political life. [Emphasis mine]

There is no mystery here – the NDP hasn’t packaged their political product correctly.

Here is Paul Martin’s speech:

Good morning, and welcome to the federal election campaign, Act II. I hope you enjoyed the intermission. As Sheila says, almost two weeks without a speech from me – you can’t say you didn’t get something nice for Christmas.

But now it’s a new year, a new phase of the campaign, and I’ve got a new speech. Your respite is over.

With three weeks to go until election day, I think it’s fair to say it is only now that most Canadians will be giving this campaign their full attention. During the next number of days, I’ll be presenting elements of our election platform. But to day, I want to do something a little different. I want to tell you about an email I received. “I’m voting for the first time,” a young woman wrote. “Tell me why I should vote for you.”

I answered her. But since then, I’ve found myself reflecting on that email – because what she’s asking is really the question that Canadians are asking across our country.

They are looking at the parties and the leaders. They are looking to vote for someone, and for something. They are looking to vote for a vision of Canada that is faithful to their values and the values on which this country was forged.

Today, I want to set the stage for the second half of the campaign by talking about those values – by giving my view of what’s at stake in this election and what it means for Canada. Because therein lies the answer to that young woman’s question – it lies in the values and the beliefs of those who seek to be prime minister. [Emphasis mine again]

———

This was written by alevo