A two-party state?

[Homeownertoo]

A Rex Murphy piece in today's National Post (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/02/rex-murphy-canadas-new-two-party-system/ discusses the likelihood of Canada transforming into a two-party state as the Liberal party continues to collapse. A reader, Chaz Martel, commented on the threat this poses to Canada's political culture. Rather than offering my own thoughts, which differ not a jot, I post his reply to Rex Murphy.

Although I never have been a Liberal supporter, indeed even the thought of such an action sticks in my craw, I cannot resist the impulse of sadness even a chilling foreboding at the collapse and near demise of the Liberal party. Mr. Murphy's articulate analysis has much more in common with that of a paleontologist sifting through the fossilized bones of a long extinct species than a topical commentary on a political party still in the running.

The ascendancy of the NDP, relative to the Liberals at least, speaks threateningly of a vacuous, entitlement culture on the rise not only in Canada, but throughout the Western world. Whether we are talking about the student anarchists in Quebec protesting the lowest tuition fees in the country, the hockey night rioters and vandals in Vancouver who have lost all sense of propriety and respect for the fine society their forbears had created, the untutored and malodorous "Occupy" movement who stand like a non-contributing gaping maw of insatiable demands and zero ideas etc., they are all of like mind, or should I say, no mind. Certainly, it is this panhandler/anarchist/criminal culture which are the primary constituency of the NDP.

Mulcair, like the mindless, grasping zombies he represents, feels no need to make sense, only to continue to find ways to constantly keep his permanent scowl in your face and in the news.

This is what the new "two-party system" in Canada has been reduced to. The sane, contributing, tax-paying, productive and law-abiding majority of Canadians currently represented by the Conservative Party of Canada on the one hand and the absolute dregs of society represented by the NDP, on the other. The old 'centre' of Canadian politics which the Liberals use to represent has gone the way of Tyrannosaurus Rex.

All I can add is the hope that Canadians will come to see Mulcair for the blowhard he is and sensibly decide not to let him anywhere near the levers of power. Are there enough such Canadians left, though?

[occasional thoughts]

I'll take alleged blowhard NDP over amoral Conservative any day. Regardless, the analysis is vacuous, because if the Liberal Party collapses, the rest of the Liberals will move (some) into the Conservatives and (probably lots) into the NDP, further "liberalizing" it (NDP), for the good of itself and the province and country.

[SassySasquatch]

Chaz Martel.

A loyal 'conservative/alliance/crapp/reform' supporter. Good on him for expressing his view, what? - opinions are like arceholes, everybody's got one?

Damn!

We all see now how well the two party systems works in the States. It has been reduced to people voting for the party rather than the candidate. It fuels corruption. You look at the ballet but not the names only the party. Pathetic. We do not want that here in Canada, it degrades ideas and rather than any sort of enlightenment for change it employs the status quo. The very people that fight against socialized medicine would be the very people who would not allow it to be ripped from them unless they were cold and dead.

Why can't, every so often, everyone have a good idea and who gives a damn who you are, only that the notion is sound?

[grammafreddy]

I wouldn't want to see a two party thingy because I like minority governments.

[Glacier]

We all see now how well the two party systems works in the States. It has been reduced to people voting for the party rather than the candidate. It fuels corruption. You look at the ballet but not the names only the party. Pathetic. We do not want that here in Canada, it degrades ideas and rather than any sort of enlightenment for change it employs the status quo.

I would argue that Canadians are at least as inclined as Americans to vote for the party (or leader) instead of the person on the ballot. The problem with two-party states is that the left-wing party moves further to the left and the right-wing party moves further to the right. I suppose everything balances out in the end, but I'd rather see moderate shifts between Liberals and Conservatives than wild swings between Conservative and NDP governments. Welcome to politics in BC!

Personally, I'm against the two-party state because that means we will eventually end up with an NDP government. Possibly as soon as 2015. Stephan Harper has long reveled in the day when the Liberals were history because he figured it would help the conservatives, but I submit that any gains are only short term. In the long term, the two main parties will move as far as they can from the centre while still maintaining their electability. The see saw always goes back and forth in the long run.

[Homeownertoo]

I would argue that Canadians are at least as inclined as Americans to vote for the party (or leader) instead of the person on the ballot. The problem with two-party states is that the left-wing party moves further to the left and the right-wing party moves further to the right. I suppose everything balances out in the end, but I'd rather see moderate shifts between Liberals and Conservatives than wild swings between Conservative and NDP governments. Welcome to politics in BC!

Personally, I'm against the two-party state because that means we will eventually end up with an NDP government. Possibly as soon as 2015. Stephan Harper has long reveled in the day when the Liberals were history because he figured it would help the conservatives, but I submit that any gains are only short term. In the long term, the two main parties will move as far as they can from the centre while still maintaining their electability. The see saw always goes back and forth in the long run.

Actually, not. That is a lazy fiction that I am surprised to see you proffering. What really "goes back and forth" is, for want of a better word, the zeitgeist. Whatever it is at the time, it pulls opposing political movements into its orbit and they essentially abandon their true nature for the sake of slowing the momentum of the times. If that all sounds hazy, have a look at this for a better illustration.

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Future-tense--X--The-fourth-revolution-7395