[DowntownWpg]

Originally Posted by Jeff1987

I understand the argument, I'm just having difficulty buying it on a practical level. Is this to say that Liberal support is largely passive? That nobody is ideological Liberal, they are simply not ideologically Conservative or New Democrat, and therefore are Liberal?

It seems somewhat strange to me. Not implausible, just difficult to grasp. I'm sure there are many passive Conservative supporters. I know many Conservative voters who don't wave the party towel ever, nor even keep close tabs on the political situation, but will passively vote Conservative at nearly every turn.

I guess my statement would be, why can't you be ideologically Liberal? Many people I know have some views that line up right down the middle of the field. Wouldn't that make them ideologically Liberal (at least in the pre-Dion days, and perhaps in the present as well?)?

Now, don't get me wrong, I do think the right wing is much more dedicated to their cause in a holistic sense than is the left wing. That is to say that Conservative supporters (largely) tend to tie themselves very closely to the Conservative party. No question.

Nonetheless, I still think that the most successful political brand perhaps in the Western world, that being the Liberal Party of Canada, couldn't have achieved such lofty levels of prevalence, on little more than a large, predominantly passive following. My point being, even Liberal's have an ideological bent. I don't think you can tether people to a party without an ideological bent. Perhaps I'm missing something. Interesting debate though.

I've thought long and hard throughout my time pondering much the same questions. One thing that people need to keep in mind is that the (mainstream) political parties in Canada differ substantially from academic political philosophy/ideology.

For example, the three main parties do not fall in line with classical liberalism, socialism, and conservatism. In fact, it's apparent that the Cons (the party) have strong neoclassical liberal ideas underlying within their policies. On the other hand, the NDP has embraced elements of conservatism (particularly noticeable in provincial politics and governments).

I'll also quickly point out, for future reference, that in the world of academia political, economic, and sociological studies will often use the term "capital "L" Liberal" (the party) and "lowercase "l" liberal" (the ideology). Same can be said about the Cons and conservatism.

So, one could argue that due to the nature of our actual political parties all having a liberal and conservative ideological platform/governing style, none of them are true ideologies - at least, from an academic perspective. In fact, the ideology 'neoliberalism' attempts to address this blend under one theory.

However, lets talk about what we actually see "on main street" (god, that term is really getting worn-out these days), and the practical application of analysis in the Canadian political system.

In Canada, Jane and Joe Public will identify two mainstream ideologies with certain common features within the two ends of the spectrum - (Jane and Joe have also simplified it as "Left-Wing" and "Right-Wing," or "Hard Left" and "Hard Right"). And I mean "mainstream ideologies" in that they are related to practical issues of what people perceive in their day-to-day life. They are not thinking of how to reach utopia, as the academic ideologies do.

Anyway, what I have listed in no way represents the limits of the ideologies, just what has come to top-of-mind:


"Left Wing":

- Environmentalism (green planet, fresh air)
- The Welfare State/Socialism (note, socialism should NOT to be confused with Marxism or communism). (for example, our public health care and education systems are key elements of The Welfare State.)
- Women's issues/rights (being discriminated in the past is justification for using discrimination themselves)
- Minority issues/rights (dido my comments above)
- Unions & "the working man"


"Right Wing"

- Fiscally/financially responsible
- (old fashioned) Moral/Social values. (pro-life, opposition to gay marriage, etc.)
- Let the free market be completely free (we got to see how well that worked out)
- Small government/reduce the size of bureaucracy
- Support of corporations, based on the idea of jobs and prosperity "trickling down"
- Tax Cuts! Tax Cuts! Tax Cuts!

Sorry, but I couldn't help but add my explanation of these items.

Taking all this into account, and how I'm of the belief that mainstream "Joe and Jane Public" believe there to be two ideologies, this is why I had posted earlier that typical Lib supporters are not as ideologically driven. In their heart-of-hearts, they often fall into the "Right" or the "Left."

Those who are more in-your-face, or excited about their pure ideals will normally be in either the NDP or Con camp. As well, these types are more prone to announcing their voting intention through signs, online polls, etc.

Getting back to it, is the Liberal party, or support for it ideologically rooted? I would contend that it is, and it is not.

Academically, they (as do the other parties) fall into neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism of academic thought, and both these "neo" ideologies are essentially hybrids of the work of Adam Smith, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and I could go on... So, not a true ideology in an academic sense.

In a practical politics sense, then I do see your point that it can be construed as an ideology... and I would contend it to be the the ideology of compromise. Many people may vote Lib because of strategic voting, or because for the most part they represent their views. So, again, it's the ideology of practicality, or the policy to not go too extreme in either direction (in other words, centric).

But, there's nothing all that politically sexy or exciting about Liberal policy, for the most part, as it's a careful approach. The NDP and the Cons both have very passionate supporters, rooted in certain fundamental beliefs. The Lib supporters, it's hard to be outwardly excited about "a prudent, cautious, status-quo" approach.

However, one could look at the Libs track record, and fiscal Cons or environmentalists could be impressed. The economy has done very well, historically, under Liberal governments. Or provincially, the NDP has actually upset many of their ideologically-driven supporters for being fiscally conservative (yes, despite the Hugh McFadden soundbites and talking points, it's true guys)... besides, can one really call the provincial NDP out as being fiscally irresponsible socialists? With the balanced budgets? With Manitoba's strong economic growth? With several different types of tax cuts over the years? If you guys think that electing Hugh McFadden will mean that a few new high rise commercial buildings will go up in downtown that otherwise wouldn't in an NDP gov, then you're setting yourself up for much disappointment. I'm off topic!

Also, don't get me wrong that the Libs are only a status-quo and cautious party, as they've had many progressive and daring policies in their time, agree or disagree as you might, they have taken some risk - notably the 1982 Constitution and Charter.

Still, however, their policy items come from both "The Left" and "The Right."

Let me come out an say that I'm voting Liberal this election (I'm not a party member, but they get my vote this time). Why? Due to a blend of policies.

While I do understand the importance of fiscal responsibility and tax cuts for corporations and individuals (albeit, not to an extreme degree), I just cannot vote for the Cons as I have very strong disagreements with certain elements within the party. Namely, outdated social/moral values. I consider myself to be extremely socially liberal (surprise!), and a Con majority, given certain party and elected officials, is IMO cause for great concern (I also don't want the fundamental and evangelical christian types getting too happy with themselves).

So, again, if the concept of strategic voting or embracing a blend of ideals is an ideology, then I suppose that the Libs are a mainstream ideological party.

And where do the Greens fit? Nowhere really! But that's a whole other discussion.

p.s., there may also be some lingering embarrassment from the Sponsorship Scandal as to why Lib supporters are not as up-front about their voting intentions.