split three ways - a canadian trilemma

[sweetwater]

Split Three Ways

I think this distinction is made from the argument that neo-liberal ideas are more, well, liberal than they are conservative.

In the upcoming federal election, some people may decide to cast their vote according to the one issue they feel is important. On the issue such as the environment, the vote would likely fall on the left of the political spectrum, seeing how the Conservatives are notedly lagging behind, and where some of their constituency is avidly promoting the alleged falsities of global warming.
On the issue of the environment the vote itself would likely be split between three parties, or those who fall on the left, and who have party platforms engaging alternative energies and green strategies. One could say that the reason why there isn't as much political will as there is on environment issues, is precisely because the vote for the environment is split between three parties, or that the liberals are perceived as being on the left of the political spectrum and the conservatives sit alone on the right.
It is also easy to speculate that the success of the Conservatives of late falls on the fact that the opposition vote is split three ways, between the Green Party, the NDP Party and the Liberal Party, so any movement toward the left is met with this splitting of sentiment, and for which the Conservatives are grateful.
Unfortunately for the NDP and the Green Party, we use terms like neo-liberalism as a term to denote leftist strategies and terms such as neo-conservatism to denote right wing platforms and thinking. The NDP in this respect is neo-liberal, which is sad for them because there hasn't evolved such a term to differentiate them from the liberals in this respect. We don't use terms like neo-ndpism. It is simplified to such a degree as to split the vote almost immediately, without even as much to distinguish between the two. The Liberals and the NDP have historically fought each for the same the vote in every election.
The reason why the Liberals enjoyed some success in the past was because the vote on the right was split between the Alliance and the Conservatives but ever since the amalgamation of the two parties, the Conservatives have enjoyed more success at the polls.
In today's election, the vote on the left is split between three parties and the vote on the right is split in some respect between, well, almost two. Some votes on the right fall on the side of the Liberals but a lot of votes on the left also fall on the side of the Liberals. The Liberals enjoy this middle of the road strategy as it translates into more seats for their party and they hold the distinction in this respect as to differentiate itself from other parties. But what side are they really on? Or, are they a party that can't make up their minds? Or, is being in the middle something they would have us believe?
Question: Do the Liberals fight the Conservatives on the right in the same or similar ways of fighting the NDP on the left? Doesn't being the middle way, as a strategy, translate into less votes or is it by far a superior strategy?
Though when we speak of neo-liberalism, we place the Liberals on the left.
So, for the purposes of this argument the Liberals are on the left of the political spectrum, right beside the NDP and the Green Party, and the Conservatives sit alone on the right, without any fear of having the vote split, like the vote is split on the left.
I think this distinction is made from the argument that neo-liberal ideas are more, well, liberal than they are conservative.
So, the Liberals would have us believe they are in the middle, when in fact they are on the left just as the Conservatives would have us believe that they are not 'supply side' economists who want more tax breaks for business, and that the resources of the country are better managed when they are in the hands of private interest.
Just as I would have you believe that I know what I am talking about!
Now, back to the issue of the environment. If I were concerned about the environment, which sometimes I am, I would be as much or more concerned about having my vote for the environment split between three parties. It means less attention, less energy and less solutions, which is where we are today.
In this respect, I would be wondering what Jack Layton was doing and saying, and also wondering what Michael Ignatieff was up to. Jack might be concerned that they were both fighting for the same thing and fighting each other for the same vote. Split vote. And hence, Jack might want the Liberals to be spending more time fighting the Conservatives rather than fighting the NDP. Michael might be spending a lot of his time trying to appeal to the left when Jack believes he should be fighting the right. And Stephen thinks this is great. Let them fight each other for the same vote and add the Green Party into the mix and things get a little crowded over there.
It would be ideal and far more simpler if the Green Party were on the right, which on some issues they may just be, even though no one really knows what is going on with the Green Party. They don't get much attention.
In order to better understand where the Green Party may be in terms of the political spectrum, we would have to know of their fiscal policy, their position on Health Care and Education, which is what we don't know. But for now, the Green Party, if they survive the next election, are simply a one issue party and the vote on the left is split three ways!