The Rae government struggled with difficult circumstances and conflicting expectations. The traditional base of the party was threatened by oncoming economic recession and economic restructuring and expected the New Democratic government to defend its interests. The economic situation, however, compelled the government to compromise, negotiate, and face economic realities. At the same time, it sought to pursue and even broaden the party's commitment to social justice for marginalized Canadians. This agenda was not tenable in those times, and in 1995 the Rae government gave way to Mike Harris and the Conservatives.
From Protest to Power is an informative narrative of a leader, a party, and a government seeking to move social democracy into mid-stream of a political current that has shifted course. Presented below are some quotations that touch on that process.
I joined the New Democratic Party as a conscious political choice. . . . My experiences in England left me with a gut mistrust of Tories, where the overwhelming obtuseness of inherited wealth and privilege is a core feature of the Conservative personality. There is a smugness and complacency about the Liberal Party of Canada which has not really changed since my first encounter. I decided that I would be truest to myself by working for a party whose core mission is to fight unwarranted privilege and improve the lives of a majority of people.There is probably no worse training in the world for becoming premier than spending a career in opposition. . . . Opposition creates the illusion that there is good policy and bad policy, and that political life is simply a matter of choosing the good over the bad, in a relatively painless way. Rhetorical dragons are slain with rhetorical swords, and evil is drowned in a flood of eloquent words.
The left-wing take on our government is that we spent all our time cozying up to business, betrayed our principles, lost our base, and failed miserably and abjectly as a government. The right-wing take on our government is that we drove business and investment away with our ideological principles, spent irresponsibly, brought in quotas that prevented young white males from getting work, and encouraged young women to have babies out of wedlock with promises of lifelong income support at handsome and unaffordable levels. And, of course, failed miserably and abjectly as a government.
There has been much nonsense spouted about the issue of public deficits and public debt, from all sides. This is a practical and not a theological question. . . . Many on the left are not prepared to admit that too much public debt is ever a problem. For the right, who are now in the ascendancy, any deficit or debt is a sin. Both views are wrong.
Yet social democracy has to change as well. . . . If social democrats avoid the politics of the single issue; abandon preachy rhetoric; admit that government needs to change; accept the value and contribution of the market and the reality of a more open and global economy, not as a god but as an essential element of a free and productive society; and recognize the limits of politics itself--if all these challenges are met, we can once again succeed. If we persist in the politics of nostalgia, denial, and blame, we shall fail, and deserve to fail.
Social democracy is about enlarging the scope and prospects for freedom and well-being, ensuring that people are treated equally and without discrimination, and reinforcing our sense of solidarity and what we owe each other and future generations. This is the basis for a vigorous public agenda. It is different from the Regina Manifesto: it is not the eradication of capitalism that we should be seeking, but the strengthening of our community, and a broader, more democratic economy.