For all of my adult life, I’ve been a Liberal believing in the defence of rights, the constraining of power, an equitable society, and an independent foreign policy. It’s been a narrative that many Canadians have strongly believed and supported.
Since 1982, the Charter gave us a core liberal centre that wasn’t really about party; it was about courts that could check governments, refugee protection as something we owed people, reconciliation as a shared obligation, gender equality, tackling poverty international law, building an activist role to counter Realpolitik.
These weren’t just policies. They were identity. That story is being rewritten.
The language hasn’t changed. Ministers still invoke the Charter, the “rules-based order,” Canada’s role as a constructive middle power. But watch what’s actually happening, and a different picture emerges: human rights moving steadily from the centre of public policy toward its edges, increasingly; poverty and homelessness being ignored.
This is straying from the point of the example, which was to demonstrate that a so-called “centre”, by virtue of the fact that it can not only compromise but can also even run counter to one’s values, is not by definition a winning strategy.
People on the left don’t owe a capitalist centrist party their vote simply because there’s no other major party advancing a socialist platform. Because socialism is opposed to capitalism on principle. Does that make sense?
Sure, and looking back on this exchange, there’s no suggestion anyone should vote one way or another.
That was the basic gist of the reply back to OP at the beginning of this thread, too. OOP was a purely statistical/strategic kind of statement, but the internet is full of opinions, so I guess it comes across as a moral suggestion anyway.