How Jagmeet Singh Could Win But Won't

Jagmeet Singh is a loser. So is the NDP.    

Can Jagmeet win in Burnaby?  He might not. Burnaby has voted for the NDP the last two elections.  But last time the NDP won by a whisker. And that was with a local candidate.  

Jagmeet is not from BC at all, much less Burnaby.  He doesn't represent the people of Burnaby in any real sense or understand their interests.  If the Liberals are smart, of course, they will put in one of their own losers as a candidate so Jag' can make into the Commons as distinguish himself as a PC Justin knockoff, adding to the lustre of the Trudeau brand.

The irony is that Jagmeet could win not just in Burnaby - but by massively improving the NDP's representation in the Commons.

If he really wanted .  If the NDP would let him. 

He could turn his very obvious weaknesses into strengths.  But that would take political cojones, which he sadly seems to lack -- along with the rest of his milquetoast party of centrists who just happened to lurch leftward when they fell asleep in their political easy chairs sometime in the distant past.

Here's how Jag' could win (but won't).

First of all: the Sikh thing.  OK, fielding a sorta non-white, which is what Sikhs are--technically Caucasioid.  Some are quite fair skinned; some are kinda brown --like Sicilians!   So this "non-white" designation is meaningless PC posturing.  

You know Sikhs are Sikhs when they have the turban, the beard, the knife, etc.  But not all do.  The Sikh community is very diverse. 

Jagmeet has the turban and the beard.  But he wears pink turbans and bespoke three piece suits - and no socks.  He stands out--but he is harder to identify with personally than Justin Trudeau who is conventionally handsome, often wears jeans, and eschews ties when he is out on the hustings.  Men want to be him. Rich, handsome, athletic looking.  Women want to be with him for the same reasons.

Jagmeet?  Beards are in. But not Thomas Mulcair's kind of beard. (Olllld).  And not untrimmed ones.

The suits are a put-off.  If you are a man of the people, then dress like it.

Justin makes pretty good speeches.  

Jagmeet makes awful speeches although he is personable and articulate,  one on one.

You might think that Jag' loses on every score.  But each of his weaknesses could be an advantage!

Consider Jeremy Corbyn who has done supremely well -- despite the antipathy of the entire media establishment, newspapers and TV and despite not looking the part of a future PM...
 

He's not actually that old -- but he looks old-- and he seems a bit eccentric with his bicycle and his cat.  He languished on the back benches for years:  against everything that Blairism pushed -- war, austerity, privatization.   In other words, he stood up for his principles, although derided as either "extremist" or "obsolete". He is often criticized for his clothes.  He is not much of a speech maker; he just talks to people.

Yet, Corbyn got massive support from young people. Why?  Authenticity. And principles, And a Plan, a Program.  The Press calls it"extremist".  The People call it "Real". 

Donald Trump was a fat, boorish, not-too-smart guy with dyed orange hair and a trophy wife .  Not just a dreadful speech maker but a moron, reviled by the mainstream media, or most of it.

He did fine, as we all know,  by running against the media.  By sheer cojones.  His supporters took it -- once again -- as authenticity.  Which, of course, it was.  Trump is an authentic rightwing moron.

The liberal press sneers.  "Populism", they say dismissively.  But populism is just another word for democracy.

So how can Jagmeet win?  He has to be authentic, honest, genuine. That means talking about his core beliefs, his principles, if he has any.  "If" is the important word.  Without them, he is just another guy.

I believe he does have principles.  That's why he wears a beard right?  That's why he wears a turban.  His religion is eqalitarian - it has a philosophy of caring and sharing. If that is part of the reason he is doing what he is doing, he needs to say so.

Of course, Jagmeet may not really be "progressive".  Or, he may simply not have the imagination or the gus.   At this point, we don't know.

If he is genuinely progressive  he will come out with foreign policy positions that are contrary to the last 40 years of Canadian diplomacy.

He will  come out against Zionism, NATO, American wars in the Ukraine and the Middle East. He will repudiate NAFTA II and argue for a closer relationship with Russia and China.  He also needs to repudiate American and previous Canadian actions in Latin America.  He will be willing to say that Castro and Chavez were great men. 

No, the Americans won't like it. But for Canadians, such positions  will immediately establish his principles and distinguish him from Trudeau's neoliberal, fascist-friendly mindset.  

OK, a lot of the public share that mindset. And the press will go crazy attacking him-- but the facts are on the side of progressives.  And in the end, the truth comes out

The articles and interviews stirred up by Jag's contrarian positions will establish --at the very least -- credibility and guts.  The Americans who are used to decades of Canadian bootlicking won't actually care because they will assume that it's all hot air.  And, anyway, who elect a raghead.

Jagmeet will need a program of social democracy, pharmacare, education, and especially infrastructure such as high-speed trains green energy and the like. To pay for this,  he needs wealth taxes, redistributing cash from the one percent.  Cutting defense spending would help. Canada has no natural enemies other than the US which could take over any time it liked,  So without nuclear weapons, Canada couldn't fight.  

In that case, there are only two options: nuclear weapons -- or no military at all.  

Economically, Canada also needs alliances with China and Russia, which represent the future - not the US and the EU. 

Now these opinions would seem "radical".  All the better. They definitely won't win a general election since the Liberals are Canada's electoral default.  But the NDP could get a lot more members elected probably trebling their current representation. Better still, they can express alternative opinions setting in motion a dialectic.  Canada's must revered healthcare system was the brainchild of a provincial socialist party, the CCF- the predecessor to the NDP.  Really good ideas win out in the end.


That would suppose the NDP, as a party, was actually "progressive", which it is not.  What the NDP needs is an organization like Momentum in the UK.  It needs to open up its membership and policy creation to include ordinary people.  An old concept known as "democracy".  Right now, policy is determined by a cabal of party hacks.

Last summer, Singh had the opportunity to heed the call of over 200 notables to quit the Zionist Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group (CIIG).  He didn't.  He tacitly accepts Canada's pro-Zionist, pro-American militarist policies--as do many in his party.  He is no Jeremy Corbyn. Rather his more akin to Tony Blair.