TORONTO —The decision by 57 percent of voting New Democrats to elect Thomas Mulcair the party’s seventh leader was perhaps the most calculating decision in the storied history of the party.
He was elected last weekend because the majority decided that after making it to second place in national politics in the last election, the time for moral victories and moderating influence is over.
It’s time to go for the brass ring. They judged that Mulcair — combative, abrasive, arrogant, well spoken and quick witted — is the best hope for battling Stephen Harper, who exhibits many of the above qualities and has been successful.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
For the 27 percent of delegates who did not vote Mulcair as their first choice but did in the end, they did so because they think he could be a winner, as ruthless and focused as his main opponent.
Would western voters be prepared to support a Quebec politician who has criticized the Alberta oilsands and shown little feel for western issues, northern Ontario MP Charlie Angus was asked when he joined Team Mulcair.
“Like other Canadians, the people of Western Canada are looking for someone who can become prime minister,” replied the party’s former agriculture critic.
Someone who can win. Simple.
Throughout its 50 year history, the NDP has chosen its seven leaders for their promise of advancement in whatever way was considered im-portant at the time. This simplifies the history.
Leader one, T.C. Douglas, was the darling of the party in 1961, a 17 year Saskatchewan premier with a record of winning.
He was a fiscal conservative in government with solid social policy credentials, including the promise of medicare. He didn’t come close.
Leader two, David Lewis, was a party functionary in 1971 when the NDP faced a threat from a left wing infiltration by the Waffle faction with communist outriders.
He fought them back and reduced Pierre Trudeau to a minority, but after two years, discovered that Trudeau was a better political scrapper.
Leader three, Ed Broadbent, was a 39-year-old academic and three-time winner in Oshawa, who in 1975 offered to broaden the party. For the next 14 years he had a good run expanding the party to a then-record 43 seats.
Leader four, Audrey McLaughlin, won in 1989 in part because the party believed it was time for a woman and northerner. There was retreat, not gain.
Leader five, Alexa McDonough, offered a breakthrough in Atlantic Canada and delivered.
Jack Layton, with his optimism and sunny ways, offered a campaign of hope and although it took four elections, he delivered second place for the first time.
Mulcair, pure and simple, offers the hope of going over the top.
An Ottawa delegate whose convention decisions I tracked came to Toronto last weekend to support Paul Dewar, then switched to unionist Peggy Nash and when she was eliminated went to British Columbia’s Nathan Cullen.
He finally had to choose between party traditionalist Brian Topp and Mulcair, whom he did not like or trust.
“I went with Mulcair because he can take on Harper,” he said.
There it is.
