Insecure (New) Democrats?

According to Ian Capstick in the Globe and Mail, there are some factions within the party that are ardently resisting attempts to drop the irrelevant adjective from its name. Could this possibly be revealing some sort of insecurity on the (New) Democrat front?

Any such attachment to being "new" democrats is ridiculous at best. Does it really matter whether or not they are "new" democrats? One can, if scraping the barrel for arguments, point to a possible identification with the Democrats down south. However, as far as I can tell, Jack Layton does not remotely look like President Obama.

Another argument is that it may endanger significant successes on the provincial side. Once again, will people really forget who the "Democrats" on their bill are? I doubt they'll think it's Harper.

What it seems to be is an attachment to being "new". Some may not want to publicly acknowledge that it's been so long and yet less than was hoped for has been accomplished. Perhaps also this could be seen as part of a general trend, some say, of NDP movement towards the centre.

Even if these are the governing concerns, it is of no real consequence. The NDP will make themselves relevant, and part of the national consciousness, by putting forward creative proposals and capturing the mind of voters, not by being "new".

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere