Last month I wrote about the growing pressure to move the NDP closer to the centre of Canada’s political spectrum. Some people argue that such a move is necessary to shore up declining voter support and defuse hostility from business and the media.

In response to these arguments, I pointed out that a move to the centre would be self defeating because it would make it more difficult for voters to differentiate between the NDP and the Liberals – Canada’s official party of the centre. Why would Canadians opt for our brand of centrism when they could get the real thing from the Liberals?

But, if moving to the centre isn’t the answer, then what is the alternative?

I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but it seems to me that before we start running off in all directions searching for new campaign slogans and marketing gimmicks, we should take a closer look at the true nature of the problem facing us.

From my point of view, the NDP is not low in the polls because Canadians fundamentally disagree with us. Rather, we are low in the polls because most Canadians have been convinced that governments are powerless in the face of the almighty market.

It’s what Linda McQuaig has called the "cult of impotence." Voters have been convinced that the market knows best; they have been convinced that governments can’t create jobs; that we can’t expand social programs; that we can’t even afford the programs we’ve got.

In this kind of environment, it’s no surprise that voters have turned away from parties like the NDP that support activist government. Why would anyone vote for a party that promises to do things that seem impossible?

By moving our party to the centre, we would simply be giving in to this sense of political impotence and apathy.

The alternative for us is to challenge the myth of political impotence – to make the case for activist, socialist government. And we can’t do that by trying to appease the business community and the media.

If we want to win back the confidence of voters, we have to abandon all this fuzzy, sentimental talk about building bridges with groups that don’t share our interests or our goals. We have to accept the political reality that the interests of working people and the interests of capital are fundamentally different and cannot be easily reconciled.

I realize that what I’m suggesting is not fashionable and I realize that most Canadians like to avoid confrontation and conflict. But if we ever hope to regain a significant position on the political stage, we’re going to have to get over our fear of getting into messy political fights. Most importantly, we’re going to have to recognize that we are a class-based party operating in class-dominated society.

There – I’ve said it: the "C" word. The big thing that has been missing in the debate over the future of the party is any discussion of class. We have become afraid to admit who we are and what we actually stand for.

Our opponents in the business world and in the conservative media have no such problems. They know who we are – or at least who we were. They know that we are the party of working people, the poor, the less powerful. That’s why they will never cooperate with us or support us.

This is a crucial point. No matter what we do; no matter how many policies and principles we jettison; no matter how many new slogans we adopt; we will always be seen as the party of the left and – as such – the business community and the conservative media will never, ever support us.

The reality is that we can’t sweet-talk business into creating good jobs, paying decent wages or protecting the environment. The only counter balance to the power of capital is democratic political power wielded by a pro-worker government.

So from my point of view all this talk about Blairism and finding a so-called Third Way is misguided. In places where we are the third or fourth party – and that includes everywhere in Canada except Saskatchewan – it won’t get us elected. And even if by some miracle we do elect a government with this kind of platform, what will we be really getting? Liberals in a different package, that’s what – and that’s not why I joined this party.

That’s why I think all of those calling for a move to the right are misguided. What I’m suggesting today is that we set off in a different direction. What I’m suggesting is that we challenge the current political orthodoxy rather than acquiesce to it.

Most importantly, we have to challenge the cult of political impotence. We have to remind people that business doesn’t have all the answers; that governments have an important role to play; and that the market is a creature that can and should be tamed.

That’s the real way forward for our party. If we have the courage to follow this path, I am convinced that voters will respond.