Noted a potential look into the Smith pause to renewables in Alberta. Technically, there is a lot more to this one than it appears but you have to go through lot of data on the AESO web site AND understand it. My prediction is if they did not change the rules now, by.the next election they are screwed. For more details check out "By the Numbers", "Battle of the Renewables".
1. You guys are really letting Theresa Wright off the hook too easily. “Experts say” is a rhetorical “appeal to authority” hook journalists use to slip their own opinions into the mouths of non-existent experts. If a reporter is going to use that cheap tactic to — be honest — essentially try to smear someone, she deserves pushback.
2. Your view of the sides on the trans issues is far too simplistic. The numbers of feminists, members of the LGB (not queer) community, and parents (including many solidly on the left) who are questioning gender identity ideology are growing. It’s not at the tipping point, but it’s growing, and “trans” is (very) gradually on its way to not being a left/right issue but instead a far left/centre issue. E.g. on the topic of puberty blockers — Sweden, Finland and Norway are not exactly known of as hotbeds of right-wing fervour.
I won't be surprised if the Liberal try another wedge issue to get ahead in the polls but I will be shocked if the wedge they choose is: Puberty blockers for any child who wants them!?
The first attempt to 'trans' children (as opposed to adults) was done in the Netherlands twenty-five years ago in a bid to improve the lives (and passability) of future transexuals. Known as the Dutch protocol (take note this was not a true study as there was no control group), children who were at least 12 yo and had reached Tanner stage 2 were given puberty suppression drugs until the age of 16 whereby they were given cross-sex hormones, with surgeries scheduled for age 18. A group of 197 gender dysphoric children were evaluated for possible participation in the protocol and were screened with the following criteria:
1) gender dysphoria should have begun in early childhood and worsened with the start of puberty
2) there should be no other mental health problems
3) there should be full support of the family
After this rigorous screening, only 111 of the original 197 started puberty suppression, but this number dropped to 70 by the time cross-sex hormones were introduced. There is no explanation (or curiosity) about the 41 children who passed the stringent eligibility criteria but elected to stop their treatment. By the time of surgery completion, only 55 remained of that original 197 sample.
If the Liberals were to back the preposterous suggestion that any child asking for puberty suppression should get it - they'd be green-lighting the full 197 children in the Dutch protocol. Anyone can see that even with stringent screening, the Dutch allowed many children to embark on a course of treatment that was not helpful, and may have been harmful. If the Liberals are foolish enough to choose this as a wedge issue, they had better drop their "Believe the Science" mantra.
We never disputed that the evidence would be against such legislation: in many ways, that makes it a perfect wedge. The more time the CPC spends debating the merits of puberty blockers, the more they will be driven off their thus-far successful narrative agenda.
I think using trans issues as a wedge would allow Pierre to take the entirely reasonable and majority supported position that yes trans people exist and deserve rights and dignity, but we should be more cautious about irreversible pediatric medical procedures, and we need to dial back on things like mandatory drag queens in schools. I think the Sask and NB policies around parental consent have majority support in Canada
As noted in the podcast, Poilievre can take whatever position he wants. Or he can try, anyway. But he'll be dragged to wherever the social-media personalities pull his base, and also his caucus. I entirely agree with what Paul Wells wrote just recently: I don't think Poilievre cares about the WEF at all. I think he talks about it because he has to. This will be that.
Aug 26, 2023·edited Aug 26, 2023Liked by Line Editor
Right but in this case, I think (wishfully?) he'll be able to take a position that satisfies his "base"/the hardliners/the terminally online *and* has mainstream/majority support. Depending on how hamhandedly Trudeau tries to wedge. He doesn't have to go full Matt Walsh, he merely has to take the moderate postion to ... oh. ok I see what you mean lol
Same phenomenon as the American right going against Ukraine. The base, via social media is pushing the party establishment that way.
Never have we had people with such little advanced education with so much access to knowledge. They know just enough to be dangerous as the Russians know well.
I hope that you will take the trouble to read the Peterson Court decision; because the principles at play in that case have a significance that goes well beyond the closed shop of the Ontario College of Psychologists. Those issues are relevant in many institutional settings, where people are obliged to accept, without question, and then reflexively parrot, a particular social or political catechism.
In fact – to reflect on your own profession for a moment – the situation is mildly reminiscent of the CBC’s list of prohibited words, or its expulsion of Wendy Mesley for her linguistic transgressions. And it will be very salient if the CRTC starts to scrutinize the internet with a prophylactic eye, to avoid on-line “harms”. Because there, too, the norms of acceptable speech may be under review; and there, too, there may be a regulator with the power to prohibit and to penalize.
In any event, what the Peterson case said, is that a “profession” is legally entitled to enact, and to enforce, SPEECH CODES, for its members, that prohibit the use of mocking or demeaning or insulting language (as understood by the regulator). Not just in a professional setting (i.e. the professional and their client in the privacy of an office); but also comments made in public conversation or in the media.
Basically, you are obliged to be nice and non-judgmental. Not stinging, or scathing, or sardonic, or caustic, or acerbic. And (so it seems) never critical, or mocking or satirical, or mordant. No “tough love”. It is all empathy and low key, all the time.
The rules of the kindergarten become the rules of professional behaviour; and you must never make anyone feel bad about themselves. It is unprofessional. Moreover, words can be harmful and the vulnerable are everywhere. So watch your step!
The regulatory body was also fully entitled to compel re-education, at the miscreant’s expense (cost, $25000); and, of course, lurking in the background is the threat of expulsion from the profession altogether, should they fail to comply - with whatever financial impact or public censure flows from that decision.
Thus, for example: is it open to a “regulated professional” to say, in respect of a plus size beauty contest contestant: “frankly, that’s just not beautiful”?
To be clear, what the Court is saying is that the Legislature has empowered the College to do this, and that its decisions are reasonable, having regard to the way that the College plausibly sees its mandate.
So Peterson is not entitled to speak his mind, unless he chooses his words carefully and is nice about it. He has to be “professional”. He has to follow the rules of the statutory club, which is given governance over him, by the terms of a public statute.
Now, of course, Peterson is a cranky iconoclast, with (some will say) heretical views about this and that, along with an obvious ego and an appetite for contrarian controversy. But like him or not, he is also, one of Canada’s foremost public intellectuals – as understood by such (skeptical) authorities as the New York Times and the Guardian.
Accordingly, I am curious what you - as seasoned media writers and society watchers - think of the situation. Including, perhaps, what you think is more likely to undermine “public confidence” in the “profession” of “psychology”: its efforts to insulate people from criticism or sarcasm, or its efforts to constrain what is said by someone who has become (for good or ill) a significant public figures?
Finally, what are you going to do if the CRTC has some Code of Professional Conduct to which journalists must subscribe, to get their hands on all the free money that promises to flow to those who play the game?
In my youth, I read I.F. Stone. I read you folks for the same reason. Keep up the good work.
2. I agree with ABC’s framing of the trans issue (comment above).
3. I am simultaneously eager for and dreading the idea of trans exploding into a mainstream issue. It will be very ugly, as it has been in the U.K. But the left is ignoring real, legit concerns about puberty blockers and cross sex hormones for minors - and calling those who oppose gender affirming treatment far-right bigots.
Would they go more broadly into trans rights issues? That would also be a shitshow. When most people really stop to think through cognitive dissonance required to keep “trans women are women” afloat (instant, unchallenged self-ID, men in women’s change rooms, prisons and sports), they will put a stop to it. Women in Scotland mobilized and put a stop to it.
(I used to be a lefty, but I’m politically homeless because of this issue).
4. FWIW, it was interesting to hear you lump yourselves in with “the media”. I know that technically you are media. But in my (longtime listener, subscriber) mind, I think of you as a Smart Alternative to Mainstream Media. You go deeper on all the issues, call BS on all sides. And you swear a lot. MSM have given up on the first two.
Sorry for the long comment, but thanks for reading!
The ultimate wedge issue, and if cornered I can see the Liberals using, is going hard against Alberta and "the Alberta way of life." Making it the antithesis of "the Canadian way."
Alberta becoming the new mortal threat to the Laurentian ideal and to immigrants. "They won't let your mom move to Canada if they get in" will be cranked up in the 905 of course and an example of bad Canadians.
Throwing the book at Alberta for delaying solar/wind, disagreeing on power plants, firearms laws, etc. The whole bit. Danielle Smith makes a way better Boogie man for the 905 and especially non West Island Quebec than Pierre.
The Liberals and the Canadian establishment need a scapegoat and Biden's America won't do. Alberta it is.
For what it's worth, I don't think Alberta would be a good boogeyman in Ontario/the GTA at all. I think Albertans think the 905/GTA thinks about Alberta a lot and really dislikes Alberta, but I've never had any sense of that. I tell Jen this all the time — Albertans spend a lot more time thinking about what other Canadians think of Alberta than other Canadians actually spend thinking about Alberta. Again, this is only my experience, ask a random Ontarian about Alberta, and if they have any reaction is all, it's like, "My aunt lives there" or "I like the mountains!"
Albertans believe that the Canadian establishment is out to get them more than anything. It's predicated by actions of this government more than words.
You can't blame them. Ottawa is messing with how Alberta makes its money and they try to push Ontario culture onto the west (CBC, C18, etc), etc.
There is a reason the Liberals are almost blanked out in Alberta and it has more to do with it than just Trudeau.
I can’t comment on infinite variations of what Albertans feel. Your first point suggested an anti-Alberta campaign as some sneaky LPC Hail Mary because you seem to think there is some latent anti-Alberta sentiment that’s ripe for exploitation. I don’t think it exists. And I just read over a poll that revealed that the province that came out on top when Ontarians were surveyed a few years ago about what their favourite “other” province was … was Alberta.
I'm just highlighting that having an enemy to encourage the Ontario LPC voter coalition to circle the wagons would be a time tested policy. If it's not the Albertan's it's the Americans. Certainly it's not going to be China or Quebec.
Albertan's seems the most possible with Danielle Smith at the helm. Don't forget that a huge majority of newcomer and BIPOC voters in Alberta voted NDP. Could be a way to rally the 905 fortress
The current federal political situation reminds me a bit of the end days of the Mulroney government in 1992/93: what started as an energetic activist government was mired in the scandal and unpopularity of their leader, previously a rock star who’d swept them to victory. The opposition was led by a new leader who was a long-time party guy. The NDP was hopeless. Fiscal challenges were looming in the background, and neither leading party had much of a plan to deal with it.
The PCs has a quandary in 1993: they were toast with Mulroney as leader, but there wasn’t much time to change leadership and try to improve their image either. They’d also split their caucus with the departure of Lucien Bouchard over Quebec nationalist issues. This rhymes somewhat with the current moment, with an increasingly toxic Justin Trudeau and Quebec nationalist excesses and politics increasingly out of step with the rest of Canada.
The disastrous PC defeat under Kim Campbell is obviously what the current Liberals hope to avoid, but it’s not hard to see Trudeau belatedly departing much like Mulroney and leaving one of his female lieutenants to go down with the ship. The Conservatives also have something a bit like the Liberals’ 1993 Red Book - a platform they can campaign on, vs. a tired incumbent government offering more of the same, but with perhaps less drama.
I disagree with Jen's take of the Theresa Wright - PP exchange. He raised the bar on her. Cite your supposed expert sources, because any "expert" can have an opinion. Doing so is not a right or left tactic. It's a minimum bar to meet if you're going to be a prick to someone.
However, I totally agree with her about Theresa needing to be specific about the demo she meant. Alt-right, far-right, The Left, it's all meaningless and it's cheap rhetoric. I would love to see media exchanges with politicians turn towards a more accountable approach from both sides. Both sides have been in a race to Stupid for far too long.
You might appreciate historian John Lukacs' book "Fear and Hatred" from the mid 2000s. He was quite prescient about the rise of demoguery in democracies. The title refers to how Lukacs believes future leaders in democracies will manipulate voters through fear and hatred.
I recommend him to you though because much of the book is Lukacs providing clear definitions for terms such fascism, communism, rightwing and leftwing. He observes how the words take on new or expanded meanings, and even lose their original intent. For Lukacs, having clear definitions is essential to civil dialogue in a democracy.
I really hope you and Matt further develop your own line of inquiry in this matter.
(?) You're just noticing that intelligence is in disguise? This has always been the norm--it's a matter of self-preservation: revealing that you know the emperor has no clothes can be fatal to your health. Social intercourse, whether on the political level or simply interacting with your neighbours or strangers in a supermarket, is an elaborate, noncommittal dance in which revealing you have a brain capable of construing the world in anything other than the simplest comic book terms is the equivalent of indecent exposure--and bullying oppression of the less able. The great Canadian novel may remain to be written, but in 'Who Do You Think You Are?' Alice Munro has definitely given us our quintessential book title.
For sure no Canadian politician is going to accept your implied invitation to morph into an Einstein-Demosthenes hybrid, Matt, and you'd better get back in line yourself. Hasn't the ostracization of Jordan Peterson--our own Icarus who flew too high--taught you anything?
Yeah, no. No honest journalist uses the expression 'Far Right' nowadays. Everybody _knows_ it's an imputation of racism, white supremacy, etc. And if people _don't_ understand that, they better figure it out. It's an appeal to the ignorance of dumb, fearful people. Even I...a libertarian who has no brief whatever for any kind of collectivist BS...has been characterized as 'far right'. I'm done with it.
Matt or Jen, I would really like to know from you, now that we are so firmly in the land of Political Fuckery and Stupid BS Discourse, how on Earth do we come back from that to talk about real issues in hopes of trying to solve our problems?
Financial crisis with hundreds of thousands of residential and commercial mortgage defaults, banks and CHMC taking huge losses and the Feds and Provinces forced to balance their budgets and refocus on economic growth. Basically the 70s->90s redux on an accelerated timeline. Canada's political leadership is even remotely up to the job.
Matt certainly has no use for Jordan Peterson. Good thing that Jen does - or I’d have to drop my subscription. Sounded like he was designing a Liberal reelection campaign. I wonder if he’s in the right job.
Noted a potential look into the Smith pause to renewables in Alberta. Technically, there is a lot more to this one than it appears but you have to go through lot of data on the AESO web site AND understand it. My prediction is if they did not change the rules now, by.the next election they are screwed. For more details check out "By the Numbers", "Battle of the Renewables".
ps. Not a journalist, just a geophysicist
1. You guys are really letting Theresa Wright off the hook too easily. “Experts say” is a rhetorical “appeal to authority” hook journalists use to slip their own opinions into the mouths of non-existent experts. If a reporter is going to use that cheap tactic to — be honest — essentially try to smear someone, she deserves pushback.
2. Your view of the sides on the trans issues is far too simplistic. The numbers of feminists, members of the LGB (not queer) community, and parents (including many solidly on the left) who are questioning gender identity ideology are growing. It’s not at the tipping point, but it’s growing, and “trans” is (very) gradually on its way to not being a left/right issue but instead a far left/centre issue. E.g. on the topic of puberty blockers — Sweden, Finland and Norway are not exactly known of as hotbeds of right-wing fervour.
We made a very specific point of not getting into the trans issue at all. We kept our analysis to the political, and its use as a wedge.
I won't be surprised if the Liberal try another wedge issue to get ahead in the polls but I will be shocked if the wedge they choose is: Puberty blockers for any child who wants them!?
The first attempt to 'trans' children (as opposed to adults) was done in the Netherlands twenty-five years ago in a bid to improve the lives (and passability) of future transexuals. Known as the Dutch protocol (take note this was not a true study as there was no control group), children who were at least 12 yo and had reached Tanner stage 2 were given puberty suppression drugs until the age of 16 whereby they were given cross-sex hormones, with surgeries scheduled for age 18. A group of 197 gender dysphoric children were evaluated for possible participation in the protocol and were screened with the following criteria:
1) gender dysphoria should have begun in early childhood and worsened with the start of puberty
2) there should be no other mental health problems
3) there should be full support of the family
After this rigorous screening, only 111 of the original 197 started puberty suppression, but this number dropped to 70 by the time cross-sex hormones were introduced. There is no explanation (or curiosity) about the 41 children who passed the stringent eligibility criteria but elected to stop their treatment. By the time of surgery completion, only 55 remained of that original 197 sample.
If the Liberals were to back the preposterous suggestion that any child asking for puberty suppression should get it - they'd be green-lighting the full 197 children in the Dutch protocol. Anyone can see that even with stringent screening, the Dutch allowed many children to embark on a course of treatment that was not helpful, and may have been harmful. If the Liberals are foolish enough to choose this as a wedge issue, they had better drop their "Believe the Science" mantra.
We never disputed that the evidence would be against such legislation: in many ways, that makes it a perfect wedge. The more time the CPC spends debating the merits of puberty blockers, the more they will be driven off their thus-far successful narrative agenda.
I think using trans issues as a wedge would allow Pierre to take the entirely reasonable and majority supported position that yes trans people exist and deserve rights and dignity, but we should be more cautious about irreversible pediatric medical procedures, and we need to dial back on things like mandatory drag queens in schools. I think the Sask and NB policies around parental consent have majority support in Canada
As noted in the podcast, Poilievre can take whatever position he wants. Or he can try, anyway. But he'll be dragged to wherever the social-media personalities pull his base, and also his caucus. I entirely agree with what Paul Wells wrote just recently: I don't think Poilievre cares about the WEF at all. I think he talks about it because he has to. This will be that.
Right but in this case, I think (wishfully?) he'll be able to take a position that satisfies his "base"/the hardliners/the terminally online *and* has mainstream/majority support. Depending on how hamhandedly Trudeau tries to wedge. He doesn't have to go full Matt Walsh, he merely has to take the moderate postion to ... oh. ok I see what you mean lol
Same phenomenon as the American right going against Ukraine. The base, via social media is pushing the party establishment that way.
Never have we had people with such little advanced education with so much access to knowledge. They know just enough to be dangerous as the Russians know well.
I hope that you will take the trouble to read the Peterson Court decision; because the principles at play in that case have a significance that goes well beyond the closed shop of the Ontario College of Psychologists. Those issues are relevant in many institutional settings, where people are obliged to accept, without question, and then reflexively parrot, a particular social or political catechism.
In fact – to reflect on your own profession for a moment – the situation is mildly reminiscent of the CBC’s list of prohibited words, or its expulsion of Wendy Mesley for her linguistic transgressions. And it will be very salient if the CRTC starts to scrutinize the internet with a prophylactic eye, to avoid on-line “harms”. Because there, too, the norms of acceptable speech may be under review; and there, too, there may be a regulator with the power to prohibit and to penalize.
In any event, what the Peterson case said, is that a “profession” is legally entitled to enact, and to enforce, SPEECH CODES, for its members, that prohibit the use of mocking or demeaning or insulting language (as understood by the regulator). Not just in a professional setting (i.e. the professional and their client in the privacy of an office); but also comments made in public conversation or in the media.
Basically, you are obliged to be nice and non-judgmental. Not stinging, or scathing, or sardonic, or caustic, or acerbic. And (so it seems) never critical, or mocking or satirical, or mordant. No “tough love”. It is all empathy and low key, all the time.
The rules of the kindergarten become the rules of professional behaviour; and you must never make anyone feel bad about themselves. It is unprofessional. Moreover, words can be harmful and the vulnerable are everywhere. So watch your step!
The regulatory body was also fully entitled to compel re-education, at the miscreant’s expense (cost, $25000); and, of course, lurking in the background is the threat of expulsion from the profession altogether, should they fail to comply - with whatever financial impact or public censure flows from that decision.
Thus, for example: is it open to a “regulated professional” to say, in respect of a plus size beauty contest contestant: “frankly, that’s just not beautiful”?
To be clear, what the Court is saying is that the Legislature has empowered the College to do this, and that its decisions are reasonable, having regard to the way that the College plausibly sees its mandate.
So Peterson is not entitled to speak his mind, unless he chooses his words carefully and is nice about it. He has to be “professional”. He has to follow the rules of the statutory club, which is given governance over him, by the terms of a public statute.
Now, of course, Peterson is a cranky iconoclast, with (some will say) heretical views about this and that, along with an obvious ego and an appetite for contrarian controversy. But like him or not, he is also, one of Canada’s foremost public intellectuals – as understood by such (skeptical) authorities as the New York Times and the Guardian.
Accordingly, I am curious what you - as seasoned media writers and society watchers - think of the situation. Including, perhaps, what you think is more likely to undermine “public confidence” in the “profession” of “psychology”: its efforts to insulate people from criticism or sarcasm, or its efforts to constrain what is said by someone who has become (for good or ill) a significant public figures?
Finally, what are you going to do if the CRTC has some Code of Professional Conduct to which journalists must subscribe, to get their hands on all the free money that promises to flow to those who play the game?
In my youth, I read I.F. Stone. I read you folks for the same reason. Keep up the good work.
So now professional associations can override Charter rights in the name of professional conduct in Canada.
I don't see our Supreme Court ruling against this to be honest.
Canadian's aren't just nice, it's required.
1. Please keep calling out BS everywhere.
2. I agree with ABC’s framing of the trans issue (comment above).
3. I am simultaneously eager for and dreading the idea of trans exploding into a mainstream issue. It will be very ugly, as it has been in the U.K. But the left is ignoring real, legit concerns about puberty blockers and cross sex hormones for minors - and calling those who oppose gender affirming treatment far-right bigots.
Would they go more broadly into trans rights issues? That would also be a shitshow. When most people really stop to think through cognitive dissonance required to keep “trans women are women” afloat (instant, unchallenged self-ID, men in women’s change rooms, prisons and sports), they will put a stop to it. Women in Scotland mobilized and put a stop to it.
(I used to be a lefty, but I’m politically homeless because of this issue).
4. FWIW, it was interesting to hear you lump yourselves in with “the media”. I know that technically you are media. But in my (longtime listener, subscriber) mind, I think of you as a Smart Alternative to Mainstream Media. You go deeper on all the issues, call BS on all sides. And you swear a lot. MSM have given up on the first two.
Sorry for the long comment, but thanks for reading!
I can't believe you guys forgot Amy Hamm's name. For shame.
The ultimate wedge issue, and if cornered I can see the Liberals using, is going hard against Alberta and "the Alberta way of life." Making it the antithesis of "the Canadian way."
Alberta becoming the new mortal threat to the Laurentian ideal and to immigrants. "They won't let your mom move to Canada if they get in" will be cranked up in the 905 of course and an example of bad Canadians.
Throwing the book at Alberta for delaying solar/wind, disagreeing on power plants, firearms laws, etc. The whole bit. Danielle Smith makes a way better Boogie man for the 905 and especially non West Island Quebec than Pierre.
The Liberals and the Canadian establishment need a scapegoat and Biden's America won't do. Alberta it is.
For what it's worth, I don't think Alberta would be a good boogeyman in Ontario/the GTA at all. I think Albertans think the 905/GTA thinks about Alberta a lot and really dislikes Alberta, but I've never had any sense of that. I tell Jen this all the time — Albertans spend a lot more time thinking about what other Canadians think of Alberta than other Canadians actually spend thinking about Alberta. Again, this is only my experience, ask a random Ontarian about Alberta, and if they have any reaction is all, it's like, "My aunt lives there" or "I like the mountains!"
Albertans believe that the Canadian establishment is out to get them more than anything. It's predicated by actions of this government more than words.
You can't blame them. Ottawa is messing with how Alberta makes its money and they try to push Ontario culture onto the west (CBC, C18, etc), etc.
There is a reason the Liberals are almost blanked out in Alberta and it has more to do with it than just Trudeau.
I can’t comment on infinite variations of what Albertans feel. Your first point suggested an anti-Alberta campaign as some sneaky LPC Hail Mary because you seem to think there is some latent anti-Alberta sentiment that’s ripe for exploitation. I don’t think it exists. And I just read over a poll that revealed that the province that came out on top when Ontarians were surveyed a few years ago about what their favourite “other” province was … was Alberta.
I'm just highlighting that having an enemy to encourage the Ontario LPC voter coalition to circle the wagons would be a time tested policy. If it's not the Albertan's it's the Americans. Certainly it's not going to be China or Quebec.
Albertan's seems the most possible with Danielle Smith at the helm. Don't forget that a huge majority of newcomer and BIPOC voters in Alberta voted NDP. Could be a way to rally the 905 fortress
The current federal political situation reminds me a bit of the end days of the Mulroney government in 1992/93: what started as an energetic activist government was mired in the scandal and unpopularity of their leader, previously a rock star who’d swept them to victory. The opposition was led by a new leader who was a long-time party guy. The NDP was hopeless. Fiscal challenges were looming in the background, and neither leading party had much of a plan to deal with it.
The PCs has a quandary in 1993: they were toast with Mulroney as leader, but there wasn’t much time to change leadership and try to improve their image either. They’d also split their caucus with the departure of Lucien Bouchard over Quebec nationalist issues. This rhymes somewhat with the current moment, with an increasingly toxic Justin Trudeau and Quebec nationalist excesses and politics increasingly out of step with the rest of Canada.
The disastrous PC defeat under Kim Campbell is obviously what the current Liberals hope to avoid, but it’s not hard to see Trudeau belatedly departing much like Mulroney and leaving one of his female lieutenants to go down with the ship. The Conservatives also have something a bit like the Liberals’ 1993 Red Book - a platform they can campaign on, vs. a tired incumbent government offering more of the same, but with perhaps less drama.
I disagree with Jen's take of the Theresa Wright - PP exchange. He raised the bar on her. Cite your supposed expert sources, because any "expert" can have an opinion. Doing so is not a right or left tactic. It's a minimum bar to meet if you're going to be a prick to someone.
However, I totally agree with her about Theresa needing to be specific about the demo she meant. Alt-right, far-right, The Left, it's all meaningless and it's cheap rhetoric. I would love to see media exchanges with politicians turn towards a more accountable approach from both sides. Both sides have been in a race to Stupid for far too long.
You might appreciate historian John Lukacs' book "Fear and Hatred" from the mid 2000s. He was quite prescient about the rise of demoguery in democracies. The title refers to how Lukacs believes future leaders in democracies will manipulate voters through fear and hatred.
I recommend him to you though because much of the book is Lukacs providing clear definitions for terms such fascism, communism, rightwing and leftwing. He observes how the words take on new or expanded meanings, and even lose their original intent. For Lukacs, having clear definitions is essential to civil dialogue in a democracy.
I really hope you and Matt further develop your own line of inquiry in this matter.
All the best,
tw
(?) You're just noticing that intelligence is in disguise? This has always been the norm--it's a matter of self-preservation: revealing that you know the emperor has no clothes can be fatal to your health. Social intercourse, whether on the political level or simply interacting with your neighbours or strangers in a supermarket, is an elaborate, noncommittal dance in which revealing you have a brain capable of construing the world in anything other than the simplest comic book terms is the equivalent of indecent exposure--and bullying oppression of the less able. The great Canadian novel may remain to be written, but in 'Who Do You Think You Are?' Alice Munro has definitely given us our quintessential book title.
For sure no Canadian politician is going to accept your implied invitation to morph into an Einstein-Demosthenes hybrid, Matt, and you'd better get back in line yourself. Hasn't the ostracization of Jordan Peterson--our own Icarus who flew too high--taught you anything?
You can learn a lot about how Canadian culture works by reading books in the "Southern Ontario Gothic" genre
Yeah, no. No honest journalist uses the expression 'Far Right' nowadays. Everybody _knows_ it's an imputation of racism, white supremacy, etc. And if people _don't_ understand that, they better figure it out. It's an appeal to the ignorance of dumb, fearful people. Even I...a libertarian who has no brief whatever for any kind of collectivist BS...has been characterized as 'far right'. I'm done with it.
Me again.
Matt or Jen, I would really like to know from you, now that we are so firmly in the land of Political Fuckery and Stupid BS Discourse, how on Earth do we come back from that to talk about real issues in hopes of trying to solve our problems?
A post-catastrophe reset.
Yikes. Too bad COVID-tastrophe made it worse, though, right?
I’m thinking something much worse.
Ask Ukrainians or even former Yugoslavians what that means for the political discourse.
Financial crisis with hundreds of thousands of residential and commercial mortgage defaults, banks and CHMC taking huge losses and the Feds and Provinces forced to balance their budgets and refocus on economic growth. Basically the 70s->90s redux on an accelerated timeline. Canada's political leadership is even remotely up to the job.
This episode is terrifyingly brilliant.
Matt certainly has no use for Jordan Peterson. Good thing that Jen does - or I’d have to drop my subscription. Sounded like he was designing a Liberal reelection campaign. I wonder if he’s in the right job.
Is there anything or anything else at least one of us is required to like in order to continue to receive your financial support?
I love how you say “fuck you” in such a polite manner.