With Poilievre there is no "meta-text," or meta narrative to use Horgan's usage. The entire time Horgan's piece was in fact referring to subtext, what isn't being said literally but can be inferred. A meta narrative is a "grand recit," an overarching set of values contain in a larger work. The Bible is an immense work, but it can be distilled down to a few "lessons," or a meta narrative. It's what the deconstructionists have been aiming at for the past 30 years.
Polievre doesn't have a subtext. As Shannon Proudfoot keeps saying - and everyone keeps ignoring - Poilievre has been the same guy saying the same things for 20 odd years. She is the only journalist who has spent enough time with him to provide decent insights. She was on The Current on Monday. Give her a listen.
Decline is a huge, multifaceted topic. It would take reams of digital paper to give it space to breath. And I'm not up to it.
But I will say this: Academics are the biggest catastrophists around. You want to find people who think Steven Pinker is full of shit? Go to the Social Sciences departments in any Canadian university. Every time I turn around some adjunct sociology professor is telling me how much worse racism is, how much worse misogyny is, how much greates inequality is, etc., etc., etc. They are decline-aholics.
And who has picked up on this grievance studies ethos? Our present Prime Minister. If there is a feeling of social decline in this country he is the motivator. And we all know what he's been saying. And if there is a feeling of economic decline we know how the Present Prime Minister has confessed he doesn't give it much thought.
By any comparison Poilivre is the guy now saying "sunny ways." He is the most positive public figure in the country right now.
This return to the "hidden agenda" subtext/meta narrative - that is trotted out each and every time a Conservative makes progressives wet their nappies - is so fucking tired. Can someone somewhere please find something new to say?
The fact is Trudeau is the reason for Pierre. It’s a counter to Trudeau’s fairy tail that is being turned over into something that is reachable and realistic. Politics is like a pendulum as when it swings to far one way then something happens to pull it back. It’s a continuous cycle.
By the stifling all other voices so the Progressive narrative can push an ideology with little substance, it is unlikely that they will find any solutions to the majority of issues we all face. They are far too concerned with social engineering and the psychology behind the use of propaganda to create fear in order to motivate the masses in the direction they want go. They have not the fortitude or the intelligence to find a solution and continually push a worn out unachievable goal. We see exactly where their plan leads as it’s playing out in Europe as we speak. So to continue on that road is and has never been a viable option. It is flawed and can not possibly maintain society as we know it.
Pierre is right about getting the gate keepers and regulatory burdens out of the way so those who are in the industries that must reduce their carbon have the money to innovate and improve what they do. Leave the problem in their hands so they can work towards better solutions as no one knows it better than they do. Nuclear is also our best option to run a highly sophisticated society that needs massive amounts of power to do most everything, yet it is kept off the table.
Governments, intellectuals, and the elite have never found a solution to anything. Ever. The only gains they have made are to their own personal financial well being. In fact they usually produce catastrophic damage and mass murder when left to their own devices. So stop thinking that the intellectuals and Government bureaucrats, that are sitting in between institutional walls for a lifetime, will find any solution to any real world problem. The fact is they don’t live in the real world.
The default to a dialectic - this causes that, historically - is always seductive because it maps nicely onto pattern recognition, a thing humans are prone to perform. But I believe Poilievre has struck a rawer (is that a word?) nerve..
If I were to write Horgan's piece but address the Progressives I would say the following: "The thinking classes are fatally removed from the physical side of life. Control has become their obsession. In their drive to insulate themselves against risk & contingency, the thinking classes seceded from the common world around them, from reality itself." That's Christopher Lasch.
Trudeau has fallen under a spell, and it's the Progressive spell that says reality is a product of words and their combinations. Reality is not what you observe but is a function of grammar.
Polievre is saying no, reality is what is observable. And people are responding, because that's how they live their lives, by responding to observable phenomena.
Who doesn’t experience the physical side of life? Politicians that fret over gender pronouns rather than policy issues. Politicians that promise the moon to gullible voters financed by deficit spending. Politicians that are pleased with high carbon taxes on top of high retail gas prices because it’s all “climate action”.
Mmmm ... I don't know. I read Lasch's clip that you included but I'm still confused by whom the "thinking classes" are. The upper middle class liberals (small l) as is implied? Western cultural elites? The laptop class? Our government? PP and the Cons are also our gov, some for a lot longer that JT and many of his Ministers.
I consider myself progressive in many ways but I definitely experience the physical side of life. Who does not?
Polievre is no more or less attached to reality than is Trudeau. Everyone has a history, some more heart tugging than others. PP was of humbler origins (finally single moms are cool) JT the son of a prominent leader of Canada. Does one make the other better or worse at this time in their lives. PP has been in government for 20 years (give or take) JT 10 years or so. Should that make a difference? One has made a 6 figure salary with perks since his early 20s, the other had a trust fund.
What I see with PP is a solid nod to how things breach the shores of Canada from the South. He's not a skinny Trump but he's also not above using similar tactics. With JT and Singh and even Blanchet a refusal to go there.
PP talks and talks, takes no questions, offers no solutions except maybe, you're fired. He's a new pol. That's exactly what he wants to present. Except he isn't he's a Harper pol trying to make it his own. None of the other Cons are like PP. Well, Cheryl Gallant maybe, and she's been around as long as PP. What I expect of PP is that he will remain the Loyal Op for a good long while and he will do exactly as he has done since the beginning.
Trudeau is still pushing the mystery graves at the Kamloops IRS. There aren't any graves in the orchard; the leader of the 1st nation there gave that game away long ago. But Trudeau wanted his George Floyd moment, an event that explained how Canada works, and that it works according to our darkest impulses. He even created a "holiday" so Canada could celebrate its genocidal nature. But the graves don't exist; the students were all accounted for in the 4th volume of the TRC report. This is a vision of Canada divorced from physical reality.
Germany's movement towards renewable energy has been an unqualified disaster and on many levels. Trudeau and Guibeault (the fanatic) don't see anything wrong. "There isn't a business case," for natural gas is a denial of physical reality. They see the world as they *think* it's supposed to operate.
The American Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade. Trudeau's response is to further "protect" a woman's right to chose. 1) We aren't the US, 2) The only way he can enact further protection of women's rights is by offering up legislation, but that would necessarily put restrictions on abortion. This is the virtuous world of his imagination.
Men with serious sexual disorders are now declaring themselves women and getting transferred to women's prisons where they assault female prisoners. In Canada. Trudeau fully supports gender self ID because to do otherwise is somehow "conversion therapy," an absurd notion. This is a purely grammatical formulation.
Anti racism ideology is rife in the Federal Government. And since the supply of racism has never been lower but the demand (yes, demand) for racism has never been higher to satisfy a burgeoning anti racism bureaucracy, the law of unintended consequences fires up its engines, including anti semites running anti racism programs to federally funded "anti hate" groups claiming PP's use of the expression "Anglo Saxon" is a dogwhistle (an exhausted metaphor) for white supremacy (same). Meanwhile Jamil Jivani is fired by Bell Media (he is now suing them) for criticizing BLM while black. But everyone is upset that a multi-millionaire with gray hair lost her perch. In the US John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Coleman Hughes, Sam Harris, Thoma Sowell(my favourite), all of the writers and academics in Free Black Thought, the entire advisory board of FIRE, and countless others repeat endlessly how dumb and counterproductive anti racism ideology is, but Trudeau endorses and invokes it, even when responding to a Jesish lesbian in the House of Commons. Why? Because the real world doesn't matter. The virtuous world of his imagination does.
They don't want actual solutions. They want issues that they can endlessly campaign and fundraise off. Most politicians are in it for themselves. Even if they first get involved for purely altruistic reasons, they lose that eventually. As for Poilievre, yeah. Of the entire bunch, he was the one best suited (has the thickest skin) to put up with all the bullshit that the Liberal party will throw at him. It's not going to be pretty.
Part of Harper's success was his ability to counter the Liberal hate machine. In perhaps that regard alone, Poilievre is cut from the same cloth. The Liberals have shown no ability to campaign beyond recycling their greatest hits from the 70's (give money to one group so that other groups expect the same until all are dependent on the hand that feeds them) and 90's (brand opponents as racists, misogynists and homophobes as early as possible to avoid any serious discussion).
When a government’s best perceived attribute is “at least we are not xxx,” it’s a shitty government. If a Pollievre gov says stuff like that after winning an election, I will be just as irked.
Good points. Gun control and abortion are two examples that are just far to handy for wedge purposes and galvanizing the base to propose actual solutions.
Who would you say are more stupid, the progressives or the masses? What do the conservatives do that differs from the progressives? Do you know just who are the gatekeepers PP wants rid of? Not names but positions. Which regulatory burdens would you like to see gone? Industry has proven over and over that they cannot honestly regulate themselves.
"Catastrophic damage and mass murder," and you can back up that sensational sentence with facts, right?
The Trudeau government has declared Canada a genocide state, an institutionally racist country in which everyone is going to die from global warming. But Polievre is too negative.
Beyond excellent! In ranking I would be a middle C conservative. When he wins , he will have an educated team of rational thinking people. Not journalists for finance ministers dealing in ferry dust etc...
Good article, but I think you are neglecting an even more fundamental point: are we even able in practice to have serious and rational discussions about our actual problems and what to do about them?
When anyone who presents any kind of alternative view on an important issue is immediately censored or hounded from the public square AND the "mainstream" view ignores the laws of logic, arithmetic, or physics, we are in deep deep trouble.
One of our biggest problems is that we’re losing the habits of mind that sustain a democracy. The signs are there: a growing inability to have respectful conversations about the issues of the day; an increasing intolerance for people who think differently than us; a lack of restraint in our public conduct; a splintering system of beliefs and values; an inability to think critically. It all adds up.
We’re losing our willingness to live up to our obligations as citizens. Or what’s worse, maybe even our ability to comprehend what those are and why they’re so important. It was those habits of mind that contributed to the rise of the world’s most powerful civilization. As they decline, so it does too.
And why shouldn’t it? We’re merely the latest in a long line of societies that had their day in the sun and then watched it turn away. For a time we could bend the world to our will, but that's getting harder and harder. Our world is becoming less predictable and stable, and more than a little meaner.
This is an excellent column – one of Matt’s best, and one that reminds us about what underpins all of our myriad challenges.
The big loss is the loss of the idea that there are certain principles, specifically free speech, open civil discussion, logic, arithmetic, and physical reality, which are actually more important and fundamental than other forms of freedom, racism, climate change, health, ecology, "science", or economics.
This is true because none of those other values can be achieved or problems can be solved without the former set of principles.
If I had to pick one starting point to improve things, I would focus on censorship, which includes Twitter/Facebook/YouTube bans for "misinformation", subsidized journalism, cancellation, and journalism with an ideological monoculture.
This morning, when I read your comment, I didn't really agree. The term "habits of mind" bothered me for some unknown reason. When I came back this evening I looked it up. There is quite a bit out there on habits of mind. One is, The Global Oneness Project (how's that for a scary-sounding website?). It is called, Habits for a Healthy Democracy, aimed at kids grades 6-8. Under learning objectives it says:
Identify habits and behaviours that contribute to a healthy democracy.
Understand that a healthy democracy requires citizen participation, open discourse, and the valuing of differences.
Discover ways to participate in society with agency using one’s personal voice.
While this is aimed at American kids, I think that both Canadian and American adults of voting age could use the refresher.
If we believe our societies are going into a decline I think we would be wise to make sure it is not a self-fulfilling prophecy. The habits of mind are not difficult or tricky but you must believe them, and make them the habit.
Along with those good habits, we must also insist on civility, responsibility, respectability and honesty. Maybe thinking critically will come more naturally when people are trying harder to form honest respectful ideas.
That will still be up to the regular political process: dialogue in media and parliament and, now, on social media. The problem, of course is that with heavily censored media and social media, and a parliament where nobody ever listens to anyway, our ability to formulate better solutions is nonexistent.
And if someone dares to bring forward a new idea or challenge the existing corporate powers, they are silenced, ejected from caucus, their party and/or their union.
The issue in question here is 'are we in decline?' It's going to take bold moves and ideas in the right places to right the ship. It needs to be seen in parliament and at the legislative assembly. It needs to be seen within membership votes. This was something the UCP enjoyed and what we got were Brian Jean, Danielle Smith and the destruction of the UCP. The federal liberals would never allow such damage. And so we had heroes like JWR ejected from caucus.
Freedom of expression will not restore international order or ease nuclear threats from small powers. It will not limit the amount of cow dung and coal in this world. It won't stop drug addicts and the obese from flooding our health care system.
I'm glad that people can carry on with their culture wars these days. There does seem to be a few people here and there who are bullied at work for being queer, or regretting their mastectomy they received before adulthood, or wishing they were hired on their own merit and not a BIPOC Quota that needed to be filled. But this stuff is not as important, only a distraction. A distraction from a looming societal collapse.
Presently I'm trapped in a paradox. The one hand of allowing for difference of opinion (ending up with the troubles of the UCP and federal greens ) and the other hand, having strict control over a party and deferring to the experts (the issue being both Harper and Trudeau did this and got us to where we are today.)
Do Wilson-Raybould and Philpott count? For failing to subvert the legal process or acquiescing to corruption? That the entire LPC caucus accepted this is a condemnation of the party and its power structure as well as the integrity of those silent MPs and the electors that voted for them. The implementation of the DPA was a clear revelation of who and what is important in the election and running of this government. The ethical failures of this PM and this government (and the electorate’s willing acceptance of them) will be studied, dissected and questioned by future generations should this country survive this current suicide attempt. We desperately need 338 fearless, independent, ethical MPs that want the job, but don’t need the job…
JWR wrote a book. Very well received too. So not silenced she's not. She was an MP for six years which is also better than many of them. Philpott resigned, she was not ejected.
JWR is writing another book on Reconciliation. She is busy, she has a life and she is not silenced or censored. No one sent into her riding, emails telling people to ask her to resign.
I think a big issue is accountability. When was the last time anyone in a position of leadership was fired? (Your coverage of RCMP's Lucki for example). If we tolerate mediocrity we'll get more of it, and this lays the groundwork for a populist backlash. At some point the people at the very top will get fired.
Btw, A+ for not mentioning a certain American politician.
Didn't some Russian die under mysterious conditions this week? Don't they call it the Putin Push? Sort of like being fired except someone else empties your desk.
PP has never mentioned Lucki for permeant demotion. If he's mentioned her or the RCMP at all. Could it be that he's ok with her fumbling the ball as badly as she did but still so unforgiving with Tiff Macklem?
For being an optimist, Matt always makes me a lot more pessimistic about things. But perhaps that's needed. I want to believe as Matt does that we can be optimistic long term and there are solutions to our problems. My pessimism comes from the now status quo of our political system where nobody seems to have the willingness to think past their current mandates and opposition parties for the most part oppose everything by default. This hasn't come about in a vacuum. We as an electorate allow ourselves to be bribed with our own money and punish those who dare deviate from the Sunny days are ahead mantra. Every file feels that way. We've been warned for years that the interest rates and housing markets are unsustainable yet we didn't dare do anything. The Romanow report is decades old yet we never really acted on it. We've known for a generation that we were doing harm to our planet and we fiddle and make excuses even to do some of the bare minimum while the time of opportunity in becoming a leader in the next generation of energy innovations has passed us by. We've perhaps come out of the worst of a public health crisis and instead of it spurring us to a national conversation on how we deal with the next similar crisis we are having partisan spats on what amounts to the low hanging fruit.
Our municipal politics are not much better. In an attempt to keep municipal taxes now cities are carrying generational infrastructure deficits that are going to potentially be catastrophic down the line. It is only a matter of time when one of our cities has a crisis similar to what is happening in Mississippi or Flint. Yet the stump speeches in my Muni are about efficiencies and keeping taxes low.
I think its time we look at ourselves in the mirror and blame ourselves. The answer to this issue isn't The Liberals spending more as inflation rises, it isn't defunding the CBC, firing the Bank of Canada governor or getting into bed with Cryto Currencies and it certainly isn't whatever the heck the NDP are spinning. Rather it's about ripping off the bandaid and making active choices that will turn the ship. Something we're not willing or able to do.
I will keep repeating the mantra that the path forward is to severely constrain government's ability to fund operations (ex. transfers to other levels of government, transfers to individuals, its own payroll) using long term debt. If government actually had limited means, it would be forced to prioritize problems that are most urgent and most addressable.
I don't think you solve anything by constraining government ability to fund things, you just create a regulatory environment that causes more buck passing. It really comes down to the electorate stopping politicians from getting away from running on nothing.
It would force discussions on what to fund and whether that funding actually delivers results. Allowing government to fund non-capital items with long term debt is avoidance.
The perfect scenario in a pot is that at municipal budget public 'consultations'. The list of wants is long but, when the subject of raising taxes to pay for it comes up, the answer is seldom a positive one. There's a level of immaturity that seems to make people think there really is a Santa Claus, but, unfortunately, it's not just your father anymore, it's you who also pays the bills, too, so, much-needed infrastructure upgrades get a negative. Things are so bad some bridges were closed after the insurers got interested.
We have an arena here that puts the ice in very early. Any day now. It runs a deficit of around $250,000 every year. That's huge for a tiny town. Most of the teams that use it are from other wiser towns that no longer have a rink. Kids these days want to play basketball. Add to that, hockey equipment and fees and travelling are huge! The past has produced some hockey pros but come on! Things will not change until the next generation is dead, I expect.
If people really wanted to have a say in their everyday lives they would pay far more attention to their municipal politics. But I guess that is not so exciting as provincial or federal fun and games. Especially federal. It is unlikely that there will be an election before 2025 but we have now entered into the never ending campaign in earnest. Just like the Americans.
I too live in a small town. After several streets washed away last winter after several years of neglect, finally the town, with a new Mayor are getting it done. We live in the rain forest!
We also have a rink. A more ugly building you have never seen. So many coats of paint on the interior I'm sure they are covering the original lead content. I was a hockey mom, widow. I was asked to not come to games as they lost every time I showed up. I waited at the pub, warm and happy. My sons and one g'son played hockey. The boys wore 2nd hand skates pads whatever. We forked out for new helmets as needed. My g'son has quit hockey and he's turning to soccer to be with his friends. His parents, at least mom, is thrilled. The girls play softball and soccer. I could not be more pleased. I wonder if PP will reintroduce the sports tax credit? Because hockey is so iconic in Canada. Single moms can watch. I'm not sure if the Libs brought something similar in. I do know that Scheer wanted to bring back Harper's credits.
OMG, there is far too much silly crap to get into over the next couple of years. And get into it we will!
Consultations are great, but they go nowhere and enrich this class of professional without spending money on the problem. Its this short termism in our politics. Its fair to say that the infrastructure costs should not be completely laid at the feet of the property owner, but then the resulting decision can't be to keep property taxes at the same level, not raise industrial or commerical taxes and then just add another block on the Jenga tower that is the backlog of infrastructure issues. If we don't want to do it through taxes then we have to find better ways for municipalities to raise funds. A huge opportunity to download some of this onto the developers making obscene amounts of money during the house boom was lost but perhaps that has to be looked at as well. We're at a point where there is no easy fix, but kicking it down the road to the next council can't be the answer anymore.
One of the challenges in asking a question like "are we in decline" is you may get agreement that we are and *lots* of disagreement on the nature of the decline. I suspect that's what's going to happen in the comments.
So, here's the collective challenges we face that I don't see us adequately stepping up to solve:
I think climate change is already widening the band of 'expected weather' with things that used to be considered 100-year storms happening with increasing frequency. That's a much bigger deal than people seem to make it out to be. Our entire built environment is engineered around what will likely be a narrower band of weather conditions than what's coming. Agriculture and forestry rely too rely on historically accurate weather patterns. There are potentially large, costly and hard-to-predict changes coming and we don't seem to have any plan.
Plus, minimizing the scope of these changes means transitioning the world's whole energy system, which is a lot harder than it sounds! Yes, we're making changes, but the GHG reduction targets we've committed to globally are mostly voluntary and I don't think anyone is predicting that current committments are enough. We're 'doing stuff' but it doesn't seem like it will likely be enough, which makes the issue above even more challenging.
Our economy isn't making the kind of productivity improvements that are the basis of ongoing prosperity. We're arguing about issues like affordability and inequity -- both important -- but both rest on a foundation of improving productivity. We haven't cracked that nut and trying to do so during significant changes to the economy (a move towards 'intangibles' which tends to benefit countries like the US who tend to effectively write the rules around intellectual property) is very challenging.
We continue to have significant friction within Canada between regions and peoples. Finding a sustainable way to collaborate -- regionally and across French, English and Indigenous peoples -- is creating signficant tensions across the nation that aren't easily solved. We spend a lot of time and energy on this within Canada -- understandably so -- but while we do so, we're less able to actually address our shared challenges.
These are all long-term challenges I care about that don't have simple answers. I've yet to see proposed public policy on any of them in Canada that makes me confident that we have a path to resolve them. That worries me.
That said, Mr. Poliviere has not yet offered any kind of meaningful solution to any of these issues. So, why I worry we are in decline (because we don't have good answers for those challenges) his rhetoric does not speak any to my concerns. If anything, he is leveraging the regional frictions within Canada to find a (narrow) path to power, but that doesn't solve anything. It just makes a different group of people temporarily more satisfied.
-climate adaptation needs to move up in priority. The solutions are well understood. Assuming that climate change can be slowed is naïve and setup to fail
-government has never driven innovation except in pursuit of military advantage. The best chance of technological solutions to climate change will come from the private sector
-government likes to focus on problems with either no solution or that are challenging to measure so that it can evade accountability
-the Liberals, not Poliviere, seem to stoke division so they can position themselves as the solution to that division. Perhaps this is the only area where Justin lives up to his father's legacy
-I'm not a Poliviere fan, but he could provide the spark for some real reform if he sufficiently diminishes federal institutions. I share some small C conservative leanings with Matt, but have a more Libertarian perspective (I check all the boxes: Gen X, grew up mostly in Calgary and across the western US, descendant of prairie homesteaders, STEM education, work in innovative industries, hardly worked in the public sector, absolutely no family or business connections to Laurentian Canada). I agree there are dangers in challenging true institutions like the Parliamentary and Justice systems. I don't view CBC, asymmetric federalism, official bilingualism, the Canada Health Act, Supply Management or protection of the media, telecom and airline industries as legitimate institutions so they should be wide open to experimentation.
"government has never driven innovation except in pursuit of military advantage. The best chance of technological solutions to climate change will come from the private sector"
I think this is partially true, but not entirely. Government funds basic research in Canadian universities and public research facilities and even some relevant applied research that identifies promising innovations and somewhat de-risks further development. Canada is actually pretty competitive in this area for our size. But, to your point, that innovation mostly is further developed into viable products and services in the private sector.
Canada has (and still does) struggle at capacity here. Not because we don't have talented entrepreneurs! But, I would argue, because of some of the realities of a small domestic market and access to one of the biggest markets in the world (the US). For most companies, the US quickly becomes the dominant early market. Talent and funding are more widely avaialable in the US. So, there is a constant pull towards either becoming a US-based company or growing a larger footprint in the US.
When it comes to innovation, though, I would argue that public sector research plays a significant role, while acknowledging the critical role the private sector plays in commericalizing new tech and processes.
I worked in academic research early in my career. I agree government funding has some role to play, but it is a double edged sword. Researchers become more focused on applying for funding and sustaining that funding than actually conducting research. Politicians become overly concerned about funding announcements and maintaining jobs than actually driving progress.
Research is inherently risky. The private sector is much better at pulling the plug and re-allocating funds to more promising areas when either the science approaches a dead end, or market conditions change. The US seems to have struck a balance between academic and commercial research that few other countries can emulate.
My father was a U of T chemistry professor for 50 years. His mantra was "research for research's sake". His list of things that research discovered by accident was long and stunning.....lasers for example. His entire life was devoted to silicone research not knowing if it would every prove out. How many things that you use now are silicon related? You invest in research not knowing if there will be a return beyond knowledge gained.
I've heard Canadian Nobel winner John Polanyi make a similar argument -- that the research he did that led to chemical lasers had no obvious commercial application at the time and if that had been the standard for supporting research, it would have never happened.
Agreed. I don't see that Canadian firms have the capacity to dedicate enough resources to R&D (obviously they varies by sector) compared to our peers. That's seemed to be an economic conundrum we haven't cracked and one I'd hazzard a guess has a lot to do with our lagging productivity.
I infer, because you made the statement, that you felt it important enough to share. As you offer neither explanation nor evidence, it reads like an article of faith. If that is what it is, that’s fine.
In the comment from which my question arose you make two unsupported claims – that adapting to the effects of climate change is possible and that addressing the cause of climate change is substantively impossible. The degree to which either claim has merit rests on what the cause actually is. Asking questions rather than providing an answer regarding that cause is deflection.
All good points, and further compounded by the limits of growth that we as a species have ignored since we were first warned of them 50 years ago. Unfortunately, it seems there is no way to avoid decline, if not outright societal collapse.
I call myself a skeptical optimist. I do think human ingenuity is an amazing thing and has managed to stave off the end of civilization; remember when they were predicting population growth meant we'd all starve? Or when we were going to run out of oil?
We need both technical improvements (a shift to sustainable energy systems) and new economic and political approaches that don't simply avoid to costs of externalities.
If we can admit to the problems, I think we can find solutions but right now we appear to mainly be in angry ostrich mode!
It's that angry ostrich mode that concerns me. I'm not at all sure we can find we can find political consensus in time to avoid climate catastrophe, after which all bets are off.
Many do seem to be in ostrich mode. But the ones who aren't hiding their heads in the sand are working on many many problems. Will they all succeed, unlikely, but they are trying. We just don't hear about any of it because they're too busy for an interview or an article.
I learned yesterday that Yvon Chouinard and his family have given away their fortune of $3 billion to a "specially designed trust and a nonprofit organization. They were created to preserve the company’s independence and ensure that all of its profits — some $100 million a year — are used to combat climate change and protect undeveloped land around the globe."
It is a very very cool story. Why they did it the way they did and how it's all set up so that the company can continue to work for the things the Chouinard's always believed in.
There are a lot of elderly billionaires out there. This may be something that would appeal to them too. There is also the story about some billionaire republican who gifted a portion, $1.3 billion, to the O&G industry to fight against the climate change message.
Poilievre has been leader of the opposition for just a few days. He can hardly be blamed for any decline that we feel we might be in. As for him being scary, to a Liberal, any Conservative leader is branded as scary. Harper was, Scheer was, O'Toole was, Poilievre is. It's the way they operate. I fully expect the attacks against Poilievre to increase. But another thing about the current Liberal party is that they project. So we need to look closely at what they accuse others of doing because that provides insight to what the Liberal party is truly up to. The party that is supposedly not about fear and division is, in reality, all about fear and division.
Harper was scary. Scheer and O'Toole definitely were not! PP isn't scary he's irritating. Why in the world didn't they let Rona run? She is not an idiot! Wouldn't it be nice to have a gov that simply works hard and barely makes the news? But they are in the news all the time because people demand it. Should they not pop out of their holes for a week everyone would be flipping out and demanding answers. I want to be bored by my government again.
Harper wasn't scary; Rona didn't want to run. Had Rona run, the Liberals would have found a way to paint her as scary. The Liberals got the opposition leader they wanted and needed. lol. At least Poilievre is thick-skinned and doesn't take their bullshit. That's probably why he got elected.
Our state of decline is fuelled by a general acceptance of mediocrity, and it starts with school age children.
I hate to pile on the teaching profession, because there is lots of blame to go around, but our education outcomes have shifted from motivation for excellence to everyone getting a star for showing up. We are paying for that as the kids enter the work force, having never been confronted with demands of exceptionalism. There are ethnic groups in our society that demand better, and they will make huge sacrifices for their kids to attend private schools and EXCEL. We need more of that attitude in our society, and especially directed at political leaders and mandarins who have allowed ho-hum performance to become normalized.
Completely disagree. I attended Grade 6-12 between 1981 and 1988. Classes routinely had 40 plus kids, teaching assistants didn't exist, ESL students had no support, behavioral problems were left unmedicated and many kids (myself included) were in effect latchkey with minimal parental involvement in schooling. Today's teachers have overwhelming senses of entitlement.
I am one generation down from the “greatest generation ever”. Many in that age group had agrarian roots and some with little education that was taught in one room schools. And yet they survived a depression, fought a world war and set us up for a significant standard of living by working hard and choosing leaders who knew what they were doing.
My forebears would be pretty disgusted with what passes for good governance and priorities. And they damn sure knew better than to shut down major sectors of the economy that pay for our largesse.
Remember teachers are provincial. I had kids in public school during the time you describe and the teachers were for most part amazing. I still know many amazing teachers.
Try being a parent who’s kid is struggling with a school of teachers suggesting “don’t worry they’ll get it eventually.” Why do you think so many parents are turning their back on the system?
That wouldn’t be what my son would say. If they say that it should be reported. The child may need help. But as parents we are our child's advocate. That said, resources are very limited.
Yes we are our child’s advocate. Explain, then, why so many have pulled their kids from the system? With even more waiting in even longer lines to get their kids in alternative schools? The system is the problem. NOT the parents.
Wrong. Parents are imperfect, like they’ve always been. It’s the SYSTEM that’s flawed, as evidenced by the systemic decline in academic achievement across this country in a very short period of time. (amidst bloated Ed budgets) Your vast experience of one doesn’t change that.
I agree. As stated above, there is lots of blame to go around. Starting with parents who are MIA, allowing their kids to drift and blaming the teachers for their woes.
My youngest teaches high school and last year especially was a nightmare. He’s a well respected hockey coach and his main teaching class was kids who don’t want to learn.
My daughter teaches elementary. The Covid years were tough (mostly with worry if they were protecting the kids enough) but BC did not have near the lockdowns other provinces toyed with. Just the beginning, March April May, and the kids were on summer break really soon afterwards. She told me it was funny how the kid's grades 3,4,5, would follow the rules perfectly; masks, pods, hands etc. (for the most part) but how the moms would winch, whine and complain. A fairly affluent neighbourhood in the lower mainland and there are many "private" schools available. The public schools are not lacking students nor are they fleeing the public system. Kids are flexible and take it all in stride. School boards would get confused but that's what they do best.
So does the decline start with school aged kids as you first stated or with their parents who, I assume, actually vote for our politicians. Who is to blame? Why must blame be assigned? Aren't you behaving like the parents looking for someone to blame?
Do you have a percentage of how many parents are MIA? There must be some numbers if they are so numerous. Are there more MIA in the past decade? The decade preceding that?
Last week I heard in interview with someone from the EU (Ursula von der Leyen? I can't remember who) saying they had a plan to replace the resources they used to get from Russia.
A nation that encourages its citizens to feel collective shame with no chance of redemption, and/or collective victimhood with no possibility of personal agency, is a nation with no incentive to work hard to improve, and therefore a nation headed to ruin.
That's the dystopic core under this government's woke boilerplate, and it is utterly at odds with our liberal history and traditions.
That's what I hear Poilievre attacking on behalf of a broad coalition that includes the centre left and right: I hear "the gatekeepers" as the condescending elite that makes rules for everyone but itself; that appropriates to itself the right to define acceptable views (defined as its own); that has chosen to trash our pride in our country, a pride gave us the energy to make this the most inclusive and diverse nation of earth; that has adopted Kendi's Manichean oppressor/oppressed definition of "anti-racism", dividing us into intersectional resentments; that is redefining language and law by swapping gender for sex without consultation, making us feel bullied about how we define as basic a noun like 'woman'; that has us walking on eggshells, double thinking our every word and opinion; and that insists we commit to "decolonization", which effectively means eliminating Western epistemology and the structures that have served us well, rather than the fix problems within them.
I'm an optimist, because I think we Canadians have gotten sick of hating ourselves, and angry at feeling silenced and ignored by an unaccountable government that serves its friends (see WE) and sees transparency and plain language as its enemy. Therefore, that this government's destructive and extreme ideology will be reversed.
Not a great comment. But you have all the best buzz words and phrases. You are obviously over thinking this. Kendi's Manichean opposites even. Yes, I'm sure American anti-racist activists are required reading in the Lib party. /s
Yes our Canadian life style has been eroded. We’ve lost income. Inflation is high, our governments have been tyrants and don’t seem to want to stop. What to do we do? We spend less we develop our own incomes and we refuse to comply to heavy handed agendas. Are we still comfortable. Some of us yes and alot of us no. I’m a 57 year old woman that’s lived with freedom, been able to express myself without judgement and no how to create an income. I have faith Canadians can right the issues we have and get back to respecting fellow humans. But we need to stop being complacent and get our asses moving. Work together and stop buying into the divisive agendas out there. And if this makes me, using this commonly used catch phrase “ Fringe”. Then that explains me and most of the people I know, and am very comfortable with that.
The Liberals support the decline narrative only when they can position more government as the solution, for example all of the initiatives to redistribute wealth to allegedly address the problem of income inequality.
Decline? Likely. From a purely Govt perspective the issue is having qualified people in Cabinet. This is not really the case now — with some exceptions. The same is true of the senior civil service members who have been jollied along through their careers by not making waves and not (really) informing their political masters what is right or wrong with the economy or the society. Again there are exceptions to this. This is key as Govt in most of these trials facing us must take the lead — as business simply will not rise to the occasion for all sorts of reasons. My faith in Govt (at all levels) to make the necessary changes without destroying the economy or society is not as strong as it used to be. However, I am also not a believer in conspiracies by govts. In most cases, what appears to be a conspiracy from either the left or right of the spectrum’s critical crowds, is usually just incompetence, sometimes of eye-watering proportions.
I don’t believe Poilievre is irresponsible in courting public fear, I think it is a reality for many. I do however wish for solutions to said fears and he offers none. Yes, the other parties should acknowledge the fears and be willing to have a discussion, as I said, real or not many citizens are very afraid of what the future will bring.
Personally the day I remember Reagan speaking of trickle down economics was when I knew the economy was no longer going to be for the benefit of the working class. His actions on air traffic controllers enabled the crushing of union movements though out the western world. It became a paradise for the investor class as most governments followed his lead in cutting taxes and cutting the social safety net.
I guess that means I do believe that society is in decline but I don’t think it’s a recent phenomenon, it’s been happening slowly for the past 40 years. I do have regrets that my generation opted for greed rather than the general betterment of society but that’s history now.
'Personally the day I remember Reagan speaking of trickle down economics was when I knew the economy was no longer going to be for the benefit of the working class'.
Everyone was reading that peculiar Ayn Rand, remember? They were quoting from a person who was clueless and using a character from a movie as a model. The answer to LIFE was to be as totally selfish and manipulative as possible. We are living with the consequences of that nonsense. It wasn't just 80s fashion that was ugly.
When Barbara Ehrenreich died the other day, all were praising her best-read book, "Nickel and Dimed; On (Not) Getting By in America" where she took several bottom-rung jobs to report on how much fun those lives were.
But I liked "The Worst Years of Our Lives", about the Reagan years, which were "worst" because she saw her hopes of progress turn into a realization it would be a very long, slow change indeed.
Reagan, Thatcher, and to a lesser extent Klein and Harris, were exactly the doses of reality that jolted complacent societies into the next level of innovation. Heavy industry was dying in the 1970's no matter what government action could have been taken. Acknowledging the inevitable and moving onto a more service oriented economy was the only path forward.
Cost of living is what crushed the working class. Perhaps if government had done less to protect the professional class from competition, and not inflated assets prices by borrowing so much money, a working class income might have remained viable.
The air traffic controllers got exactly what they deserved. Collusion to limit competition and prop up prices is illegal and generally viewed as undesirable, except for when conducted by labor unions. A groups of workers ability to cause economic disruption by withholding their services is not a measure of their value.
Cost of living or the lack of increased wages while corporate profits soared and workers were left behind?
If you are not in favour of unions in general I can accept that. Labour unions by design are meant to lookout for their members best interests. If this affects the economic well being of an employer can it not also be considered that the demands of that employer are possibly unreasonable? Whether or not you agree with the union stance, they had the right to strike. It was taken away and the union broken. Thatcher did much the same in the UK. Many workers suffered as a result. Heavy industry was in decline and I do not believe these attacks on organized labour changed a thing in that regard.
In Ontario we are still paying for Harris's cuts to health and education and the lease of the 407 to this day. Klein literally bought votes with cheques and destroyed a Heritage Fund in the process. Nice long term thinking from them both.
These political stances had as much to do with the decline in real wage gains for the working class as anything in the last 40 years. They literally stopped the power of unions to make real gains in working conditions going forward, corporations knew they would be favoured by governments in the event of a strike and bargained accordingly. They put the economy ahead of the interests of the citizenry and the environment and it has been that way since.
Private sector unions, at least those not working for monopolies like utility companies, are at least constrained by the finances of their employers. If they over-reach, they risk damaging their employers' and consequently their own well being (ex. the American automakers in the 70's). Public sector unions are completely different as they can make ridiculous demands against employers with infinite capacity to raise revenue, which is an unfair bargaining position.
Klein did no such thing to the Heritage Fund. Lougheed began the plunder by, for example, by classifying public infrastructure as Heritage Fund assets, even though such assets are hardly liquid. Klein paid down debt, which achieved the same goal as saving. Endowments can actually become a liability as they are easy targets for other governments and public sector unions. Alberta is a great example as it quickly spent through its Sustainably Fund after the 2008 natural gas price crash. It is very difficult to say no when money is in the bank. Paying down debt takes that money off the table.
Despite the mythology, Ralphbucks were a one time event and King Ralph never ran for re-election after that one time event. At that point in time, Alberta had nothing else on which to spend. It had by far the highest infrastructure, health and education spending in the country, if not the world. It was also in an inflationary spiral. More public spending would have further fueled inflation. I was against the move at the time, but in retrospect, it turned out to be preferable to adding more to the Sustainability or Heritage Funds as they would have only become more attractive targets for public sector unions and the Feds. Maybe the money should have been used to pay down municipal debt, which Lougheed did in the 70's. Of course that would have come with the caveat that municipalities could re-allocate the interest savings, but not pile on the debt again.
Won’t argue about the facts on Alberta finances, I was going on memory about Klein. I had forgotten about Loughheed, but remembered the heritage fund being trashed. I am not sure the fund would have been targeted by government or unions if structured correctly or if debt reduction was the proper alternative, that’s a question for historical economists from both sides of the political spectrum to answer.
I am however sure that the huge spending in Alberta was a result of it also being the wealthiest province per capita in the country. Like you said, hard to say no with money in the bank and no one ever seems to save for that rainy day.
Unions of the 1970’s and 80’s got too big for their britches and the resultant flagging support from the general public gave politicians a window to crack down. It might seem far fetched to believe, but for years it seemed that Postal Workers were either bringing the economy to its knees through strike action or thinking about it. And railroaders and longshoreman and, and and. Over the long haul we don’t need to fret because many of these unionists have long retired with good pension benefits.
I remember. The politicians cracked down and labour was hurt. Corporations and investors did fine. Workers today are now just wishing they could have some of those long fought for benefits that have been lost. Many contracts went backwards in those past few decades. We may now be seeing the start of a resurgence in union activity. I certainly hope so for the betterment of the workforce in general.
I'm guessing that at some point in your life you had a job or two. Many or the "perks" you enjoyed and took as a right were the result of many decades of union negations or strikes for the benefit of workers everywhere.
40 hour work week or less.
Paid sick leave.
Paid holidays.
Paid vacations.
Breaks, coffee and lunch.
Medical leave.
Maternity leave.
Weekends.
Better pay.
Safer working conditions.
Health care.
Retirement benefits.
Workers compensation.
They bargin for better education and patient care.
Thanks Lou, I admire your persistence and your viewpoint. Old dog, been active as a unionist for a long time and people forget the good that was and is being done by the movement, critics persist.
I'm not sure I buy the notion of a society in decline, but we're certainly seeing the effects of an *aging* society and a relative decline in wealth and power vs. other societies. Baby Boomers have dominated politics since at least the early '90s at this point, and continue to do so as a disproportionately large demographic. Like any cohort, they've become more conservative in their disposition as they age. That isn't to say that they've drifted to right, simply that they've become more resistant to change. I think that's a big source of the governmental paralysis we've seen, as their preferences conflict with younger cohorts. It ends up sapping the confidence of our society when people don't want to change things, and then start reacting in fear of losing what they've got.
The relative sense of decline comes from the fact that we're seeing diminishing absolute gains from our progress. A recent book called "Superabundance" illustrates why this is the case. They look at the cost of goods and services in terms of time/labor. Currencies don't really capture changes in wealth over time as well as looking at how long an average person had to work to buy something. In the 1960s, an Indian laborer would work about 10 hours to earn enough money to pay for their daily meal. In contrast, an American laborer of the '60s would work about an hour. Today, that Indian laborer only has to work an hour to earn enough to buy their meal. For an American laborer, it's down to about 10 minutes. Think about the absolute difference, though - the Indian laborer has *9 hours* more per day than 50 years ago. The American worker has gained less than an hour. The amount of progress seems exhilarating to the Indian, and unimpressive to the American. They're about the same relative gain in terms of wealth, though.
To answer your question Matt, I agree, only history and historians will determine if today, Canada is in, as you describe, a decline.
Being in my mid 70’s (and being one of the lucky ones - as Jen previously and so accurately described us baby-boomers), I have only my own life experiences from which to offer my opinion.
As one of the lucky ones, I was able to purchase my first home – a brand new 1200 sq.ft. bungalow – in 1974 for $27,500. My income at the time was $15,700 – that was annual, not monthly. So, I was able to buy my house at a cost of roughly twice my income. Today, when I look around at the new housing market where I live (BC) any new construction is well north of $500K. Incomes have not kept pace with housing costs. Most, if not all young people today simply can’t get into the housing market, but they may have a chance if the Bank of Mom & Dad is available. Has our society declined on the basis of the lack of availability of an affordable family home?
Which brings me to homelessness. How many towns and cities across this country suffer a relatively new experience – the tent city. Community parks taken over by the homeless. I suspect many have seen on TV the tragedy that is Hastings Street in Vancouver. Has our society declined on the basis of it being unable to take care of those who are unable to care for themselves?
The profligacy of societal violence today was unknown to me as a youngster growing up and even well into my adulthood. The mass shooting in Nova Scotia, the mass stabbing in Saskatchewan, the gang violence, the random assaults on the street, all reflect a society that I could never have predicted as a younger man. Has our society declined on the basis of safety in the streets?
Much, but by no means all, of this violence and criminal behaviour is caused by repeat offenders. What kind of a justice systems allows a violent offender with 20, 30, 40 or more than 50 criminal offences on his docket to be allowed to walk amongst us? I was raised with the belief that everybody makes mistakes and everybody deserves a second chance. As that saying goes, “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. Rehabilitation ends with the repeat offender – who is deserving only of punishment. Has our society declined in terms of our judicial system’s inability/unwillingness to keep criminals off our streets?
Many of these criminals are very active in the distribution of illegal drugs. In BC, we have a “medical” crisis due to drug overdose. This one I simply don’t understand – why would any right-thinking person take a drug that might very well kill them? Addiction is a powerful affliction, but never having been addicted, what do I know? Has our society declined in terms of its acceptance of death due to drug abuse? And its inability to combat it? Educating people on drug abuse should help but doesn’t seem to be of much help thus far.
Speaking of education, my, how times have changed from my day. From time to time, I take a peek at my grandchildren’s Report Cards. Oops, my bad, no more Report Cards – today students receive evaluations. “Learning is a continuum”, no more grades – neither alphabetical nor percentage – now the student is Emerging or Developing or Proficient or Extending. Huh? Against what standard? Cursive writing is no longer taught but gender diversity is. Apparently the old “reading, writing and arithmetic” has taken a back burner to Critical Race Theory. I am too far removed from today’s education of our young people to know what is really going on, but when I read about young people entering university and not being able to construct a grammatically correct sentence, let alone a thoughtful essay – I have to say that I’m not surprised. Has our society declined in terms of its failure to provide a fundamental and foundational education for our young people? The optics from where I sit don’t look good.
As to the state of universities, the optics from my perspective are not very encouraging there either. Universities are a place of higher learning, and a place where debate and exchange of ideas should flow freely. Today, this environment appears to have been infested with politically correct, cancel culture, anti-white privilege, virtue-signalling activists whose reaction to free and open debate is public shaming and demands for removal and/or termination. Professors Jordan Peterson and Frances Widdowson are just two well-known victims of the toxic environment that prevails in most universities today. Has our society declined in terms of providing our young people a university environment free from harassment and free to express their own thoughts and beliefs?
I was just advised last week that for the first time in my lifetime, I will no longer have a family doctor. I have joined the many hundreds of thousands of Canadians who also cannot find a family doctor. The tens of billions of tax dollars cannot provide the basic health care that so many of us have taken for granted. Pretty hard not to conclude that this represents not only a decline in our health care but is just steps away from a complete failure.
There are so many more observations that I could make, for instance the profligate spending and debt by both government and individuals, but no point in beating a dead horse. It has been observed that over a period of two hundred years or so, all great empires rise and then eventually decline and/or end: the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, and more recently the British Empire. Canada is far from being an empire, but it is 155 years old; I suspect that it won’t be too much longer before historians will look back on our history and answer your question more definitively than you or I may deduce today, despite, or hopefully in spite of, what appears to me to be the case today.
I note that in your comment you mention your income at the time of purchasing your first home.
Which underlines the fact that it was not too long ago that one middle class income was all it took to get into a house in a nice neighborhood.
Today, even with two good incomes, you are going to have a hard time getting into a rabbit hutch in the sky located next to an expressway (great for air quality and quiet nights) with the nearest patch of greenery a tawdry little urban 'park' a half kilometer away (watch out for needle sticks!).
We truly had it all and thanks to our elites shrieking their mantra of 'growth, growth, and more growth' for decades and the failure of the authorities to stem a tsunami of dirty money from flowing into the country our housing prospects have gone completely down the drain.
The term decline suggests a reduction in things we have relied upon and gotten used to. No doubt we are in the midst of changes that will benefit some and worry others. I would describe our current state as transitional, from where we were to where we want to be. Which suggests we need to think about where we want to be. And hoping for a return to the past, recent or long remembered, is an exercise in futility. Depending on a political party of whatever stripe to lead us in the right direction is faint hope. We as individuals, families and communities need to invest some time and effort in figuring out our options. Governments can help, but the bulk of the work is up to us.
With Poilievre there is no "meta-text," or meta narrative to use Horgan's usage. The entire time Horgan's piece was in fact referring to subtext, what isn't being said literally but can be inferred. A meta narrative is a "grand recit," an overarching set of values contain in a larger work. The Bible is an immense work, but it can be distilled down to a few "lessons," or a meta narrative. It's what the deconstructionists have been aiming at for the past 30 years.
Polievre doesn't have a subtext. As Shannon Proudfoot keeps saying - and everyone keeps ignoring - Poilievre has been the same guy saying the same things for 20 odd years. She is the only journalist who has spent enough time with him to provide decent insights. She was on The Current on Monday. Give her a listen.
Decline is a huge, multifaceted topic. It would take reams of digital paper to give it space to breath. And I'm not up to it.
But I will say this: Academics are the biggest catastrophists around. You want to find people who think Steven Pinker is full of shit? Go to the Social Sciences departments in any Canadian university. Every time I turn around some adjunct sociology professor is telling me how much worse racism is, how much worse misogyny is, how much greates inequality is, etc., etc., etc. They are decline-aholics.
And who has picked up on this grievance studies ethos? Our present Prime Minister. If there is a feeling of social decline in this country he is the motivator. And we all know what he's been saying. And if there is a feeling of economic decline we know how the Present Prime Minister has confessed he doesn't give it much thought.
By any comparison Poilivre is the guy now saying "sunny ways." He is the most positive public figure in the country right now.
This return to the "hidden agenda" subtext/meta narrative - that is trotted out each and every time a Conservative makes progressives wet their nappies - is so fucking tired. Can someone somewhere please find something new to say?
The fact is Trudeau is the reason for Pierre. It’s a counter to Trudeau’s fairy tail that is being turned over into something that is reachable and realistic. Politics is like a pendulum as when it swings to far one way then something happens to pull it back. It’s a continuous cycle.
By the stifling all other voices so the Progressive narrative can push an ideology with little substance, it is unlikely that they will find any solutions to the majority of issues we all face. They are far too concerned with social engineering and the psychology behind the use of propaganda to create fear in order to motivate the masses in the direction they want go. They have not the fortitude or the intelligence to find a solution and continually push a worn out unachievable goal. We see exactly where their plan leads as it’s playing out in Europe as we speak. So to continue on that road is and has never been a viable option. It is flawed and can not possibly maintain society as we know it.
Pierre is right about getting the gate keepers and regulatory burdens out of the way so those who are in the industries that must reduce their carbon have the money to innovate and improve what they do. Leave the problem in their hands so they can work towards better solutions as no one knows it better than they do. Nuclear is also our best option to run a highly sophisticated society that needs massive amounts of power to do most everything, yet it is kept off the table.
Governments, intellectuals, and the elite have never found a solution to anything. Ever. The only gains they have made are to their own personal financial well being. In fact they usually produce catastrophic damage and mass murder when left to their own devices. So stop thinking that the intellectuals and Government bureaucrats, that are sitting in between institutional walls for a lifetime, will find any solution to any real world problem. The fact is they don’t live in the real world.
The default to a dialectic - this causes that, historically - is always seductive because it maps nicely onto pattern recognition, a thing humans are prone to perform. But I believe Poilievre has struck a rawer (is that a word?) nerve..
If I were to write Horgan's piece but address the Progressives I would say the following: "The thinking classes are fatally removed from the physical side of life. Control has become their obsession. In their drive to insulate themselves against risk & contingency, the thinking classes seceded from the common world around them, from reality itself." That's Christopher Lasch.
Trudeau has fallen under a spell, and it's the Progressive spell that says reality is a product of words and their combinations. Reality is not what you observe but is a function of grammar.
Polievre is saying no, reality is what is observable. And people are responding, because that's how they live their lives, by responding to observable phenomena.
Who doesn’t experience the physical side of life? Politicians that fret over gender pronouns rather than policy issues. Politicians that promise the moon to gullible voters financed by deficit spending. Politicians that are pleased with high carbon taxes on top of high retail gas prices because it’s all “climate action”.
Mmmm ... I don't know. I read Lasch's clip that you included but I'm still confused by whom the "thinking classes" are. The upper middle class liberals (small l) as is implied? Western cultural elites? The laptop class? Our government? PP and the Cons are also our gov, some for a lot longer that JT and many of his Ministers.
I consider myself progressive in many ways but I definitely experience the physical side of life. Who does not?
Polievre is no more or less attached to reality than is Trudeau. Everyone has a history, some more heart tugging than others. PP was of humbler origins (finally single moms are cool) JT the son of a prominent leader of Canada. Does one make the other better or worse at this time in their lives. PP has been in government for 20 years (give or take) JT 10 years or so. Should that make a difference? One has made a 6 figure salary with perks since his early 20s, the other had a trust fund.
What I see with PP is a solid nod to how things breach the shores of Canada from the South. He's not a skinny Trump but he's also not above using similar tactics. With JT and Singh and even Blanchet a refusal to go there.
PP talks and talks, takes no questions, offers no solutions except maybe, you're fired. He's a new pol. That's exactly what he wants to present. Except he isn't he's a Harper pol trying to make it his own. None of the other Cons are like PP. Well, Cheryl Gallant maybe, and she's been around as long as PP. What I expect of PP is that he will remain the Loyal Op for a good long while and he will do exactly as he has done since the beginning.
Trudeau is still pushing the mystery graves at the Kamloops IRS. There aren't any graves in the orchard; the leader of the 1st nation there gave that game away long ago. But Trudeau wanted his George Floyd moment, an event that explained how Canada works, and that it works according to our darkest impulses. He even created a "holiday" so Canada could celebrate its genocidal nature. But the graves don't exist; the students were all accounted for in the 4th volume of the TRC report. This is a vision of Canada divorced from physical reality.
Germany's movement towards renewable energy has been an unqualified disaster and on many levels. Trudeau and Guibeault (the fanatic) don't see anything wrong. "There isn't a business case," for natural gas is a denial of physical reality. They see the world as they *think* it's supposed to operate.
The American Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade. Trudeau's response is to further "protect" a woman's right to chose. 1) We aren't the US, 2) The only way he can enact further protection of women's rights is by offering up legislation, but that would necessarily put restrictions on abortion. This is the virtuous world of his imagination.
Men with serious sexual disorders are now declaring themselves women and getting transferred to women's prisons where they assault female prisoners. In Canada. Trudeau fully supports gender self ID because to do otherwise is somehow "conversion therapy," an absurd notion. This is a purely grammatical formulation.
Anti racism ideology is rife in the Federal Government. And since the supply of racism has never been lower but the demand (yes, demand) for racism has never been higher to satisfy a burgeoning anti racism bureaucracy, the law of unintended consequences fires up its engines, including anti semites running anti racism programs to federally funded "anti hate" groups claiming PP's use of the expression "Anglo Saxon" is a dogwhistle (an exhausted metaphor) for white supremacy (same). Meanwhile Jamil Jivani is fired by Bell Media (he is now suing them) for criticizing BLM while black. But everyone is upset that a multi-millionaire with gray hair lost her perch. In the US John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Coleman Hughes, Sam Harris, Thoma Sowell(my favourite), all of the writers and academics in Free Black Thought, the entire advisory board of FIRE, and countless others repeat endlessly how dumb and counterproductive anti racism ideology is, but Trudeau endorses and invokes it, even when responding to a Jesish lesbian in the House of Commons. Why? Because the real world doesn't matter. The virtuous world of his imagination does.
TY for explaining it all so succinctly. Now I understand.
You'll notice I didn't even mention Trudeau's fantasies about COVID. Lots of landmines there. Maybe another time.
Bang on.
TY ML ;)
They don't want actual solutions. They want issues that they can endlessly campaign and fundraise off. Most politicians are in it for themselves. Even if they first get involved for purely altruistic reasons, they lose that eventually. As for Poilievre, yeah. Of the entire bunch, he was the one best suited (has the thickest skin) to put up with all the bullshit that the Liberal party will throw at him. It's not going to be pretty.
Part of Harper's success was his ability to counter the Liberal hate machine. In perhaps that regard alone, Poilievre is cut from the same cloth. The Liberals have shown no ability to campaign beyond recycling their greatest hits from the 70's (give money to one group so that other groups expect the same until all are dependent on the hand that feeds them) and 90's (brand opponents as racists, misogynists and homophobes as early as possible to avoid any serious discussion).
Yes. This gov in particular always needs an adversary. Or a bogeyman.
The Cons, PP in particular is not adversarial? Aren't the G BOC and gatekeepers bogeymen?
When a government’s best perceived attribute is “at least we are not xxx,” it’s a shitty government. If a Pollievre gov says stuff like that after winning an election, I will be just as irked.
To B-
Good points. Gun control and abortion are two examples that are just far to handy for wedge purposes and galvanizing the base to propose actual solutions.
If the Cons would simply not try to fix what ain't broken then half of those wedge issues would be cut back.
Who would you say are more stupid, the progressives or the masses? What do the conservatives do that differs from the progressives? Do you know just who are the gatekeepers PP wants rid of? Not names but positions. Which regulatory burdens would you like to see gone? Industry has proven over and over that they cannot honestly regulate themselves.
"Catastrophic damage and mass murder," and you can back up that sensational sentence with facts, right?
Indeed.
The Trudeau government has declared Canada a genocide state, an institutionally racist country in which everyone is going to die from global warming. But Polievre is too negative.
Just because:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgnxwqV1iPQ
https://youtu.be/uG8G1Hmamlo
LOL! Thank You!!
Beyond excellent! In ranking I would be a middle C conservative. When he wins , he will have an educated team of rational thinking people. Not journalists for finance ministers dealing in ferry dust etc...
Good article, but I think you are neglecting an even more fundamental point: are we even able in practice to have serious and rational discussions about our actual problems and what to do about them?
When anyone who presents any kind of alternative view on an important issue is immediately censored or hounded from the public square AND the "mainstream" view ignores the laws of logic, arithmetic, or physics, we are in deep deep trouble.
That is exactly where we are now.
Couldn't agree more, Mark.
One of our biggest problems is that we’re losing the habits of mind that sustain a democracy. The signs are there: a growing inability to have respectful conversations about the issues of the day; an increasing intolerance for people who think differently than us; a lack of restraint in our public conduct; a splintering system of beliefs and values; an inability to think critically. It all adds up.
We’re losing our willingness to live up to our obligations as citizens. Or what’s worse, maybe even our ability to comprehend what those are and why they’re so important. It was those habits of mind that contributed to the rise of the world’s most powerful civilization. As they decline, so it does too.
And why shouldn’t it? We’re merely the latest in a long line of societies that had their day in the sun and then watched it turn away. For a time we could bend the world to our will, but that's getting harder and harder. Our world is becoming less predictable and stable, and more than a little meaner.
This is an excellent column – one of Matt’s best, and one that reminds us about what underpins all of our myriad challenges.
The big loss is the loss of the idea that there are certain principles, specifically free speech, open civil discussion, logic, arithmetic, and physical reality, which are actually more important and fundamental than other forms of freedom, racism, climate change, health, ecology, "science", or economics.
This is true because none of those other values can be achieved or problems can be solved without the former set of principles.
If I had to pick one starting point to improve things, I would focus on censorship, which includes Twitter/Facebook/YouTube bans for "misinformation", subsidized journalism, cancellation, and journalism with an ideological monoculture.
This morning, when I read your comment, I didn't really agree. The term "habits of mind" bothered me for some unknown reason. When I came back this evening I looked it up. There is quite a bit out there on habits of mind. One is, The Global Oneness Project (how's that for a scary-sounding website?). It is called, Habits for a Healthy Democracy, aimed at kids grades 6-8. Under learning objectives it says:
Identify habits and behaviours that contribute to a healthy democracy.
Understand that a healthy democracy requires citizen participation, open discourse, and the valuing of differences.
Discover ways to participate in society with agency using one’s personal voice.
While this is aimed at American kids, I think that both Canadian and American adults of voting age could use the refresher.
If we believe our societies are going into a decline I think we would be wise to make sure it is not a self-fulfilling prophecy. The habits of mind are not difficult or tricky but you must believe them, and make them the habit.
Along with those good habits, we must also insist on civility, responsibility, respectability and honesty. Maybe thinking critically will come more naturally when people are trying harder to form honest respectful ideas.
Too much? I don't think so.
Here's a bit of good news:
https://markchangizi.substack.com/p/today-we-reject-the-idea-that-corporations?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
You have your own stack ... good for you.
Hahaha - completely different Mark Ch. I didn't notice the similarity.
Who should be putting together these ideas from those discussions and how would it translate into new legislation?
That will still be up to the regular political process: dialogue in media and parliament and, now, on social media. The problem, of course is that with heavily censored media and social media, and a parliament where nobody ever listens to anyway, our ability to formulate better solutions is nonexistent.
And if someone dares to bring forward a new idea or challenge the existing corporate powers, they are silenced, ejected from caucus, their party and/or their union.
That is the exact problem. We need to restore a culture of free speech, so that people believe in its importance. How do we do that?
It's freedom of expression. I believe I have it, why do you not? But like anything else, it comes with responsibilities, that are important too.
The issue in question here is 'are we in decline?' It's going to take bold moves and ideas in the right places to right the ship. It needs to be seen in parliament and at the legislative assembly. It needs to be seen within membership votes. This was something the UCP enjoyed and what we got were Brian Jean, Danielle Smith and the destruction of the UCP. The federal liberals would never allow such damage. And so we had heroes like JWR ejected from caucus.
Freedom of expression will not restore international order or ease nuclear threats from small powers. It will not limit the amount of cow dung and coal in this world. It won't stop drug addicts and the obese from flooding our health care system.
I'm glad that people can carry on with their culture wars these days. There does seem to be a few people here and there who are bullied at work for being queer, or regretting their mastectomy they received before adulthood, or wishing they were hired on their own merit and not a BIPOC Quota that needed to be filled. But this stuff is not as important, only a distraction. A distraction from a looming societal collapse.
Presently I'm trapped in a paradox. The one hand of allowing for difference of opinion (ending up with the troubles of the UCP and federal greens ) and the other hand, having strict control over a party and deferring to the experts (the issue being both Harper and Trudeau did this and got us to where we are today.)
We need the media to start mocking parties that suppress speech, instead of parties that allow it.
Who was ejected from caucus, or was silenced, for challenging what?
Do Wilson-Raybould and Philpott count? For failing to subvert the legal process or acquiescing to corruption? That the entire LPC caucus accepted this is a condemnation of the party and its power structure as well as the integrity of those silent MPs and the electors that voted for them. The implementation of the DPA was a clear revelation of who and what is important in the election and running of this government. The ethical failures of this PM and this government (and the electorate’s willing acceptance of them) will be studied, dissected and questioned by future generations should this country survive this current suicide attempt. We desperately need 338 fearless, independent, ethical MPs that want the job, but don’t need the job…
JWR wrote a book. Very well received too. So not silenced she's not. She was an MP for six years which is also better than many of them. Philpott resigned, she was not ejected.
JWR is writing another book on Reconciliation. She is busy, she has a life and she is not silenced or censored. No one sent into her riding, emails telling people to ask her to resign.
I think a big issue is accountability. When was the last time anyone in a position of leadership was fired? (Your coverage of RCMP's Lucki for example). If we tolerate mediocrity we'll get more of it, and this lays the groundwork for a populist backlash. At some point the people at the very top will get fired.
Btw, A+ for not mentioning a certain American politician.
That would be the Russian Generals getting fired for failure. And it's not helping.
Too soon to tell.
Didn't some Russian die under mysterious conditions this week? Don't they call it the Putin Push? Sort of like being fired except someone else empties your desk.
PP has never mentioned Lucki for permeant demotion. If he's mentioned her or the RCMP at all. Could it be that he's ok with her fumbling the ball as badly as she did but still so unforgiving with Tiff Macklem?
For being an optimist, Matt always makes me a lot more pessimistic about things. But perhaps that's needed. I want to believe as Matt does that we can be optimistic long term and there are solutions to our problems. My pessimism comes from the now status quo of our political system where nobody seems to have the willingness to think past their current mandates and opposition parties for the most part oppose everything by default. This hasn't come about in a vacuum. We as an electorate allow ourselves to be bribed with our own money and punish those who dare deviate from the Sunny days are ahead mantra. Every file feels that way. We've been warned for years that the interest rates and housing markets are unsustainable yet we didn't dare do anything. The Romanow report is decades old yet we never really acted on it. We've known for a generation that we were doing harm to our planet and we fiddle and make excuses even to do some of the bare minimum while the time of opportunity in becoming a leader in the next generation of energy innovations has passed us by. We've perhaps come out of the worst of a public health crisis and instead of it spurring us to a national conversation on how we deal with the next similar crisis we are having partisan spats on what amounts to the low hanging fruit.
Our municipal politics are not much better. In an attempt to keep municipal taxes now cities are carrying generational infrastructure deficits that are going to potentially be catastrophic down the line. It is only a matter of time when one of our cities has a crisis similar to what is happening in Mississippi or Flint. Yet the stump speeches in my Muni are about efficiencies and keeping taxes low.
I think its time we look at ourselves in the mirror and blame ourselves. The answer to this issue isn't The Liberals spending more as inflation rises, it isn't defunding the CBC, firing the Bank of Canada governor or getting into bed with Cryto Currencies and it certainly isn't whatever the heck the NDP are spinning. Rather it's about ripping off the bandaid and making active choices that will turn the ship. Something we're not willing or able to do.
I will keep repeating the mantra that the path forward is to severely constrain government's ability to fund operations (ex. transfers to other levels of government, transfers to individuals, its own payroll) using long term debt. If government actually had limited means, it would be forced to prioritize problems that are most urgent and most addressable.
I don't think you solve anything by constraining government ability to fund things, you just create a regulatory environment that causes more buck passing. It really comes down to the electorate stopping politicians from getting away from running on nothing.
Running on nothing...the new normal of Canadian politics.
You sound very pessimistic today David. Not your usual self. Were you hoping for someone else to vote for?
It would force discussions on what to fund and whether that funding actually delivers results. Allowing government to fund non-capital items with long term debt is avoidance.
The perfect scenario in a pot is that at municipal budget public 'consultations'. The list of wants is long but, when the subject of raising taxes to pay for it comes up, the answer is seldom a positive one. There's a level of immaturity that seems to make people think there really is a Santa Claus, but, unfortunately, it's not just your father anymore, it's you who also pays the bills, too, so, much-needed infrastructure upgrades get a negative. Things are so bad some bridges were closed after the insurers got interested.
We have an arena here that puts the ice in very early. Any day now. It runs a deficit of around $250,000 every year. That's huge for a tiny town. Most of the teams that use it are from other wiser towns that no longer have a rink. Kids these days want to play basketball. Add to that, hockey equipment and fees and travelling are huge! The past has produced some hockey pros but come on! Things will not change until the next generation is dead, I expect.
If people really wanted to have a say in their everyday lives they would pay far more attention to their municipal politics. But I guess that is not so exciting as provincial or federal fun and games. Especially federal. It is unlikely that there will be an election before 2025 but we have now entered into the never ending campaign in earnest. Just like the Americans.
I too live in a small town. After several streets washed away last winter after several years of neglect, finally the town, with a new Mayor are getting it done. We live in the rain forest!
We also have a rink. A more ugly building you have never seen. So many coats of paint on the interior I'm sure they are covering the original lead content. I was a hockey mom, widow. I was asked to not come to games as they lost every time I showed up. I waited at the pub, warm and happy. My sons and one g'son played hockey. The boys wore 2nd hand skates pads whatever. We forked out for new helmets as needed. My g'son has quit hockey and he's turning to soccer to be with his friends. His parents, at least mom, is thrilled. The girls play softball and soccer. I could not be more pleased. I wonder if PP will reintroduce the sports tax credit? Because hockey is so iconic in Canada. Single moms can watch. I'm not sure if the Libs brought something similar in. I do know that Scheer wanted to bring back Harper's credits.
OMG, there is far too much silly crap to get into over the next couple of years. And get into it we will!
Consultations are great, but they go nowhere and enrich this class of professional without spending money on the problem. Its this short termism in our politics. Its fair to say that the infrastructure costs should not be completely laid at the feet of the property owner, but then the resulting decision can't be to keep property taxes at the same level, not raise industrial or commerical taxes and then just add another block on the Jenga tower that is the backlog of infrastructure issues. If we don't want to do it through taxes then we have to find better ways for municipalities to raise funds. A huge opportunity to download some of this onto the developers making obscene amounts of money during the house boom was lost but perhaps that has to be looked at as well. We're at a point where there is no easy fix, but kicking it down the road to the next council can't be the answer anymore.
So many of you are talking about "classes" of people? Who are you talking about. A bit of clarity please.
One of the challenges in asking a question like "are we in decline" is you may get agreement that we are and *lots* of disagreement on the nature of the decline. I suspect that's what's going to happen in the comments.
So, here's the collective challenges we face that I don't see us adequately stepping up to solve:
I think climate change is already widening the band of 'expected weather' with things that used to be considered 100-year storms happening with increasing frequency. That's a much bigger deal than people seem to make it out to be. Our entire built environment is engineered around what will likely be a narrower band of weather conditions than what's coming. Agriculture and forestry rely too rely on historically accurate weather patterns. There are potentially large, costly and hard-to-predict changes coming and we don't seem to have any plan.
Plus, minimizing the scope of these changes means transitioning the world's whole energy system, which is a lot harder than it sounds! Yes, we're making changes, but the GHG reduction targets we've committed to globally are mostly voluntary and I don't think anyone is predicting that current committments are enough. We're 'doing stuff' but it doesn't seem like it will likely be enough, which makes the issue above even more challenging.
Our economy isn't making the kind of productivity improvements that are the basis of ongoing prosperity. We're arguing about issues like affordability and inequity -- both important -- but both rest on a foundation of improving productivity. We haven't cracked that nut and trying to do so during significant changes to the economy (a move towards 'intangibles' which tends to benefit countries like the US who tend to effectively write the rules around intellectual property) is very challenging.
We continue to have significant friction within Canada between regions and peoples. Finding a sustainable way to collaborate -- regionally and across French, English and Indigenous peoples -- is creating signficant tensions across the nation that aren't easily solved. We spend a lot of time and energy on this within Canada -- understandably so -- but while we do so, we're less able to actually address our shared challenges.
These are all long-term challenges I care about that don't have simple answers. I've yet to see proposed public policy on any of them in Canada that makes me confident that we have a path to resolve them. That worries me.
That said, Mr. Poliviere has not yet offered any kind of meaningful solution to any of these issues. So, why I worry we are in decline (because we don't have good answers for those challenges) his rhetoric does not speak any to my concerns. If anything, he is leveraging the regional frictions within Canada to find a (narrow) path to power, but that doesn't solve anything. It just makes a different group of people temporarily more satisfied.
Several points:
-climate adaptation needs to move up in priority. The solutions are well understood. Assuming that climate change can be slowed is naïve and setup to fail
-government has never driven innovation except in pursuit of military advantage. The best chance of technological solutions to climate change will come from the private sector
-government likes to focus on problems with either no solution or that are challenging to measure so that it can evade accountability
-the Liberals, not Poliviere, seem to stoke division so they can position themselves as the solution to that division. Perhaps this is the only area where Justin lives up to his father's legacy
-I'm not a Poliviere fan, but he could provide the spark for some real reform if he sufficiently diminishes federal institutions. I share some small C conservative leanings with Matt, but have a more Libertarian perspective (I check all the boxes: Gen X, grew up mostly in Calgary and across the western US, descendant of prairie homesteaders, STEM education, work in innovative industries, hardly worked in the public sector, absolutely no family or business connections to Laurentian Canada). I agree there are dangers in challenging true institutions like the Parliamentary and Justice systems. I don't view CBC, asymmetric federalism, official bilingualism, the Canada Health Act, Supply Management or protection of the media, telecom and airline industries as legitimate institutions so they should be wide open to experimentation.
"government has never driven innovation except in pursuit of military advantage. The best chance of technological solutions to climate change will come from the private sector"
I think this is partially true, but not entirely. Government funds basic research in Canadian universities and public research facilities and even some relevant applied research that identifies promising innovations and somewhat de-risks further development. Canada is actually pretty competitive in this area for our size. But, to your point, that innovation mostly is further developed into viable products and services in the private sector.
Canada has (and still does) struggle at capacity here. Not because we don't have talented entrepreneurs! But, I would argue, because of some of the realities of a small domestic market and access to one of the biggest markets in the world (the US). For most companies, the US quickly becomes the dominant early market. Talent and funding are more widely avaialable in the US. So, there is a constant pull towards either becoming a US-based company or growing a larger footprint in the US.
When it comes to innovation, though, I would argue that public sector research plays a significant role, while acknowledging the critical role the private sector plays in commericalizing new tech and processes.
I worked in academic research early in my career. I agree government funding has some role to play, but it is a double edged sword. Researchers become more focused on applying for funding and sustaining that funding than actually conducting research. Politicians become overly concerned about funding announcements and maintaining jobs than actually driving progress.
Research is inherently risky. The private sector is much better at pulling the plug and re-allocating funds to more promising areas when either the science approaches a dead end, or market conditions change. The US seems to have struck a balance between academic and commercial research that few other countries can emulate.
My father was a U of T chemistry professor for 50 years. His mantra was "research for research's sake". His list of things that research discovered by accident was long and stunning.....lasers for example. His entire life was devoted to silicone research not knowing if it would every prove out. How many things that you use now are silicon related? You invest in research not knowing if there will be a return beyond knowledge gained.
I've heard Canadian Nobel winner John Polanyi make a similar argument -- that the research he did that led to chemical lasers had no obvious commercial application at the time and if that had been the standard for supporting research, it would have never happened.
They were good friends. There's a lesson there to.......
Agreed. I don't see that Canadian firms have the capacity to dedicate enough resources to R&D (obviously they varies by sector) compared to our peers. That's seemed to be an economic conundrum we haven't cracked and one I'd hazzard a guess has a lot to do with our lagging productivity.
You have me curious. What is causing the climate to change?
Why does it matter?
I infer, because you made the statement, that you felt it important enough to share. As you offer neither explanation nor evidence, it reads like an article of faith. If that is what it is, that’s fine.
How is it an article of faith? If climate is changing, adaptation is required.
In the comment from which my question arose you make two unsupported claims – that adapting to the effects of climate change is possible and that addressing the cause of climate change is substantively impossible. The degree to which either claim has merit rests on what the cause actually is. Asking questions rather than providing an answer regarding that cause is deflection.
All good points, and further compounded by the limits of growth that we as a species have ignored since we were first warned of them 50 years ago. Unfortunately, it seems there is no way to avoid decline, if not outright societal collapse.
I call myself a skeptical optimist. I do think human ingenuity is an amazing thing and has managed to stave off the end of civilization; remember when they were predicting population growth meant we'd all starve? Or when we were going to run out of oil?
We need both technical improvements (a shift to sustainable energy systems) and new economic and political approaches that don't simply avoid to costs of externalities.
If we can admit to the problems, I think we can find solutions but right now we appear to mainly be in angry ostrich mode!
It's that angry ostrich mode that concerns me. I'm not at all sure we can find we can find political consensus in time to avoid climate catastrophe, after which all bets are off.
Political consensus would not deliver technological solutions to climate change. It would also be akin to the dog catching the car.
Many do seem to be in ostrich mode. But the ones who aren't hiding their heads in the sand are working on many many problems. Will they all succeed, unlikely, but they are trying. We just don't hear about any of it because they're too busy for an interview or an article.
I learned yesterday that Yvon Chouinard and his family have given away their fortune of $3 billion to a "specially designed trust and a nonprofit organization. They were created to preserve the company’s independence and ensure that all of its profits — some $100 million a year — are used to combat climate change and protect undeveloped land around the globe."
It is a very very cool story. Why they did it the way they did and how it's all set up so that the company can continue to work for the things the Chouinard's always believed in.
There are a lot of elderly billionaires out there. This may be something that would appeal to them too. There is also the story about some billionaire republican who gifted a portion, $1.3 billion, to the O&G industry to fight against the climate change message.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/climate/patagonia-climate-philanthropy-chouinard.html?
Poilievre has been leader of the opposition for just a few days. He can hardly be blamed for any decline that we feel we might be in. As for him being scary, to a Liberal, any Conservative leader is branded as scary. Harper was, Scheer was, O'Toole was, Poilievre is. It's the way they operate. I fully expect the attacks against Poilievre to increase. But another thing about the current Liberal party is that they project. So we need to look closely at what they accuse others of doing because that provides insight to what the Liberal party is truly up to. The party that is supposedly not about fear and division is, in reality, all about fear and division.
Harper was scary. Scheer and O'Toole definitely were not! PP isn't scary he's irritating. Why in the world didn't they let Rona run? She is not an idiot! Wouldn't it be nice to have a gov that simply works hard and barely makes the news? But they are in the news all the time because people demand it. Should they not pop out of their holes for a week everyone would be flipping out and demanding answers. I want to be bored by my government again.
Harper wasn't scary; Rona didn't want to run. Had Rona run, the Liberals would have found a way to paint her as scary. The Liberals got the opposition leader they wanted and needed. lol. At least Poilievre is thick-skinned and doesn't take their bullshit. That's probably why he got elected.
Our state of decline is fuelled by a general acceptance of mediocrity, and it starts with school age children.
I hate to pile on the teaching profession, because there is lots of blame to go around, but our education outcomes have shifted from motivation for excellence to everyone getting a star for showing up. We are paying for that as the kids enter the work force, having never been confronted with demands of exceptionalism. There are ethnic groups in our society that demand better, and they will make huge sacrifices for their kids to attend private schools and EXCEL. We need more of that attitude in our society, and especially directed at political leaders and mandarins who have allowed ho-hum performance to become normalized.
A reset is needed, badly.
Try teaching todays kids, grade 6 and up. It’s a wonder we still have teachers.
Completely disagree. I attended Grade 6-12 between 1981 and 1988. Classes routinely had 40 plus kids, teaching assistants didn't exist, ESL students had no support, behavioral problems were left unmedicated and many kids (myself included) were in effect latchkey with minimal parental involvement in schooling. Today's teachers have overwhelming senses of entitlement.
I am one generation down from the “greatest generation ever”. Many in that age group had agrarian roots and some with little education that was taught in one room schools. And yet they survived a depression, fought a world war and set us up for a significant standard of living by working hard and choosing leaders who knew what they were doing.
My forebears would be pretty disgusted with what passes for good governance and priorities. And they damn sure knew better than to shut down major sectors of the economy that pay for our largesse.
Remember teachers are provincial. I had kids in public school during the time you describe and the teachers were for most part amazing. I still know many amazing teachers.
I had some amazing teachers as well. My kids, less so.
Try being a parent who’s kid is struggling with a school of teachers suggesting “don’t worry they’ll get it eventually.” Why do you think so many parents are turning their back on the system?
That wouldn’t be what my son would say. If they say that it should be reported. The child may need help. But as parents we are our child's advocate. That said, resources are very limited.
Yes we are our child’s advocate. Explain, then, why so many have pulled their kids from the system? With even more waiting in even longer lines to get their kids in alternative schools? The system is the problem. NOT the parents.
How many Tara? How many parents have pulled their kids out of public school? Do you know this because of those jobs you used to do?
Right, parents are so perfect. I’m a mom of five boys, who are totally amazing. Brought up in the public system.
Wrong. Parents are imperfect, like they’ve always been. It’s the SYSTEM that’s flawed, as evidenced by the systemic decline in academic achievement across this country in a very short period of time. (amidst bloated Ed budgets) Your vast experience of one doesn’t change that.
A school of teachers. I have never heard anything like that and I know a lot of teachers.
I agree. As stated above, there is lots of blame to go around. Starting with parents who are MIA, allowing their kids to drift and blaming the teachers for their woes.
My youngest teaches high school and last year especially was a nightmare. He’s a well respected hockey coach and his main teaching class was kids who don’t want to learn.
My daughter teaches elementary. The Covid years were tough (mostly with worry if they were protecting the kids enough) but BC did not have near the lockdowns other provinces toyed with. Just the beginning, March April May, and the kids were on summer break really soon afterwards. She told me it was funny how the kid's grades 3,4,5, would follow the rules perfectly; masks, pods, hands etc. (for the most part) but how the moms would winch, whine and complain. A fairly affluent neighbourhood in the lower mainland and there are many "private" schools available. The public schools are not lacking students nor are they fleeing the public system. Kids are flexible and take it all in stride. School boards would get confused but that's what they do best.
So does the decline start with school aged kids as you first stated or with their parents who, I assume, actually vote for our politicians. Who is to blame? Why must blame be assigned? Aren't you behaving like the parents looking for someone to blame?
Yer gonna half to find another sucker Lou. Life is too short to argue in circles with folks like you.
You gave us both points. I was just asking which one you meant.
"It starts with school aged children" or "Starting with parents who are MIA"?
It's your circular argument so you must be the sucker :)
Do you have a percentage of how many parents are MIA? There must be some numbers if they are so numerous. Are there more MIA in the past decade? The decade preceding that?
Which groups?
I would use the word "reset" cautiously with this crowd if I were you.
Last week I heard in interview with someone from the EU (Ursula von der Leyen? I can't remember who) saying they had a plan to replace the resources they used to get from Russia.
They were counting on Canada.
Yes, I had a good laugh.
A nation that encourages its citizens to feel collective shame with no chance of redemption, and/or collective victimhood with no possibility of personal agency, is a nation with no incentive to work hard to improve, and therefore a nation headed to ruin.
That's the dystopic core under this government's woke boilerplate, and it is utterly at odds with our liberal history and traditions.
That's what I hear Poilievre attacking on behalf of a broad coalition that includes the centre left and right: I hear "the gatekeepers" as the condescending elite that makes rules for everyone but itself; that appropriates to itself the right to define acceptable views (defined as its own); that has chosen to trash our pride in our country, a pride gave us the energy to make this the most inclusive and diverse nation of earth; that has adopted Kendi's Manichean oppressor/oppressed definition of "anti-racism", dividing us into intersectional resentments; that is redefining language and law by swapping gender for sex without consultation, making us feel bullied about how we define as basic a noun like 'woman'; that has us walking on eggshells, double thinking our every word and opinion; and that insists we commit to "decolonization", which effectively means eliminating Western epistemology and the structures that have served us well, rather than the fix problems within them.
I'm an optimist, because I think we Canadians have gotten sick of hating ourselves, and angry at feeling silenced and ignored by an unaccountable government that serves its friends (see WE) and sees transparency and plain language as its enemy. Therefore, that this government's destructive and extreme ideology will be reversed.
Not a great comment. But you have all the best buzz words and phrases. You are obviously over thinking this. Kendi's Manichean opposites even. Yes, I'm sure American anti-racist activists are required reading in the Lib party. /s
Always nice to hear from thoughtful people who can explain where one's reasoning is off and advance a counter-argument. :)
Great post.
Yes our Canadian life style has been eroded. We’ve lost income. Inflation is high, our governments have been tyrants and don’t seem to want to stop. What to do we do? We spend less we develop our own incomes and we refuse to comply to heavy handed agendas. Are we still comfortable. Some of us yes and alot of us no. I’m a 57 year old woman that’s lived with freedom, been able to express myself without judgement and no how to create an income. I have faith Canadians can right the issues we have and get back to respecting fellow humans. But we need to stop being complacent and get our asses moving. Work together and stop buying into the divisive agendas out there. And if this makes me, using this commonly used catch phrase “ Fringe”. Then that explains me and most of the people I know, and am very comfortable with that.
The Liberals support the decline narrative only when they can position more government as the solution, for example all of the initiatives to redistribute wealth to allegedly address the problem of income inequality.
Decline? Likely. From a purely Govt perspective the issue is having qualified people in Cabinet. This is not really the case now — with some exceptions. The same is true of the senior civil service members who have been jollied along through their careers by not making waves and not (really) informing their political masters what is right or wrong with the economy or the society. Again there are exceptions to this. This is key as Govt in most of these trials facing us must take the lead — as business simply will not rise to the occasion for all sorts of reasons. My faith in Govt (at all levels) to make the necessary changes without destroying the economy or society is not as strong as it used to be. However, I am also not a believer in conspiracies by govts. In most cases, what appears to be a conspiracy from either the left or right of the spectrum’s critical crowds, is usually just incompetence, sometimes of eye-watering proportions.
I don’t believe Poilievre is irresponsible in courting public fear, I think it is a reality for many. I do however wish for solutions to said fears and he offers none. Yes, the other parties should acknowledge the fears and be willing to have a discussion, as I said, real or not many citizens are very afraid of what the future will bring.
Personally the day I remember Reagan speaking of trickle down economics was when I knew the economy was no longer going to be for the benefit of the working class. His actions on air traffic controllers enabled the crushing of union movements though out the western world. It became a paradise for the investor class as most governments followed his lead in cutting taxes and cutting the social safety net.
I guess that means I do believe that society is in decline but I don’t think it’s a recent phenomenon, it’s been happening slowly for the past 40 years. I do have regrets that my generation opted for greed rather than the general betterment of society but that’s history now.
'Personally the day I remember Reagan speaking of trickle down economics was when I knew the economy was no longer going to be for the benefit of the working class'.
Everyone was reading that peculiar Ayn Rand, remember? They were quoting from a person who was clueless and using a character from a movie as a model. The answer to LIFE was to be as totally selfish and manipulative as possible. We are living with the consequences of that nonsense. It wasn't just 80s fashion that was ugly.
When Barbara Ehrenreich died the other day, all were praising her best-read book, "Nickel and Dimed; On (Not) Getting By in America" where she took several bottom-rung jobs to report on how much fun those lives were.
But I liked "The Worst Years of Our Lives", about the Reagan years, which were "worst" because she saw her hopes of progress turn into a realization it would be a very long, slow change indeed.
Didn't someone once say that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?
Reagan, Thatcher, and to a lesser extent Klein and Harris, were exactly the doses of reality that jolted complacent societies into the next level of innovation. Heavy industry was dying in the 1970's no matter what government action could have been taken. Acknowledging the inevitable and moving onto a more service oriented economy was the only path forward.
Cost of living is what crushed the working class. Perhaps if government had done less to protect the professional class from competition, and not inflated assets prices by borrowing so much money, a working class income might have remained viable.
The air traffic controllers got exactly what they deserved. Collusion to limit competition and prop up prices is illegal and generally viewed as undesirable, except for when conducted by labor unions. A groups of workers ability to cause economic disruption by withholding their services is not a measure of their value.
Cost of living or the lack of increased wages while corporate profits soared and workers were left behind?
If you are not in favour of unions in general I can accept that. Labour unions by design are meant to lookout for their members best interests. If this affects the economic well being of an employer can it not also be considered that the demands of that employer are possibly unreasonable? Whether or not you agree with the union stance, they had the right to strike. It was taken away and the union broken. Thatcher did much the same in the UK. Many workers suffered as a result. Heavy industry was in decline and I do not believe these attacks on organized labour changed a thing in that regard.
In Ontario we are still paying for Harris's cuts to health and education and the lease of the 407 to this day. Klein literally bought votes with cheques and destroyed a Heritage Fund in the process. Nice long term thinking from them both.
These political stances had as much to do with the decline in real wage gains for the working class as anything in the last 40 years. They literally stopped the power of unions to make real gains in working conditions going forward, corporations knew they would be favoured by governments in the event of a strike and bargained accordingly. They put the economy ahead of the interests of the citizenry and the environment and it has been that way since.
Private sector unions, at least those not working for monopolies like utility companies, are at least constrained by the finances of their employers. If they over-reach, they risk damaging their employers' and consequently their own well being (ex. the American automakers in the 70's). Public sector unions are completely different as they can make ridiculous demands against employers with infinite capacity to raise revenue, which is an unfair bargaining position.
Klein did no such thing to the Heritage Fund. Lougheed began the plunder by, for example, by classifying public infrastructure as Heritage Fund assets, even though such assets are hardly liquid. Klein paid down debt, which achieved the same goal as saving. Endowments can actually become a liability as they are easy targets for other governments and public sector unions. Alberta is a great example as it quickly spent through its Sustainably Fund after the 2008 natural gas price crash. It is very difficult to say no when money is in the bank. Paying down debt takes that money off the table.
Despite the mythology, Ralphbucks were a one time event and King Ralph never ran for re-election after that one time event. At that point in time, Alberta had nothing else on which to spend. It had by far the highest infrastructure, health and education spending in the country, if not the world. It was also in an inflationary spiral. More public spending would have further fueled inflation. I was against the move at the time, but in retrospect, it turned out to be preferable to adding more to the Sustainability or Heritage Funds as they would have only become more attractive targets for public sector unions and the Feds. Maybe the money should have been used to pay down municipal debt, which Lougheed did in the 70's. Of course that would have come with the caveat that municipalities could re-allocate the interest savings, but not pile on the debt again.
Isn't it wonderful when hindsight agrees with your take on things.
It's such a shame that unions are so ignorant and/or unfair.
Won’t argue about the facts on Alberta finances, I was going on memory about Klein. I had forgotten about Loughheed, but remembered the heritage fund being trashed. I am not sure the fund would have been targeted by government or unions if structured correctly or if debt reduction was the proper alternative, that’s a question for historical economists from both sides of the political spectrum to answer.
I am however sure that the huge spending in Alberta was a result of it also being the wealthiest province per capita in the country. Like you said, hard to say no with money in the bank and no one ever seems to save for that rainy day.
Unions of the 1970’s and 80’s got too big for their britches and the resultant flagging support from the general public gave politicians a window to crack down. It might seem far fetched to believe, but for years it seemed that Postal Workers were either bringing the economy to its knees through strike action or thinking about it. And railroaders and longshoreman and, and and. Over the long haul we don’t need to fret because many of these unionists have long retired with good pension benefits.
I remember. The politicians cracked down and labour was hurt. Corporations and investors did fine. Workers today are now just wishing they could have some of those long fought for benefits that have been lost. Many contracts went backwards in those past few decades. We may now be seeing the start of a resurgence in union activity. I certainly hope so for the betterment of the workforce in general.
I'm guessing that at some point in your life you had a job or two. Many or the "perks" you enjoyed and took as a right were the result of many decades of union negations or strikes for the benefit of workers everywhere.
40 hour work week or less.
Paid sick leave.
Paid holidays.
Paid vacations.
Breaks, coffee and lunch.
Medical leave.
Maternity leave.
Weekends.
Better pay.
Safer working conditions.
Health care.
Retirement benefits.
Workers compensation.
They bargin for better education and patient care.
Overtime.
Equality.
Dignity for working people.
Thanks Lou, I admire your persistence and your viewpoint. Old dog, been active as a unionist for a long time and people forget the good that was and is being done by the movement, critics persist.
Once upon a time, I was shop steward. TY
I'm not sure I buy the notion of a society in decline, but we're certainly seeing the effects of an *aging* society and a relative decline in wealth and power vs. other societies. Baby Boomers have dominated politics since at least the early '90s at this point, and continue to do so as a disproportionately large demographic. Like any cohort, they've become more conservative in their disposition as they age. That isn't to say that they've drifted to right, simply that they've become more resistant to change. I think that's a big source of the governmental paralysis we've seen, as their preferences conflict with younger cohorts. It ends up sapping the confidence of our society when people don't want to change things, and then start reacting in fear of losing what they've got.
The relative sense of decline comes from the fact that we're seeing diminishing absolute gains from our progress. A recent book called "Superabundance" illustrates why this is the case. They look at the cost of goods and services in terms of time/labor. Currencies don't really capture changes in wealth over time as well as looking at how long an average person had to work to buy something. In the 1960s, an Indian laborer would work about 10 hours to earn enough money to pay for their daily meal. In contrast, an American laborer of the '60s would work about an hour. Today, that Indian laborer only has to work an hour to earn enough to buy their meal. For an American laborer, it's down to about 10 minutes. Think about the absolute difference, though - the Indian laborer has *9 hours* more per day than 50 years ago. The American worker has gained less than an hour. The amount of progress seems exhilarating to the Indian, and unimpressive to the American. They're about the same relative gain in terms of wealth, though.
To answer your question Matt, I agree, only history and historians will determine if today, Canada is in, as you describe, a decline.
Being in my mid 70’s (and being one of the lucky ones - as Jen previously and so accurately described us baby-boomers), I have only my own life experiences from which to offer my opinion.
As one of the lucky ones, I was able to purchase my first home – a brand new 1200 sq.ft. bungalow – in 1974 for $27,500. My income at the time was $15,700 – that was annual, not monthly. So, I was able to buy my house at a cost of roughly twice my income. Today, when I look around at the new housing market where I live (BC) any new construction is well north of $500K. Incomes have not kept pace with housing costs. Most, if not all young people today simply can’t get into the housing market, but they may have a chance if the Bank of Mom & Dad is available. Has our society declined on the basis of the lack of availability of an affordable family home?
Which brings me to homelessness. How many towns and cities across this country suffer a relatively new experience – the tent city. Community parks taken over by the homeless. I suspect many have seen on TV the tragedy that is Hastings Street in Vancouver. Has our society declined on the basis of it being unable to take care of those who are unable to care for themselves?
The profligacy of societal violence today was unknown to me as a youngster growing up and even well into my adulthood. The mass shooting in Nova Scotia, the mass stabbing in Saskatchewan, the gang violence, the random assaults on the street, all reflect a society that I could never have predicted as a younger man. Has our society declined on the basis of safety in the streets?
Much, but by no means all, of this violence and criminal behaviour is caused by repeat offenders. What kind of a justice systems allows a violent offender with 20, 30, 40 or more than 50 criminal offences on his docket to be allowed to walk amongst us? I was raised with the belief that everybody makes mistakes and everybody deserves a second chance. As that saying goes, “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. Rehabilitation ends with the repeat offender – who is deserving only of punishment. Has our society declined in terms of our judicial system’s inability/unwillingness to keep criminals off our streets?
Many of these criminals are very active in the distribution of illegal drugs. In BC, we have a “medical” crisis due to drug overdose. This one I simply don’t understand – why would any right-thinking person take a drug that might very well kill them? Addiction is a powerful affliction, but never having been addicted, what do I know? Has our society declined in terms of its acceptance of death due to drug abuse? And its inability to combat it? Educating people on drug abuse should help but doesn’t seem to be of much help thus far.
Speaking of education, my, how times have changed from my day. From time to time, I take a peek at my grandchildren’s Report Cards. Oops, my bad, no more Report Cards – today students receive evaluations. “Learning is a continuum”, no more grades – neither alphabetical nor percentage – now the student is Emerging or Developing or Proficient or Extending. Huh? Against what standard? Cursive writing is no longer taught but gender diversity is. Apparently the old “reading, writing and arithmetic” has taken a back burner to Critical Race Theory. I am too far removed from today’s education of our young people to know what is really going on, but when I read about young people entering university and not being able to construct a grammatically correct sentence, let alone a thoughtful essay – I have to say that I’m not surprised. Has our society declined in terms of its failure to provide a fundamental and foundational education for our young people? The optics from where I sit don’t look good.
As to the state of universities, the optics from my perspective are not very encouraging there either. Universities are a place of higher learning, and a place where debate and exchange of ideas should flow freely. Today, this environment appears to have been infested with politically correct, cancel culture, anti-white privilege, virtue-signalling activists whose reaction to free and open debate is public shaming and demands for removal and/or termination. Professors Jordan Peterson and Frances Widdowson are just two well-known victims of the toxic environment that prevails in most universities today. Has our society declined in terms of providing our young people a university environment free from harassment and free to express their own thoughts and beliefs?
I was just advised last week that for the first time in my lifetime, I will no longer have a family doctor. I have joined the many hundreds of thousands of Canadians who also cannot find a family doctor. The tens of billions of tax dollars cannot provide the basic health care that so many of us have taken for granted. Pretty hard not to conclude that this represents not only a decline in our health care but is just steps away from a complete failure.
There are so many more observations that I could make, for instance the profligate spending and debt by both government and individuals, but no point in beating a dead horse. It has been observed that over a period of two hundred years or so, all great empires rise and then eventually decline and/or end: the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, and more recently the British Empire. Canada is far from being an empire, but it is 155 years old; I suspect that it won’t be too much longer before historians will look back on our history and answer your question more definitively than you or I may deduce today, despite, or hopefully in spite of, what appears to me to be the case today.
Excellent comment.
I note that in your comment you mention your income at the time of purchasing your first home.
Which underlines the fact that it was not too long ago that one middle class income was all it took to get into a house in a nice neighborhood.
Today, even with two good incomes, you are going to have a hard time getting into a rabbit hutch in the sky located next to an expressway (great for air quality and quiet nights) with the nearest patch of greenery a tawdry little urban 'park' a half kilometer away (watch out for needle sticks!).
We truly had it all and thanks to our elites shrieking their mantra of 'growth, growth, and more growth' for decades and the failure of the authorities to stem a tsunami of dirty money from flowing into the country our housing prospects have gone completely down the drain.
This is not 'decline' this is collapse.
The term decline suggests a reduction in things we have relied upon and gotten used to. No doubt we are in the midst of changes that will benefit some and worry others. I would describe our current state as transitional, from where we were to where we want to be. Which suggests we need to think about where we want to be. And hoping for a return to the past, recent or long remembered, is an exercise in futility. Depending on a political party of whatever stripe to lead us in the right direction is faint hope. We as individuals, families and communities need to invest some time and effort in figuring out our options. Governments can help, but the bulk of the work is up to us.