Discussion about this post

Commenting has been turned off for this post
Tony F.'s avatar

This seems to be very much driven by social media. The controversy drives engagement, which tells the algorithm to serve the content up in more feeds, which drives the public discussion and fundraising.

I suspect, though, that this feedback loop will evolve. Remember when television advertising could drive huge behavioural change? We tend to get inoculated to stuff after a while. So time may soften the impact, but that doesn't help our current polarization.

We as citizens could start being more thoughtful in what we like and share on social media. Engagement drives views -- the content you engage with is more likely to gain a wider audience. Maybe we should all take that responsibility more seriously.

Moreover -- partisanship is a kind of tribalism that seems to measure success as getting all the policy goals *you* want done. That's not a great measure in a democracy where pursusion and compromise are built into the system. And where good ideas might come from anywhere. We're getting to a point where success is getting the policy goals YOU want enacted no matter what -- that 'your side' wins. That's not a reasonable goal ... Effective governance can't be about whether 'your' side wins.

As a close, I was just watching the latest Polievre video on the need for governments to use plain language. I am far from a PP fan, but it was a well-done, reasonable video that makes a pretty non-controversial point: that jargon makes it difficult for citizens to navigate government programs and hold governments accoutable. It was probably the most non-controversial thing I've seen him put out yet it's still getting negativity on Twitter. If we can't agree on things as basic as this, it's going to be hard to find constructive policy compromises on things that are legitimately challenging!

Expand full comment
Mark Ch's avatar

Let's remember that 10% (and increasing, thanks Western U and U of T) or more of the population are still:

- excluded from many post secondary schools and residences

- excluded from many jobs, recreational programs, summer camps and private schools

- subject to 2 week house arrest every time they travel outside of Canada

all because they did not take a medical treatment which, whether at the time it was useful or not, is now universally agreed to be useless. Does anyone at all think that a person who took two vaccine doses in Spring 2021 is materially less likely now to contract or transmit Covid than a person who chose not to? Of course not.

And yet most of the political and media class (including, as far as we can tell from their writing, Matt and Jen) either continues to support this discrimination or simply doesn't care enough to even say "this is wrong".

Of course many people are angry. They ought to be. Everyone ought to be.

Expand full comment
52 more comments...

No posts