[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Reagan has a lot to answer for, but Trumpism isn't really one of those things.

Not sure I agree. He sure did a bit to help Pat Buchanan along who you name dropped as a precursor.

Reagan got the support of the 'America First' movement and the proto-Trumpians.

But, I guess, to be fair Nixon had also done quite a bit of that.

Hmm, thanks, I did not know that there was a link between Buchanan and Reagan, other than the fact he was a relatively low level functionary during those years.  How did Reagan help him out when he became candidate Buchanan?

[Valmy]

Hmm, thanks, I did not know that there was a link between Buchanan and Reagan, other than the fact he was a relatively low level functionary during those years.  How did Reagan help him out when he became candidate Buchanan?

Low level? He was White House Communications Director.  That is a very senior position.

Buchanan got his legitimacy, and all those important jobs on Cable TV news, because of this. For decades he got to spout his views to millions of Americans on national TV.

[crazy canuck]

Hmm, thanks, I did not know that there was a link between Buchanan and Reagan, other than the fact he was a relatively low level functionary during those years.  How did Reagan help him out when he became candidate Buchanan?

Low level? He was White House Communications Director.  That is a very senior position.

Buchanan got his legitimacy, and all those important jobs on Cable TV news, because of this. For decades he got to spout his views to millions of Americans on national TV.

Ok, I concede the point.  But I still think communications being important is the tail wagging the dog.

[Valmy]

Ok, I concede the point.  But I still think communications being important is the tail wagging the dog.

Right well my point wasn't that Nixon and Reagan were out there trying to create a Trump regime, but rather they attempted to utilize and co-opt those forces. It backfired...well for us, not for them.

[Jacob]

My only assertion here is that Poilievre should be judged on his own merits (or lack thereof), and not based on whether he "sounds like Trump".

It is fair to judge Poilievre on his own merits. However, IMO "sounding like Trump" is one of those merits. It's a bit of a shorthand for the overall risk of whether  Poilievre is inclined to inflict Trumpist style damage on Canada. And that, in the end, is very important and therefore one of Poilievre's salient qualities.

To speak directly to his merits, some of my concerns are:

Poilievre showed up quite weakly on the tariff debacle. He didn't say much to begin with, his initial instinct being to pivot the conversation to "it's Trudeau's fault". I still don't have a clear sense of what he think the right response is here, and what his posture is going to be moving forward.

He was fairly supportive of the convoy which had an explicit objective among its leadership to overthrow the Canadian government. At the time the argument for not caring about that is that it was fundamentally goofy and unserious, but I think events in the US show that we can't just handwave that stuff away.

A third concern - where I expect you'll disagree - is that in these times of oligarch owned social media being used to undermine democracy (and oligarch ownership of most private traditional media), I think journalistic institutions like the CBC is integral to protecting democracy. And the desire to go all DOGE on the CBC seems to be one of Poilievre's more clearly articulated priorities.

[crazy canuck]

Ok, I concede the point.  But I still think communications being important is the tail wagging the dog.

Right well my point wasn't that Nixon and Reagan were out there trying to create a Trump regime, but rather they attempted to utilize and co-opt those forces. It backfired...well for us, not for them.

Ok, that I agree with.  The Republicans should have known they were playing with fire.  But now I think we are saying the same thing.  Trumpism did not evolve from the Reagan revolution.  It's antecedents predate Reagan by decades.

[Barrister]

It is fair to judge Poilievre on his own merits. However, IMO "sounding like Trump" is one of those merits. It's a bit of a shorthand for the overall risk of whether  Poilievre is inclined to inflict Trumpist style damage on Canada. And that, in the end, is very important and therefore one of Poilievre's salient qualities.

But what does "sound like Trump" mean?  For that matter, what is "Trumpist style damage"?

CC seems to denigrate Poilievre for using short phrases like "Axe the Tax".  On the one hand, yes, Trump does like to use simple phrases.  But is that a sign that Poilievre is going to stage a Jan 6-style coup on Canada, or that he is merely an effective communicator?

What I have liked about Poilievre for awhile is exactly his use of repetition and short phrases when questioning witnesses before Parliamentary committees (or in responding to reporters).  I think he's very effective in doing so.  But it also bares only the most superficial similarity to Trump.

Poilievre showed up quite weakly on the tariff debacle. He didn't say much to begin with, his initial instinct being to pivot the conversation to "it's Trudeau's fault". I still don't have a clear sense of what he think the right response is here, and what his posture is going to be moving forward.

Here I think you're being too harsh.  Nobody really knows what the right response is - Trudeau included.  I don't think Trudeau's proposed replacements in Carney or Freeland really had much to say either.

"It's Trudeau's fault" is kind of true as far as it goes (pipelines!) - but of course isn't really an answer about what to do now, in 2025.

He was fairly supportive of the convoy which had an explicit objective among its leadership to overthrow the Canadian government. At the time the argument for not caring about that is that it was fundamentally goofy and unserious, but I think events in the US show that we can't just handwave that stuff away.

I was not a fan of the convoys, but they were not particularly organized, and I think it's incorrect to say it had 'an explicit objective... to overthrow the Canadian government'.  Some of the leaders made individual comments about Trudeau turning power over to them in some fashion.

What made events in the US very very serious is that they were done at the behest of the then-outgoing President.  Poilievre spoke favourably about the convoy protests (I mean - they both didn't like Trudeau so of course he will) but Poilievre never voiced support for illegal activities.

A third concern - where I expect you'll disagree - is that in these times of oligarch owned social media being used to undermine democracy (and oligarch ownership of most private traditional media), I think journalistic institutions like the CBC is integral to protecting democracy. And the desire to go all DOGE on the CBC seems to be one of Poilievre's more clearly articulated priorities.

Yeah I disagree.  Where to begin.

"to go all DOGE" - the problem with what Musk is doing is the seeming illegality of it.  To take USAID as one example - there's nothing wrong with congress passing legislation to de-fund USAID.  Problem is that's not what DOGE is doing.  They're just announcing USAID won't get any money, despite it being previously authorized by Congress.

"Oligarch owned media".  Not sure when you're thinking of, because Media has long been controlled by large corporations.  In Canada we have Bell and Rogers - are you calling Edward Rogers an oligarch?

As for CBC - look I post a lot of links to CBC because I do appreciate it's ad and subscription free.  But it has a very obvious bias and has had for a very very long time.  It's also not clear to me that in an era when private news sources are struggling why we should have a publicly-funded competitor to them.

I could go on but my kid has hockey tonight...

[crazy canuck]

CC seems to denigrate Poilievre for using short phrases like "Axe the Tax". 

I merely pointed out that has been the only concrete policy point he has made, and it is now not an issue since everyone is on board with axing the tax. He is now left with no substantive policies. So what they are we to judge him on other than his rhetoric?

Poilievre never voiced support for illegal activities.

He had to backtrack on his initial full throated support.

[Jacob]

But what does "sound like Trump" mean?

Like I said, I think that it's a proxy for the fear the Poilievre will take Canada in a Trumpist direction.

For that matter, what is "Trumpist style damage"?

Look at Trump's actions - and the damage he and his various associates has been inflicting on the US political system, rule of law, government, international reputation, and simple decency.

Like for real? You don't know what "Trumpist style damage" might be?

CC seems to denigrate Poilievre for using short phrases like "Axe the Tax".  On the one hand, yes, Trump does like to use simple phrases.  But is that a sign that Poilievre is going to stage a Jan 6-style coup on Canada, or that he is merely an effective communicator?

I'm not going to take up CC's side in an argument with you.

I will say that I'm much more comfortable with Poilievre than with Trump. He is, as you say, unlikely to pull a Jan 6 style coup. I'll just disagree with him a lot, which is fine. Such is democracy.

But I do think there's a too high chance that he'll enact policies that pulls us in that direction and make the breakdown of democracy - and of peace, order, and good government - more likely over time. He's no Trump, I expect you're right (though not with 100% confidence), but he seems too much like the GOP 5-10 years prior, who paved the way for Trump.

What I have liked about Poilievre for awhile is exactly his use of repetition and short phrases when questioning witnesses before Parliamentary committees (or in responding to reporters).  I think he's very effective in doing so.  But it also bares only the most superficial similarity to Trump.

Like Trump, Poilievre has been endorsed by Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk.

There's also the whole International Democracy Union - chaired by Harper who apparently wants closer ties between Orban's government and the Canadian Conservatives.

I don't know about you, but I think Orban's model is an outright danger to democracy and the rule of law, and anyone shaking hands with it is suspect.

It'd just be nice if he could solidly distance himself from the anti-democratic elements of the global right.

Here I think you're being too harsh.  Nobody really knows what the right response is - Trudeau included.  I don't think Trudeau's proposed replacements in Carney or Freeland really had much to say either.

Carney spoke eloquently and in a timely on the matter. Freeland was fully aligned on the Liberal response and spoke well. Trudeau's response was - at least from what I've seen - widely lauded. Eby and Ford were both aligned and taking independent action and making statements in line with what we saw from the Feds, as were many others.

They knew what to do.

Poilievre started by by blaming Trudeau. Then he called for tax cuts. Two days ago he suggested deploying the military to the border. He fumbled and appeared weak and directionless.

If he'd gone "the Liberals suck and continue to suck, but in this moment we're all Canadian and stand together" he would have appeared like a leader who put country over partisan politics. He would've dispelled many of the fears of swing voters, and he'd have plenty of time to stick the knife in afterwards.

"It's Trudeau's fault" is kind of true as far as it goes (pipelines!) - but of course isn't really an answer about what to do now, in 2025.

I think the shine has gone off the "everything is Trudeau's fault" thing, though. I mean, not for the hard core conservatives and true believers, but for many of the people who are potential swing voters.

It'll be interesting to see if Poilievre's Conservatives double down on anti-Trudeau-loathing between now and the election, and whether there's sufficient anti-Liberal animus for it to work out; or whether they try to pivot to a different message.

I was not a fan of the convoys, but they were not particularly organized, and I think it's incorrect to say it had 'an explicit objective... to overthrow the Canadian government'.  Some of the leaders made individual comments about Trudeau turning power over to them in some fashion.

Yeah, and I think "making comments about Trudeau turning power over to them" is fairly explicit, and the objective is to take power from our democratically elected government. That's not to say that everyone who participated in that convoy had that in mind, but some of the leaders an organizers did.

What made events in the US very very serious is that they were done at the behest of the then-outgoing President.  Poilievre spoke favourably about the convoy protests (I mean - they both didn't like Trudeau so of course he will) but Poilievre never voiced support for illegal activities.

I think it's also very serious to have masses besieging parliament, where some of the leaders have stated they want - as you said - for our prime minister to hand over power to them.

As for CBC - look I post a lot of links to CBC because I do appreciate it's ad and subscription free.  But it has a very obvious bias and has had for a very very long time.  It's also not clear to me that in an era when private news sources are struggling why we should have a publicly-funded competitor to them.

The CBC is a whole lot more than news.

And publicly funded media is important because - unlike profit driven media owned by capital - it has a mandate to support democracy.

I could go on but my kid has hockey tonight...

Have fun

[Jacob]

Speaking of the political response, did you guys see the clip of Charlie Angus on CNN while awaiting the outcome of the Trudeau-Trump conversation?

I think it embodied the general Canadian attitude fairly well.

[Barrister]

I will say that I'm much more comfortable with Poilievre than with Trump. He is, as you say, unlikely to pull a Jan 6 style coup. I'll just disagree with him a lot, which is fine. Such is democracy.

But I do think there's a too high chance that he'll enact policies that pulls us in that direction and make the breakdown of democracy - and of peace, order, and good government - more likely over time. He's no Trump, I expect you're right (though not with 100% confidence), but he seems too much like the GOP 5-10 years prior, who paved the way for Trump.

I am in no way trying to convince you that you need to like Poilievre.  As you say, respectful disagreement is part of democracy.

But I am going to channel the Leader of the Opposition here.  What do you think he's going to do that will channel "peace, order and good government"?  What policies?  Be specific.

Because the thing with Trump is you didn't need to use your imagination - he told us what he would do.

Like Trump, Poilievre has been endorsed by Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk.

Is google down?  I'm accessing the internet but Google isn't working for some reason.

Which is me saying I don't remember Musk endorsing Poilievre.  Now Musk is a Canadian citizen and there's nothing wrong with him doing so.  And Musk did endorse the fucking AfD in Germany, so he's certainly not being shy.

But much like above - I hate this kind of attack by association.  Even if I assume Musk endorsed Poilievre - so what?  Judge Poilievre by his own words and actions.  I've stolen this line from Preston Manning before "a bright light attracts a few moths" (and he probably stole it from someone else).

I wouldn't judge Singh, or Trudeau, by what their craziest, stupidest, followers would say.  Even if they're famous.  Something, something, nutpicking, something.

There's also the whole International Democracy Union - chaired by Harper who apparently wants closer ties between Orban's government and the Canadian Conservatives.

I don't know about you, but I think Orban's model is an outright danger to democracy and the rule of law, and anyone shaking hands with it is suspect.

It'd just be nice if he could solidly distance himself from the anti-democratic elements of the global right.

So this is becoming a theme here.  Guilt by association.  Poilievre -> Harper -> Orban.

I feel like the IDU has become like the Rothschilds for the left - that it's some kind of shadowy organization controlling things behind the scenes.  When, as far as I can tell, it's just a right-wing social club and gives Harper something to do in retirement.

The IDU has some 60+ members.  Some are, eh, more respectable than others.

But - so what?

Here I think you're being too harsh.  Nobody really knows what the right response is - Trudeau included.  I don't think Trudeau's proposed replacements in Carney or Freeland really had much to say either.

Carney spoke eloquently and in a timely on the matter. Freeland was fully aligned on the Liberal response and spoke well. Trudeau's response was - at least from what I've seen - widely lauded. Eby and Ford were both aligned and taking independent action and making statements in line with what we saw from the Feds, as were many others.

They knew what to do.

Poilievre started by by blaming Trudeau. Then he called for tax cuts. Two days ago he suggested deploying the military to the border. He fumbled and appeared weak and directionless.

If he'd gone "the Liberals suck and continue to suck, but in this moment we're all Canadian and stand together" he would have appeared like a leader who put country over partisan politics. He would've dispelled many of the fears of swing voters, and he'd have plenty of time to stick the knife in afterwards.

So at least we're back to stuff Poilievre has actually done.

I do think he's in a tough spot.  Poilievre is not just the leader of the opposition - he has said repeatedly that he has no confidence in the government and it must be defeated right away.  Trudeau took the unusual (but admittedly legal) step of proroguing Parliament for two months.  I could be wrong but I don't think Trudeau has reached out to Poilievre to try and present some kind of "united front" either - there's no national unity government in the offing.

If you don't think Poilievre's actions have been good then that's your call, of course.

"It's Trudeau's fault" is kind of true as far as it goes (pipelines!) - but of course isn't really an answer about what to do now, in 2025.

I think the shine has gone off the "everything is Trudeau's fault" thing, though. I mean, not for the hard core conservatives and true believers, but for many of the people who are potential swing voters.

It'll be interesting to see if Poilievre's Conservatives double down on anti-Trudeau-loathing between now and the election, and whether there's sufficient anti-Liberal animus for it to work out; or whether they try to pivot to a different message.

Again - we will see.

Trudeau is still deeply unpopular.  The question in the upcoming election is whether the new Liberal leader (probably Carney) will be able to distance himself enough to make the election about something other than the Trudeau/Liberal legacy.  Clearly the Liberals want the election to be about anything other than that.

I was not a fan of the convoys, but they were not particularly organized, and I think it's incorrect to say it had 'an explicit objective... to overthrow the Canadian government'.  Some of the leaders made individual comments about Trudeau turning power over to them in some fashion.

Yeah, and I think "making comments about Trudeau turning power over to them" is fairly explicit, and the objective is to take power from our democratically elected government. That's not to say that everyone who participated in that convoy had that in mind, but some of the leaders an organizers did.

What made events in the US very very serious is that they were done at the behest of the then-outgoing President.  Poilievre spoke favourably about the convoy protests (I mean - they both didn't like Trudeau so of course he will) but Poilievre never voiced support for illegal activities.

I think it's also very serious to have masses besieging parliament, where some of the leaders have stated they want - as you said - for our prime minister to hand over power to them.

I think "besieging Parliament" is wildly overblown rhetoric.

(aside - something is up with Google at least on my network.  I'm here using Bing like a God-Damn savage.)

Protestors set up camps on Parliament Hill for about a month (plus other protests around the country).  They weren't exactly polite or following the rules (I remember in particular the non-stop honking), and needed to be cleared out, but it was hardly an armed insurrection.

As I mentioned, a few of the leaders (as much as they had leaders) did talk about having a new government - but they never actually said how that would happen, nor did they do anything about it.

As for CBC - look I post a lot of links to CBC because I do appreciate it's ad and subscription free.  But it has a very obvious bias and has had for a very very long time.  It's also not clear to me that in an era when private news sources are struggling why we should have a publicly-funded competitor to them.

The CBC is a whole lot more than news.

And publicly funded media is important because - unlike profit driven media owned by capital - it has a mandate to support democracy.

Sure, CBC does more than news.  But news is probably it's strongest argument for existence.  It's surely stronger than showing (checks schedule for what's on right now) Crime Scene Kitchen, which is "a culinary guessing game in which bakers are tasked with decoding what type of dessert was made, when all that's left are a few elusive clues."  (nothing against shows like that - just why does it need to be subsidized)

You throw out phrases like "profit driven media owned by capital" just expecting people to accept that's a valid critique - but is it?  Almost all media around the western world can be described that way.  Are you saying that NBC News or ITV or any of the numerous newspapers around the world are suspect because they're privately owned?

and "Mandate to support democracy" - what does that mean?  What should that look like in practice?

In particular, given your concerns about Poilievre, which you say

too high chance that he'll enact policies that pulls us in that direction and make the breakdown of democracy

Does that mean the CBC should then focus its coverage to try to ensure Poilievre's defeat?

Or even if you don't personally think so, can you see the concern that maybe some within the CBC would think so?

I could go on but my kid has hockey tonight...

Have fun

Exciting U15AA results my kid's team won and he walked away with a couple of assists.

[Barrister]

Oh and by the way - Hungary / Fidesz is not a member of the IDU.  For what it is worth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democracy_Union


Edit:  I kind-of don't know why I bothered even typing all that above.  It's not going to change Jacob's mind in the slightest, nor anyone else.  I think I just owed him a response is all.

[Grey Fox]

It's still good to have some conversations. The Americans don't post as much nowadays.

[Jacob]

Oh and by the way - Hungary / Fidesz is not a member of the IDU.  For what it is worth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democracy_Union

I guess they left or got excluded at some point?

Edit:  I kind-of don't know why I bothered even typing all that above.  It's not going to change Jacob's mind in the slightest, nor anyone else.  I think I just owed him a response is all.

We may occasionally correct each other on errors of fact (like you did above ) and - on good days - pull closer to consensus on some areas.

I appreciate you taking the time to write it all up, even if we're unlikely to change each others minds.

[crazy canuck]

It's still good to have some conversations. The Americans don't post as much nowadays.

Can you blame them. Everything they say can and will be used against them under the current regime.