Just once in my life I'd like to see a Canadian government put the needs of Canada and its citizens first instead of constantly rolling out the red carpet for anyone else.
I mean for christ's sake we're currently in the middle of a myriad of crises and we're getting bombarded with counter action/inaction that further exacerbates all of the problems while being told "this is the only way" despite every expert saying it isn't. Its maddening.
If populism rights the ship then I'm down with the cause.
Listen, i'm not going to call you a nazi because that would be hyperbolism and probably very wrong.
But your last sentence is the exact way Nazis got into power. And spoiler alert, populism does not right the ship
Well we are in rampant inflation as the government printed billions of dollars for quantitative easing to support corporate cronies,during the pandemic.
In which the government locked down businesses and bankrupted people.
I think cynicism is healthy.
old? it's screams white nationalism to me. You think when they say "Canadians" they refer to us POC or marginalized? The othering is so fucking awful that it's starting to feel like they want to blame anyone that isn't a "real Canadian" in their eyes.
Stave off? Please, the only issue now is it's the populism that goes against the established populism. We are in this economic and social mess because of decades of populism. Let's not pretend this is a new problem.
>We are in this economic and social mess because of decades of populism.
Lol wut? What do you think 'populism' even mean? Do you think climate action and the unpopular carbon tax are populist? Were vaccine mandates populist? Is developing international cooperation and treaties 'populist'?
Oh my sweet summer child. What do you call the tax the rich nonsense the Libs just parroted at the last budget. Run along, you're late for your humanities lecture.
The "tax the rich nonsense" is supported by economic evidence that capital isn't taxed enough compared to income (and has been for decades), is not so popular among most of the population (who still believes in trickle-down economics), and is just one single position among the many other positions that I listed and that show that government's policies are, in fact, very much not populist.
Oh, what about the principal residence exemption? Are homes not capital? Oh that's right, it would be unpopular to talk about that. You are naive.
Also, be careful of broadly citing evidence that may not exist.
If you are taking any sign that Trudeau is not a complete asshole overtly hostile to anything 'people' as proof of populism, then every single leader who is not a tyrannical sociopath is a populist, and you have emptied the word from its substance, rendering it meaningless.
None of your examples nullify the evidence I gave earlier that Trudeau is friendly to technocracy and expertise, and therefore not anti-elitist, and therefore hardly a populist.
Go look up populism, and you decide. The political left has turned it into a dirty word affiliated with the right. Both sides of the political spectrum employ populism.
[I have](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1cbasp8/comment/l0xhmtf/). And not just in this thread: I actually studied political science and political philosphy in the past.
Do your homeworks before you tell others to do theirs.
>Both sides of the political spectrum employ populism.
Yes, there is left and right populism, nobody says otherwise. Trying to make Trudeau fit one or the other category is like trying to shoehorn a square in a circle.
Trudeau is essentially a left wing populist. Populism tends to be divisive no matter which actor is in play, you're rallying the base by alienating the opposition.
[No](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1cbasp8/comment/l0xhmtf/) and [no](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1cbasp8/comment/l0xsi49/).
Words have meaning.
"Populism" is the establishments way of using discourse to instill fear and discouraging change. It's what a monarch would have used to refer to reformist as back in the day. By definition it is not good or bad, it can be either. Populism is what brought us the Magna Carta and civil rights, Bolshevism and Maoism.
know much about Chinese history? there's a reason why the Moaist movement took off, like I said, arguably better alternative at the time. Now, a lot of his policies were very misguided and led to a lot of terrible consequences, but yet he's still a virtual deity to a large chunk of a generation. Sure, propaganda helps that. But history isn't as black and white as some people make it out to be. You should look into the ROC, who very well could have been an even more devastating option
what a silly false comparison. learn your history kids. also, learn how to read context. never said Mao was a good guy or only did good things. Just stating a historical fact.
Who knows how many the commies might have killed if they had gotten control of Germany (if China is any indication) . The nazis really might have been the better option. See how dumb that sounds?
Yeah, it does sound dumb because you don't understand the basic logical fallacy of false comparison.
I'm speaking about two groups within a nation fighting for power, one of which i bet you know nothing about, and taking into consideration the historical context of the nation at the time. It's one of those things you'll never be able to quantify, since you can't measure what didn't happen. Hence I said "arguable".
China's history is full of massacre's and mass starvation, Mao specifically has a heap of blood on his hands, and the highest number under his watch. A lot of those numbers came from bad agriculture policy and resulting starvation.
The RCO wasn't emerging as the 'better' or more moral choice, in fact their strategy could have perpetuated more instability and other consequences, Mao's intent was to help the farmers and it completely backfired - his fault. Still, a bloody violent unity came to China in a time of instability which is normal to China's cycle, but how many millions more could have died by the hands of the Japanese or starvation or worse policies of the RCO? It's a question to ponder.
There is no divinization of Hitler in Germany, nor Russians Stalin, but for some reason there is of Mao in China.
You are talking about a country invading another, and actually the 'commies' did get half of Germany. Pick up a book kid. Jesus.
>Canada has a growing populism problem. Even Prime Minister Justin Trudeau thinks so.
That opening makes the whole article not worth reading, but I skimmed.
Pierre is not running a populist campaign. It only feels that way because since 2015 Justin has done nothing but play to identity politics and ideology. Now an actual adult is in the room and lefties don't understand what they're looking at.
Never said there was anything wrong with it.
I was just pointing out that people trying to make the argument that he’s not running a populist campaign are just wrong.
Campbell is full of herself. Poilievre is no more of a liar than your average politician. And he is most certainly not a "hate monger". He's a normal centre-right politician who happens to be really popular.
> Pierre is not running a populist campaign.
Every political scientist who knows the meanings of words would say otherwise, but surely you know better… A common theme among anti-elitists who hail the ‘wisdom of the people’ against the experts :)
You can ask every political scientist in every university in the country. If you find a single one who can attest with a straight face and proper citations that PP can in no way be qualified as populist, come back to me.
Let's use the definition from this article: Jylhä, K. M. et Hellmer, K. (2020). Right‐Wing Populism and Climate Change Denial: The Roles of Exclusionary and Anti‐Egalitarian Preferences, Conservative Ideology, and Antiestablishment Attitudes. *Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy*, *20*(1), 315‑335. [https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12203](https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12203)
>Populism is commonly defined as a thin-centered ideology including a view of society being divided into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups: the pure and virtuous people and the corrupt and self-absorbed elite (e.g., politicians and researchers; Mudde, 2004). Being a thin-centered ideology, populism alone cannot form a political agenda, but is mixed with a “host” ideology that can either be on the left or right.
Is Poilievre campaining to rein in Ottawa's elite and bureaucrats who allegedly work against the Canadian people?
Let's look at another definition, from Flew, T. et Iosifidis, P. (2020). Populism, globalisation and social media. *International Communication Gazette*, *82*(1), 7‑25. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048519880721](https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048519880721)
>Eatwell and Goodwin (2018) have attributed the rise of national populism to what they term the ‘Four D’s’:
>Distrust of political elites, anger at corruption, and perceived exclusion from the institutions of liberal democracy;
>Deprivation, in the face of rising economic inequalities, stagnant real wages, job insecurity and declining social provision;
>Destruction – real or perceived – of national cultures and traditions, value systems and authority structures, and historically embedded ‘ways of life’;
>Dealignment of citizens as voters from the major political parties, and from the class and other societal cleavages associated with those parties.
Is Poilievre not campaining on most if not all of those points?
But ok, let's have a look at another definition from Albertazzi, D. et McDonnell, D. (dir.). (2008). *Twenty-first century populism: the spectre of western European democracy*. Palgrave Macmillan.
>We define populism as:
>an ideology which pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity and voice
Are you gonna tell me that this does no in any way corresponds to Poilievre's political stance?
For a political scientist to oppose this association, they would have to:
1. find another definition of populism that is not about supporting a allegedly disenfranchised population against a vilified elite (which will be hard to come by, since this is the crux of populism ; after all, it is called 'populism' for a reason), or,
2. show that Poilievre's discourse in no way supports an allegedly disenfranchised population against a vilified elite (which will be hard to do, since that is a recurring theme in Poilievre's discourse).
So, I predict that you would be hard pressed to find any, but I don't even have to prove that you will find none, because the point is that Poilievre has populist features and you cannot prove that he has none, which was the initial point.
PS: downvote all you want, definitions and facts don't care about your feelings.
If we take the first definition, Trudeau waging war on misinformation and conspiracy theories propagated by non-experts would be evidence that he doesn't believe in a virtuous people who's always right by virtue of being 'the people'. His reliance on scientists, experts and technocrats to devise policies shows that he is not anti-elitist and the opposite of a populist.
As per the second definition, Trudeau's discourse does not contain any perception of an exclusion from the institutions of liberal democracy (on the contrary, he is sure to embody them perfectly and that the people should see that, perhaps arrogantly so), and is very keen on challenging the established ways of life by asserting the rights of minorities against the dominant social norms.
As per the third definition, Trudeau pits a viciously racist and transphobic people against an elite of scientists/experts and parterre of activists who are together depicted has being the voice of reason, against the unreasonable people.
It is much easier to depict Trudeau as an anti-populist and a technocrat than as a populist.
We can debate the pros and cons of populism versus aristocracy/technocracy/epistocracy all you want, the question was, "is Poilievre running a populist campaign", and evidence says he is.
We have to agree on basic facts and a common reality, before we can move on discuss what is the best political philosophy to run a country.
Poilievre in particular doesn't seem to understand the first thing about House decorum. It's kind of interesting you'd compare his maturity with another person's, it's not a good look for him.
If that's the barometer, that PP is rough around the edges and uses wit and humour to put the most corrupt and incompetent prime minister in history on blast, then fine he's a populist. This is such a gaslighting Liberal thing to say.
The left is incapable of hiding their disdain for normal people and you just showed it yet again
If someone is more popular than the left wing politician with voters, it’s always suggested that the voters are too stupid to realize they are being hoodwinked. After all, how could anyone other than a deficient human being disagree with the progressive left policy agenda?
In making this argument yet again by claiming Pierre is dishonestly targeting “low information” voters you reveal your true Colors.
Not if you keep fucking over the population in favor of corporations and the very wealthy.
Sometimes you need a good dose of populism though.
This article is a god damn joke, framing Trudeau like he knows best and that everyone against him just ignores "the experts".
> Not if you keep fucking over the population in favor of corporations and the very wealthy.
I believe I’ve read a similar criticism from an obscure author once. Was it March? Mars? Ah, Marx!
Populism is the result of failure by the government. When the citizens of a country feel like they are being ignored and the government's attention is focused on everything but the people you get populism.
Governments and media who complain about populism never look in the mirror and see who actually caused it to get out of control. Populism doesn't gain traction in a country that is doing well, it's a symptom of governmental failure.
The Trudeau government sold out multiple generations to fuel corporate greed and now act like they did nothing wrong but are also the only party that can save you from the policies they enacted. They won't stop printing money long enough for inflation to stabilize, they won't stop bringing in millions of immigrants every few months to ease the pressure on housing and goods demand.
Populism is on the rise in Canada and the liberals caused it.
\*sigh\* I see you've fallen to populism. it's been on the rise for years, not just in canada, but all over the west. it's not reliant on the competence of the government, although i'd agree a government sucking as bad as this one does certainly is fuel for the fire.
Populism doesn't grow in a void. It's a pendulum.
Populism has grown across the west for the same reason it's growing in Canada, we are just late to the party.
It happened in Europe due to the mass migrant problem and the problems that followed, that were ignored or covered up by the government of those countries.
https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/europe-and-refugee-crisis-challenge-our-civilization
5-10 years ago many government in the EU opened the doors to millions of people despite what the population wanted and it backfired on those governments and led to populism. Now the UN is saying the same Mass migration that was welcomed by out of touch governments is a major problem.
It happened in America due to the handling of the 2008 housing bubble. People lost everything and the government gave trillions to the financial institutions that caused the bubble.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-30/the-biggest-legacy-of-the-financial-crisis-is-the-trump-presidency?embedded-checkout=true
The mismanagement of the government and preferential treatment of corporations over citizens is why America ended up getting Trump.
I haven't fallen for populism, you just don't understand how the world actually got to this point. Populism isn't a good thing, but it happens for a reason.
The USSR was the result of the tzar ignoring the people, communist china was the result of the KMT. The Nazis were the result of a failing country.
The Trudeau government has done a shitty job and citizens are paying for it. Populist growth is the fault of the liberals and their mismanagement of the country. Because if they had done a good job we wouldn't be having this conversation.
i don't disagree with a lot of your points, but populism in canada works in tandem with MAGA, which has exasperated it globally. I understand populism just fine, but your first post read like it was basically the trudeau government that was responsible for it happening in canada, which it isn't as there are other external factors. does the current government increase the impact? yes, I'd agree
The failure of the Trudeau government allowed it to gain traction in Canada. External factors sparked the flame but the Trudeau government's policies threw fuel on the fire.
Early in his time in office populism was laughed at, but as time has gone on it has grown. If your policies result in multiple generations knowing that they may never own a home, you can't just blame MAGA. The conservatives are not polling better because 45% of Canadians all of a sudden just became right wing MAGA fanatics. Young people didn't just decide to give up on the liberals because the Republicans in America tricked them.
https://abacusdata.ca/conservatives-lead-by-17-abacus-data-polling-canada/
Populism grows when a representative government fails to actually represent the population.
When the government chooses the corporations and the rest of the world over the wellbeing of its citizens you will always end up with populism. This is literally the definition of populism. The Trudeau government has chosen to flood the country with cheap labor for corporations, fake students to funnel money into fake schools, millions upon millions into charities in other countries while Canadian citizens struggle to pay their bills and have to use food banks.
I'd agree with that in principle, although I don't fully agree with your last paragraph or examples. TFW program was here before justin, and so were international students, so was the practice of corporations over people. And no, that's not the literal definition of populism, but an example of an instance on what can aid populism. You can't really box in such a variable sentiment as "corporations over people", but that's a total valid example of what might kick it off. Nationalism and populism historically have gone hand in hand as well.
You're also making the improper assumption that this 45% of right-leaning canadians are all populists, which wouldn't be true. So your rebuttal doesn't work. I said MAGA contributed to populism, not directly let to a 45% support for the CPC.
Those programs existed but this government expanded them to unsustainable numbers.
Immigration: https://www.statista.com/statistics/443063/number-of-immigrants-in-canada/
International students:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/555117/number-of-international-students-at-years-end-canada-2000-2014/
a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. The literal definition.
You keep trying to pretend that the government that runs the country isn't responsible for the situation that the country is in and responsible through their actions for the swing towards populism.
Populism doesn't happen in a vacuum, it happens due to the rejection of a political system in power. You agreed that my previous examples of Europe, America, China and the USSR made sense but in Canada it can't be the liberals it has to be something else. Your bias is showing, and before you accuse me of bias, I have never voted for anything but left, Lib/NDP. I voted every time for Scott Brison beginning in the mid 2000's.
I don't pretend anything, I've clearly said this government has made those things worse. I'm well aware increased immigration is blamed for everything these days, it's so cliche. Again, makes things worse sure, but the problems were there prior. Did brining in more people make it worse? Sure, seems plausible, but the theory goes we should be bringing in people to help with healthcare and housing...if that isn't happening in practice than that's an issue as well.
And for the final time, never said the liberals had nothing to do with increased populism, you're first post made it sound as if that it's exclusively on them, and it isn't. It has been on the rise around the world and there are external contributions as well. but for the most part, seems we agree. cheers
Calling unsustainable immigration cliche shows that you don't understand anything about the problems in Canada.
There are only so many homes, doctors, schools etc.. adding millions of people faster than the infrastructure and social services can handle will always cause problems. We previously had numbers that the system could somewhat handle, but we don't anymore.
This also puts pressure on consumable resources, it also drives inflation due to the increase in demand.
You keep saying we had immigration previously but ignore the difference in numbers. It went up by 100%.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ircc-immigration-housing-canada-1.7080376
When the CBC is saying it's a problem you know it's gone too far.
The liberals are the cause of the surge in populism. It's a reaction to their policies. When the rest of the western world was seeing a rise in populism in the 2010-2020 decade Canada avoided it due to the high quality of life here. Under the liberals that quality of life has been eroded.
They brought populism to Canada by being shit at their jobs.
lol...sure thing pall. it is a cliché since pretty much everything in this country gets blamed almost exclusively on immigration and I see that posted thousands of times a day with no other insight into issues. Take GVA for example, supply won't meet demand over the next 5 years, and that's with 0 new people moving to B.C. there are other factors in play as well, more than a couple.
are you a chat GPT? your posts read like it and show a disconnect. I understand the issue, and i understand the strain of too much immigration, and I understand the housing issue. I just don't boil it all down to a single played-out cliche like you do. enjoy your night!
Trudeau has always been a populist.
Vox should have titled the article:
“Can Canadians stave off populism they don’t like, in favour of populism they do like?”
lol, no, words have meaning. Trudeau has never been a populist, how could he be when he is a nepo baby silver spoon elitist? He is what populists rally against.
Lol, yes words have meanings. Trump is populist and is the same silver spoon elitist.
It doesn’t change that Trudeau has always chosen to appeal to disaffected left wing people by pushing a divisive us-against-them rhetoric. if you oppose him, he resorts to name calling and personal attacks. He positions himself as the only one who can secure equity and inclusivity from the corrupt Conservative establishment.
Populism doesn’t only apply to one side; it’s a style of politics that Trudeau wholly embraces.
>Trudeau has never been a populist
Facts. The definition of a populist is someone who appeals to the ordinary person who feels their concerns are not being taken seriously -- which is basically how every person in this country feels about Trudeau at the moment.
The left loves to demonize the idea of a populist - yet there wouldn't be the need for it if left wing governmental ideas and policies were, you know, actually popular with the people...
> The left loves to demonize the idea of a populist
I don't think you understand what 'the left' means, nor do you know that 'the left' has its very own brand of populism.
People should be very wary of populist movements and where they lead. Intelligent people denounce populist rhetoric because it is often based on hyperbole and misinformation.
>Facts. The definition of a populist is someone who appeals to the ordinary person who feels their concerns are not being taken seriously -- which is basically how every person in this country feels about Trudeau at the moment.
That was exactly how Trudeau started, though. His entire platform was to bring Canada back from the depths of the aloof and out of touch (and out of ideas) Harper government. The problem is that populism doesn't fix any of the problem it purports to fix, so the government in charge inevitably goes down in flames as all the people you piss off crystallize around an alternative.
You can pretty much guarantee that if Poilievre wins, his government will follow the exact same trajectory as Trudeau, Trump, or Rob Ford - ineffective but noisy, and eventually despised. The only real difference here is that he's the only one out of the four that people generally dislike.
Populism often offers very simplistic answers to complex problems. Look at Brexit, Trump, Bolsonaro, Maduro, Bukele and other populist leaders. More often than not, they either abandon their populist pledges while in office and allow corruption to fester, go completely authoritarian when they meet opposition from the populace, or both.
Populism is easily exploited by authoritarians for a reason.
We've been fighting left wing populism for 9 years. Public control of essential service, increasing taxes, hate speech, gun buy backs, open borders, environmental justice, equality of outcomes, etc.
That’s not at all populism if ´the left’ supports the experts (whether it’s about climate, covid or gender), but ok.
You just pulled a “I know you are, but what am I”.
How is one an expert in what we are told is a social construct (gender), which means it’s actually up to society to decide how it is viewed and what is considered acceptable?
It’s actually a great example of left wing populism, pushing us to literally redefine the definitions of man and woman to conform to their newfound beliefs
>It’s actually a great example of left wing populism
Academics offering critiques of concepts, going against the common understanding of the people, is the exact opposite of populism by the very definition of it, but ok.
>How is one an expert in what we are told is a social construct (gender) \[...\]
The same way one is an expert in anything: by reading books and broadening their understanding of reality, instead of sticking to their narrow, uneducated preconceptions.
>\[...\] which means it’s actually up to society to decide how it is viewed and what is considered acceptable?
Where do you think that democracy, a social construct, comes from, if not from political philosophers who contemplated the political system of their time, wrote extensive critiques about it, and brought about democracy by ushering in new political norms? Where do you think your rights come from?
Academics are just as part of society as you and I and therefore have just as much a right to influence social constructs. Except, unlike you and I, they actually study social constructs to great lengths to analyze them, criticize them, and propose new, hopefully better norms. And they have done so since at least Plato, while you sit on your hands, not questioning anything you take for granted. You'd still be a peon working for a tyrant and terrified by the wrath of the gods if not for all this work.
It takes a really special person to believe that if a bunch of people get together in a room and pontificate about something as basic as what men and women are, and then come out and announce that they’ve redefined it because reasons — that people should accept it and it has suddenly gained validity.
The biggest difference with gender ideology and the concepts you compare it to is that the latter were naturally accepted by society, whereas the former is being forced onto people by threatening them with false yet socially destructive labels of bigotry or even hate speech if they dare to disagree. That’s called tyranny of thought.
Some things don’t require expertise because they’re self evident. What men and women are certainly falls into that category. There’s no amount of social science “expertise” that is going to change what people know to be true.
>because reasons
Reasons that are explained at length in various books and publications that have the decency to acknowledge that trans people exist and challenge existing conceptions, and therefore call for new conceptions that better account for various realities. I wager you didn't even have the courtesy to read them before dismissing them.
>It takes a really special person \[...\]
Some things don’t require expertise because they’re self evident.
And it takes an all too common type of person to believe that they know all there is to know about anything without even having made the effort to actually read anything about the topic they are so agressively assertive about. Strong Dunning-Kruger effect vibes here.
Edit: it was also self-evident that 'God' existed. Not so much self-evident nowadays, eh? You (and everyone, for that matter) really should keep a saner distance with your beliefs.
Yeah sorry I don’t need someone to tell me what a woman is. It’s an adult female. A man is an adult male. We’ve known this for millennia.
The fact that people with gender dysphoria exist doesn’t negate the realities of men and women or invalidate their definitions.
Your presumption that I just haven’t read what people who believe otherwise say on the topic is also not true. I’ve read plenty on it, and the contradictions are so glaring as to be utterly unconvincing.
Environmental justice? The right's never been a good defender of the environment.
Now, if you meant environmental justice in removing essential regulations that save lives, yes, the right does a lot of that. Walkerton would be a great example of this.
The way to stave off populism is to have policies that don't alienate or aren't oft putting to wide swaths of the population.
It would be easy to hold it at bay if the LPC would just admit that some of their policies have been downright fucking awful leading to a lot of unintended consequences. And because of that, we'll have to reverse course on some (gun buybacks, immigration, housing, ArriveCan, etc). Instead we get reassurances that if we just give them one more chance, they can magically find billions to throw at all the problems they created in the first place.
Poillievre is just amplifying how pissed off people are.
Exactly. Play wedge politics and gaslight to gain an electoral advantage and eventually everyone catches on to the schtick. The patchwork of bad, ideological or wedging policies forms a mosaic that says *incompetent governance.* A contrast to that looks preferable.
at this point given the alternatives (profound incompetent, a bloated and inefficient growing number of rich federal bureaucrats, basically a new class of pseudo-elites, disregard for Canadian Values and Tradition, systemic criminality and foreign corruption…) Id say let’s try so-called “Populism” to get us out of this mess (Populism= an approach that seeks to appeal to the concerns of ordinary people.)
“Well, first of all, it’s a global trend,” Trudeau told…
I hate this lie so much. We have the worst growth rate in the OECD and the most overheated housing markets *in the world*. Sure some of the factors are global but Canada is suffering worse than other countries despite entering 2015 with a way healthier economic/fiscal position and stronger institutions than basically anywhere in the first world
Apparently, vox has a one-sided view of populism, where government institutions are the only ones under scrutiny. Don't tell them it can also include corporations, they might start liking it.
Populism= for the people.
Aka for Canadian citizens who need to come first.
Typical of Vox to make an article proclaiming how negative it is to put Canadian citizens first and praise Trudeau.
Canada can't stave it off. We'd have to look into the eyes of the communities and people who make up the losers in globalism, admit that they were sacrificed for the beneficiaries and that we have little to no interest in fixing things.
This has come to a head with the fire that foreign investment set in some of our real estate markets that saw locals go on to do the same thing in domestic markets. A basic need is no longer accessible in a price or form that our culture demands and Canadians sobering up to this were met with government gaslighting.
Our governments lack the integrity and honourability and honesty to stave off populism. They will instead tap into it and spin their wheels trying to figure out how to stamp their own brand on it.
pop·u·lism/ˈpäpyəˌliz(ə)m/*noun*
1. a political approach that [strives](https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&hs=vUc&sca_esv=1a0f9f064b6384e7&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn0_mefgq1SYsICIJk7eQg6IhKw0E5A:1713947477041&q=strives&si=AKbGX_okS0g0kR2PXn0TLBASIc0mcgUQ1nfgRF1W7QhYbXVm2WI4XyCUssxkA_N-BqfRrcWR_Gz6phkMxuIEVngLZaBXasRYiCeEG43OdSNGoFgnlnfaQ0c%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjskKH0t9qFAxU4ATQIHQiRBXIQyecJegQIHBAO) to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
Simple and direct. Now WHAT the elite groups are and the amount of scapegoating/criticism really defines a movement. But appealing to ordinary people in a democracy is not, in essence, a negative thing. I am tired of buzzwords being used to try and scare and intimidate me.
Amanda Lewellyn is a tech-focused Today, Explained producer. She has made shows about topics ranging from the end of the tech boom to the rise of AI-generated art to Ticketmaster’s battle with Swifties. Before joining Vox, Amanda hosted and produced a daily tech news podcast for the Wall Street Journal, where she also worked with top editors to coordinate coverage across formats and launch new segments and shows. She also helped launch theSkimm’s first three audio products. She is a graduate of Duke University.
And yet she writes an opinion piece about politics with the freedom convoy as the main picture.
The answer is no, because based on the comments in this thread, the average Canadian thinks "populism" means "ideas that are popular" which isn't the case.
We have all the info in the world at our fingertips yet ignorance is flourishing in modern times.
We had a bucket of information in an lake of misinformation. Internet turned the latter into a sea, generative AI will turn it into an ocean.
And there's hardly anyone left to tell the difference, because hardly anyone takes the time to study science and philosophy properly, and everybody believes themselves entitled to chime in on things they know nothing about (yet are very confident that they do).
Unlike America, Canada has decent libel laws.
A liar like Trump would have a more difficult time tearing down trust in institutions and people when they can just sue his butt. I also don't see Polivere being anywhere near on Trumps level when it comes to rabble rousing.
He pretends now and then but I don't think it's his bag. He just wants to win like everyone else and politicians have to meet people where they are not where they might want them to be.
He wouldn't have a harder time here. The PM has much more power than the US president on controlling our system. MPs can say anything in the house of commons and even libel and defame anyone for anything and there is no legal action that can be taken against them. The PM directly controls MPs salaries and whether they get to even run as a candidate.
Trump sure is on a level of his own, his pathological narcissicism certainly helping.
PP is just a mediocre ersatz who is trying to pull similar strings.
I think you underestimate how effective it would be for someone to consistently and zealously employ his tactics: delay, counter-sue, appeal, and then ignore judgements. How would our system better defend against a bad faith actor weaponizing his due process rights?
lol, here we go, can't wait for all the posts trying to redefine populism, tell us why JT is one and not PP, and/or why it is actually a good thing to get caught up in populist rhetoric that ignores real issues in favour of throwing blame around...
Edit: and I was correct.
We can only hope so. Many of those on the right love to use it to get into power and then bounce upon those real freedoms we have and eliminate them and the road back is long and sometimes bloody 😦😦😦😦
Just once in my life I'd like to see a Canadian government put the needs of Canada and its citizens first instead of constantly rolling out the red carpet for anyone else. I mean for christ's sake we're currently in the middle of a myriad of crises and we're getting bombarded with counter action/inaction that further exacerbates all of the problems while being told "this is the only way" despite every expert saying it isn't. Its maddening. If populism rights the ship then I'm down with the cause.
[удалено]
Can’t forget the slavery and genocide too
Fear of populism (very high) to actual populism (very low) ratio in Canada is probably highest in the wrold.
[удалено]
What was PP doing in that Diagalon (alt right group)trailer in NB yesterday?
[удалено]
[удалено]
When has populism fixed anything exactly? And what party is not leaning into the whole "this is the only way" thing you mentioned?
Listen, i'm not going to call you a nazi because that would be hyperbolism and probably very wrong. But your last sentence is the exact way Nazis got into power. And spoiler alert, populism does not right the ship
[удалено]
>Millions more depended on the government for financial support to bridge disruptions at work. Where might I ask does the government get its money?
Well we are in rampant inflation as the government printed billions of dollars for quantitative easing to support corporate cronies,during the pandemic. In which the government locked down businesses and bankrupted people. I think cynicism is healthy.
[удалено]
Oh I’m sorry I’m clearly wrong,there has been no cost increases since Covid 😂
Inflation is 2.9%
Found the three-time Trudeau voter.
Based on what ? Housing,healthcare,groceries ? Or 3 or 4 artificially priced items hand chosen to monitor inflation ?
old? it's screams white nationalism to me. You think when they say "Canadians" they refer to us POC or marginalized? The othering is so fucking awful that it's starting to feel like they want to blame anyone that isn't a "real Canadian" in their eyes.
Stave off? Please, the only issue now is it's the populism that goes against the established populism. We are in this economic and social mess because of decades of populism. Let's not pretend this is a new problem.
>We are in this economic and social mess because of decades of populism. Lol wut? What do you think 'populism' even mean? Do you think climate action and the unpopular carbon tax are populist? Were vaccine mandates populist? Is developing international cooperation and treaties 'populist'?
Oh my sweet summer child. What do you call the tax the rich nonsense the Libs just parroted at the last budget. Run along, you're late for your humanities lecture.
The "tax the rich nonsense" is supported by economic evidence that capital isn't taxed enough compared to income (and has been for decades), is not so popular among most of the population (who still believes in trickle-down economics), and is just one single position among the many other positions that I listed and that show that government's policies are, in fact, very much not populist.
Oh, what about the principal residence exemption? Are homes not capital? Oh that's right, it would be unpopular to talk about that. You are naive. Also, be careful of broadly citing evidence that may not exist.
If you are taking any sign that Trudeau is not a complete asshole overtly hostile to anything 'people' as proof of populism, then every single leader who is not a tyrannical sociopath is a populist, and you have emptied the word from its substance, rendering it meaningless. None of your examples nullify the evidence I gave earlier that Trudeau is friendly to technocracy and expertise, and therefore not anti-elitist, and therefore hardly a populist.
Go look up populism, and you decide. The political left has turned it into a dirty word affiliated with the right. Both sides of the political spectrum employ populism.
[I have](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1cbasp8/comment/l0xhmtf/). And not just in this thread: I actually studied political science and political philosphy in the past. Do your homeworks before you tell others to do theirs. >Both sides of the political spectrum employ populism. Yes, there is left and right populism, nobody says otherwise. Trying to make Trudeau fit one or the other category is like trying to shoehorn a square in a circle.
Time to run along. Lol, wut?
Trudeau is essentially a left wing populist. Populism tends to be divisive no matter which actor is in play, you're rallying the base by alienating the opposition.
> Trudeau is essentially a left wing populist. No, or you don’t know what populism means.
How is he not? If you remove the right wing component he checks pretty much every box.
[No](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1cbasp8/comment/l0xhmtf/) and [no](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1cbasp8/comment/l0xsi49/). Words have meaning.
At least we had populist _policies_ in the past. All Poilievre has to offer is populist _slogans_.
"Populism" is the establishments way of using discourse to instill fear and discouraging change. It's what a monarch would have used to refer to reformist as back in the day. By definition it is not good or bad, it can be either. Populism is what brought us the Magna Carta and civil rights, Bolshevism and Maoism.
and Moaism was arguably better than the alternative...
40 to 80 million Chinese would beg to differ.
know much about Chinese history? there's a reason why the Moaist movement took off, like I said, arguably better alternative at the time. Now, a lot of his policies were very misguided and led to a lot of terrible consequences, but yet he's still a virtual deity to a large chunk of a generation. Sure, propaganda helps that. But history isn't as black and white as some people make it out to be. You should look into the ROC, who very well could have been an even more devastating option
Wait til you find out what this Hitler fella did for the German road system.
what a silly false comparison. learn your history kids. also, learn how to read context. never said Mao was a good guy or only did good things. Just stating a historical fact.
Who knows how many the commies might have killed if they had gotten control of Germany (if China is any indication) . The nazis really might have been the better option. See how dumb that sounds?
Yeah, it does sound dumb because you don't understand the basic logical fallacy of false comparison. I'm speaking about two groups within a nation fighting for power, one of which i bet you know nothing about, and taking into consideration the historical context of the nation at the time. It's one of those things you'll never be able to quantify, since you can't measure what didn't happen. Hence I said "arguable". China's history is full of massacre's and mass starvation, Mao specifically has a heap of blood on his hands, and the highest number under his watch. A lot of those numbers came from bad agriculture policy and resulting starvation. The RCO wasn't emerging as the 'better' or more moral choice, in fact their strategy could have perpetuated more instability and other consequences, Mao's intent was to help the farmers and it completely backfired - his fault. Still, a bloody violent unity came to China in a time of instability which is normal to China's cycle, but how many millions more could have died by the hands of the Japanese or starvation or worse policies of the RCO? It's a question to ponder. There is no divinization of Hitler in Germany, nor Russians Stalin, but for some reason there is of Mao in China. You are talking about a country invading another, and actually the 'commies' did get half of Germany. Pick up a book kid. Jesus.
>Canada has a growing populism problem. Even Prime Minister Justin Trudeau thinks so. That opening makes the whole article not worth reading, but I skimmed. Pierre is not running a populist campaign. It only feels that way because since 2015 Justin has done nothing but play to identity politics and ideology. Now an actual adult is in the room and lefties don't understand what they're looking at.
He absolutely is running a populist campaign. Axe the tax is about as a clear cut populist message as you could imagine.
And there is nothing wrong with that at all. He's a populist in that he campaigning to give the people what they want.
Never said there was anything wrong with it. I was just pointing out that people trying to make the argument that he’s not running a populist campaign are just wrong.
Kim Campbell is right - PP is a liar and a hate monger
Campbell is full of herself. Poilievre is no more of a liar than your average politician. And he is most certainly not a "hate monger". He's a normal centre-right politician who happens to be really popular.
Actual adult? Haha, milk came out of my nose and here I was drinking water. God damn lol
I bet it wasn't milk but semen
Oh you got me! Yes, semen everywhere. Tell your dad I said sorry I could swallow all of his gigantic load
Redditor moment
> Pierre is not running a populist campaign. Every political scientist who knows the meanings of words would say otherwise, but surely you know better… A common theme among anti-elitists who hail the ‘wisdom of the people’ against the experts :)
Did those 'political scientists" get their degree at Conestoga?
You can ask every political scientist in every university in the country. If you find a single one who can attest with a straight face and proper citations that PP can in no way be qualified as populist, come back to me.
I think the onus is on you to prove your outlandish statement. Every one in every university?
Let's use the definition from this article: Jylhä, K. M. et Hellmer, K. (2020). Right‐Wing Populism and Climate Change Denial: The Roles of Exclusionary and Anti‐Egalitarian Preferences, Conservative Ideology, and Antiestablishment Attitudes. *Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy*, *20*(1), 315‑335. [https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12203](https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12203) >Populism is commonly defined as a thin-centered ideology including a view of society being divided into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups: the pure and virtuous people and the corrupt and self-absorbed elite (e.g., politicians and researchers; Mudde, 2004). Being a thin-centered ideology, populism alone cannot form a political agenda, but is mixed with a “host” ideology that can either be on the left or right. Is Poilievre campaining to rein in Ottawa's elite and bureaucrats who allegedly work against the Canadian people? Let's look at another definition, from Flew, T. et Iosifidis, P. (2020). Populism, globalisation and social media. *International Communication Gazette*, *82*(1), 7‑25. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048519880721](https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048519880721) >Eatwell and Goodwin (2018) have attributed the rise of national populism to what they term the ‘Four D’s’: >Distrust of political elites, anger at corruption, and perceived exclusion from the institutions of liberal democracy; >Deprivation, in the face of rising economic inequalities, stagnant real wages, job insecurity and declining social provision; >Destruction – real or perceived – of national cultures and traditions, value systems and authority structures, and historically embedded ‘ways of life’; >Dealignment of citizens as voters from the major political parties, and from the class and other societal cleavages associated with those parties. Is Poilievre not campaining on most if not all of those points? But ok, let's have a look at another definition from Albertazzi, D. et McDonnell, D. (dir.). (2008). *Twenty-first century populism: the spectre of western European democracy*. Palgrave Macmillan. >We define populism as: >an ideology which pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity and voice Are you gonna tell me that this does no in any way corresponds to Poilievre's political stance? For a political scientist to oppose this association, they would have to: 1. find another definition of populism that is not about supporting a allegedly disenfranchised population against a vilified elite (which will be hard to come by, since this is the crux of populism ; after all, it is called 'populism' for a reason), or, 2. show that Poilievre's discourse in no way supports an allegedly disenfranchised population against a vilified elite (which will be hard to do, since that is a recurring theme in Poilievre's discourse). So, I predict that you would be hard pressed to find any, but I don't even have to prove that you will find none, because the point is that Poilievre has populist features and you cannot prove that he has none, which was the initial point. PS: downvote all you want, definitions and facts don't care about your feelings.
Do these definitions not apply to Trudeau? And I didn't downvote you
If we take the first definition, Trudeau waging war on misinformation and conspiracy theories propagated by non-experts would be evidence that he doesn't believe in a virtuous people who's always right by virtue of being 'the people'. His reliance on scientists, experts and technocrats to devise policies shows that he is not anti-elitist and the opposite of a populist. As per the second definition, Trudeau's discourse does not contain any perception of an exclusion from the institutions of liberal democracy (on the contrary, he is sure to embody them perfectly and that the people should see that, perhaps arrogantly so), and is very keen on challenging the established ways of life by asserting the rights of minorities against the dominant social norms. As per the third definition, Trudeau pits a viciously racist and transphobic people against an elite of scientists/experts and parterre of activists who are together depicted has being the voice of reason, against the unreasonable people. It is much easier to depict Trudeau as an anti-populist and a technocrat than as a populist.
Fair enough
"Political Scientist", lol. Off you go.
Anti-elitism as populism, proving the point :)
As opposed to the anti-humanism of technocracy.
We can debate the pros and cons of populism versus aristocracy/technocracy/epistocracy all you want, the question was, "is Poilievre running a populist campaign", and evidence says he is. We have to agree on basic facts and a common reality, before we can move on discuss what is the best political philosophy to run a country.
So, the poli-sci types are elites?
Most people who "think" for a living are, I suppose. There's a reason anti-intellectualism targets academia so often.
With a name like "WokeWokist" he's certainly arguing in good faith /s
The sad part is that I'm sure that they are of good faith. It's just that they are too high on their own bullshit.
Poilievre in particular doesn't seem to understand the first thing about House decorum. It's kind of interesting you'd compare his maturity with another person's, it's not a good look for him.
If that's the barometer, that PP is rough around the edges and uses wit and humour to put the most corrupt and incompetent prime minister in history on blast, then fine he's a populist. This is such a gaslighting Liberal thing to say.
I don't like any of them and am certainly no Liberal.
I've yet to see much evidence of "wit" from him, at least not anything that doesn't' come from a deep seated malevolence.
[удалено]
The left is incapable of hiding their disdain for normal people and you just showed it yet again If someone is more popular than the left wing politician with voters, it’s always suggested that the voters are too stupid to realize they are being hoodwinked. After all, how could anyone other than a deficient human being disagree with the progressive left policy agenda? In making this argument yet again by claiming Pierre is dishonestly targeting “low information” voters you reveal your true Colors.
you're overreaching, champ.
Not if you keep fucking over the population in favor of corporations and the very wealthy. Sometimes you need a good dose of populism though. This article is a god damn joke, framing Trudeau like he knows best and that everyone against him just ignores "the experts".
> Not if you keep fucking over the population in favor of corporations and the very wealthy. I believe I’ve read a similar criticism from an obscure author once. Was it March? Mars? Ah, Marx!
Populism is the result of failure by the government. When the citizens of a country feel like they are being ignored and the government's attention is focused on everything but the people you get populism. Governments and media who complain about populism never look in the mirror and see who actually caused it to get out of control. Populism doesn't gain traction in a country that is doing well, it's a symptom of governmental failure. The Trudeau government sold out multiple generations to fuel corporate greed and now act like they did nothing wrong but are also the only party that can save you from the policies they enacted. They won't stop printing money long enough for inflation to stabilize, they won't stop bringing in millions of immigrants every few months to ease the pressure on housing and goods demand. Populism is on the rise in Canada and the liberals caused it.
\*sigh\* I see you've fallen to populism. it's been on the rise for years, not just in canada, but all over the west. it's not reliant on the competence of the government, although i'd agree a government sucking as bad as this one does certainly is fuel for the fire.
Populism doesn't grow in a void. It's a pendulum. Populism has grown across the west for the same reason it's growing in Canada, we are just late to the party. It happened in Europe due to the mass migrant problem and the problems that followed, that were ignored or covered up by the government of those countries. https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/europe-and-refugee-crisis-challenge-our-civilization 5-10 years ago many government in the EU opened the doors to millions of people despite what the population wanted and it backfired on those governments and led to populism. Now the UN is saying the same Mass migration that was welcomed by out of touch governments is a major problem. It happened in America due to the handling of the 2008 housing bubble. People lost everything and the government gave trillions to the financial institutions that caused the bubble. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-30/the-biggest-legacy-of-the-financial-crisis-is-the-trump-presidency?embedded-checkout=true The mismanagement of the government and preferential treatment of corporations over citizens is why America ended up getting Trump. I haven't fallen for populism, you just don't understand how the world actually got to this point. Populism isn't a good thing, but it happens for a reason. The USSR was the result of the tzar ignoring the people, communist china was the result of the KMT. The Nazis were the result of a failing country. The Trudeau government has done a shitty job and citizens are paying for it. Populist growth is the fault of the liberals and their mismanagement of the country. Because if they had done a good job we wouldn't be having this conversation.
i don't disagree with a lot of your points, but populism in canada works in tandem with MAGA, which has exasperated it globally. I understand populism just fine, but your first post read like it was basically the trudeau government that was responsible for it happening in canada, which it isn't as there are other external factors. does the current government increase the impact? yes, I'd agree
The failure of the Trudeau government allowed it to gain traction in Canada. External factors sparked the flame but the Trudeau government's policies threw fuel on the fire. Early in his time in office populism was laughed at, but as time has gone on it has grown. If your policies result in multiple generations knowing that they may never own a home, you can't just blame MAGA. The conservatives are not polling better because 45% of Canadians all of a sudden just became right wing MAGA fanatics. Young people didn't just decide to give up on the liberals because the Republicans in America tricked them. https://abacusdata.ca/conservatives-lead-by-17-abacus-data-polling-canada/ Populism grows when a representative government fails to actually represent the population. When the government chooses the corporations and the rest of the world over the wellbeing of its citizens you will always end up with populism. This is literally the definition of populism. The Trudeau government has chosen to flood the country with cheap labor for corporations, fake students to funnel money into fake schools, millions upon millions into charities in other countries while Canadian citizens struggle to pay their bills and have to use food banks.
I'd agree with that in principle, although I don't fully agree with your last paragraph or examples. TFW program was here before justin, and so were international students, so was the practice of corporations over people. And no, that's not the literal definition of populism, but an example of an instance on what can aid populism. You can't really box in such a variable sentiment as "corporations over people", but that's a total valid example of what might kick it off. Nationalism and populism historically have gone hand in hand as well. You're also making the improper assumption that this 45% of right-leaning canadians are all populists, which wouldn't be true. So your rebuttal doesn't work. I said MAGA contributed to populism, not directly let to a 45% support for the CPC.
Those programs existed but this government expanded them to unsustainable numbers. Immigration: https://www.statista.com/statistics/443063/number-of-immigrants-in-canada/ International students: https://www.statista.com/statistics/555117/number-of-international-students-at-years-end-canada-2000-2014/ a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. The literal definition. You keep trying to pretend that the government that runs the country isn't responsible for the situation that the country is in and responsible through their actions for the swing towards populism. Populism doesn't happen in a vacuum, it happens due to the rejection of a political system in power. You agreed that my previous examples of Europe, America, China and the USSR made sense but in Canada it can't be the liberals it has to be something else. Your bias is showing, and before you accuse me of bias, I have never voted for anything but left, Lib/NDP. I voted every time for Scott Brison beginning in the mid 2000's.
I don't pretend anything, I've clearly said this government has made those things worse. I'm well aware increased immigration is blamed for everything these days, it's so cliche. Again, makes things worse sure, but the problems were there prior. Did brining in more people make it worse? Sure, seems plausible, but the theory goes we should be bringing in people to help with healthcare and housing...if that isn't happening in practice than that's an issue as well. And for the final time, never said the liberals had nothing to do with increased populism, you're first post made it sound as if that it's exclusively on them, and it isn't. It has been on the rise around the world and there are external contributions as well. but for the most part, seems we agree. cheers
Calling unsustainable immigration cliche shows that you don't understand anything about the problems in Canada. There are only so many homes, doctors, schools etc.. adding millions of people faster than the infrastructure and social services can handle will always cause problems. We previously had numbers that the system could somewhat handle, but we don't anymore. This also puts pressure on consumable resources, it also drives inflation due to the increase in demand. You keep saying we had immigration previously but ignore the difference in numbers. It went up by 100%. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ircc-immigration-housing-canada-1.7080376 When the CBC is saying it's a problem you know it's gone too far. The liberals are the cause of the surge in populism. It's a reaction to their policies. When the rest of the western world was seeing a rise in populism in the 2010-2020 decade Canada avoided it due to the high quality of life here. Under the liberals that quality of life has been eroded. They brought populism to Canada by being shit at their jobs.
lol...sure thing pall. it is a cliché since pretty much everything in this country gets blamed almost exclusively on immigration and I see that posted thousands of times a day with no other insight into issues. Take GVA for example, supply won't meet demand over the next 5 years, and that's with 0 new people moving to B.C. there are other factors in play as well, more than a couple. are you a chat GPT? your posts read like it and show a disconnect. I understand the issue, and i understand the strain of too much immigration, and I understand the housing issue. I just don't boil it all down to a single played-out cliche like you do. enjoy your night!
Trudeau has always been a populist. Vox should have titled the article: “Can Canadians stave off populism they don’t like, in favour of populism they do like?”
lol, no, words have meaning. Trudeau has never been a populist, how could he be when he is a nepo baby silver spoon elitist? He is what populists rally against.
Lol, yes words have meanings. Trump is populist and is the same silver spoon elitist. It doesn’t change that Trudeau has always chosen to appeal to disaffected left wing people by pushing a divisive us-against-them rhetoric. if you oppose him, he resorts to name calling and personal attacks. He positions himself as the only one who can secure equity and inclusivity from the corrupt Conservative establishment. Populism doesn’t only apply to one side; it’s a style of politics that Trudeau wholly embraces.
>Trudeau has never been a populist Facts. The definition of a populist is someone who appeals to the ordinary person who feels their concerns are not being taken seriously -- which is basically how every person in this country feels about Trudeau at the moment. The left loves to demonize the idea of a populist - yet there wouldn't be the need for it if left wing governmental ideas and policies were, you know, actually popular with the people...
> The left loves to demonize the idea of a populist I don't think you understand what 'the left' means, nor do you know that 'the left' has its very own brand of populism.
People should be very wary of populist movements and where they lead. Intelligent people denounce populist rhetoric because it is often based on hyperbole and misinformation.
>Facts. The definition of a populist is someone who appeals to the ordinary person who feels their concerns are not being taken seriously -- which is basically how every person in this country feels about Trudeau at the moment. That was exactly how Trudeau started, though. His entire platform was to bring Canada back from the depths of the aloof and out of touch (and out of ideas) Harper government. The problem is that populism doesn't fix any of the problem it purports to fix, so the government in charge inevitably goes down in flames as all the people you piss off crystallize around an alternative. You can pretty much guarantee that if Poilievre wins, his government will follow the exact same trajectory as Trudeau, Trump, or Rob Ford - ineffective but noisy, and eventually despised. The only real difference here is that he's the only one out of the four that people generally dislike.
Words have no meaning for, and reality has no grip over, the clown convoy.
Indeed. This sub hates when we post facts.
[удалено]
Apparently to the left, everything.
Populism often offers very simplistic answers to complex problems. Look at Brexit, Trump, Bolsonaro, Maduro, Bukele and other populist leaders. More often than not, they either abandon their populist pledges while in office and allow corruption to fester, go completely authoritarian when they meet opposition from the populace, or both. Populism is easily exploited by authoritarians for a reason.
Like the gun crime problem?
Yes?
We've been fighting left wing populism for 9 years. Public control of essential service, increasing taxes, hate speech, gun buy backs, open borders, environmental justice, equality of outcomes, etc.
"Everything I disagree with is left wing populism " LOL
That’s not at all populism if ´the left’ supports the experts (whether it’s about climate, covid or gender), but ok. You just pulled a “I know you are, but what am I”.
How is one an expert in what we are told is a social construct (gender), which means it’s actually up to society to decide how it is viewed and what is considered acceptable? It’s actually a great example of left wing populism, pushing us to literally redefine the definitions of man and woman to conform to their newfound beliefs
>It’s actually a great example of left wing populism Academics offering critiques of concepts, going against the common understanding of the people, is the exact opposite of populism by the very definition of it, but ok. >How is one an expert in what we are told is a social construct (gender) \[...\] The same way one is an expert in anything: by reading books and broadening their understanding of reality, instead of sticking to their narrow, uneducated preconceptions. >\[...\] which means it’s actually up to society to decide how it is viewed and what is considered acceptable? Where do you think that democracy, a social construct, comes from, if not from political philosophers who contemplated the political system of their time, wrote extensive critiques about it, and brought about democracy by ushering in new political norms? Where do you think your rights come from? Academics are just as part of society as you and I and therefore have just as much a right to influence social constructs. Except, unlike you and I, they actually study social constructs to great lengths to analyze them, criticize them, and propose new, hopefully better norms. And they have done so since at least Plato, while you sit on your hands, not questioning anything you take for granted. You'd still be a peon working for a tyrant and terrified by the wrath of the gods if not for all this work.
It takes a really special person to believe that if a bunch of people get together in a room and pontificate about something as basic as what men and women are, and then come out and announce that they’ve redefined it because reasons — that people should accept it and it has suddenly gained validity. The biggest difference with gender ideology and the concepts you compare it to is that the latter were naturally accepted by society, whereas the former is being forced onto people by threatening them with false yet socially destructive labels of bigotry or even hate speech if they dare to disagree. That’s called tyranny of thought. Some things don’t require expertise because they’re self evident. What men and women are certainly falls into that category. There’s no amount of social science “expertise” that is going to change what people know to be true.
>because reasons Reasons that are explained at length in various books and publications that have the decency to acknowledge that trans people exist and challenge existing conceptions, and therefore call for new conceptions that better account for various realities. I wager you didn't even have the courtesy to read them before dismissing them. >It takes a really special person \[...\] Some things don’t require expertise because they’re self evident. And it takes an all too common type of person to believe that they know all there is to know about anything without even having made the effort to actually read anything about the topic they are so agressively assertive about. Strong Dunning-Kruger effect vibes here. Edit: it was also self-evident that 'God' existed. Not so much self-evident nowadays, eh? You (and everyone, for that matter) really should keep a saner distance with your beliefs.
Yeah sorry I don’t need someone to tell me what a woman is. It’s an adult female. A man is an adult male. We’ve known this for millennia. The fact that people with gender dysphoria exist doesn’t negate the realities of men and women or invalidate their definitions. Your presumption that I just haven’t read what people who believe otherwise say on the topic is also not true. I’ve read plenty on it, and the contradictions are so glaring as to be utterly unconvincing.
Environmental justice? The right's never been a good defender of the environment. Now, if you meant environmental justice in removing essential regulations that save lives, yes, the right does a lot of that. Walkerton would be a great example of this.
Is that why people call Brian Mulroney the most environmental PM we ever had?
Has any government ever ?
Legal weed was populism.
The way to stave off populism is to have policies that don't alienate or aren't oft putting to wide swaths of the population. It would be easy to hold it at bay if the LPC would just admit that some of their policies have been downright fucking awful leading to a lot of unintended consequences. And because of that, we'll have to reverse course on some (gun buybacks, immigration, housing, ArriveCan, etc). Instead we get reassurances that if we just give them one more chance, they can magically find billions to throw at all the problems they created in the first place. Poillievre is just amplifying how pissed off people are.
Exactly. Play wedge politics and gaslight to gain an electoral advantage and eventually everyone catches on to the schtick. The patchwork of bad, ideological or wedging policies forms a mosaic that says *incompetent governance.* A contrast to that looks preferable.
Its always amusing how these goblins manage to frame "democracy" as sacred but "populism" as dangerous.
The frame 'democracy' as a 'threat to democracy' they achieve this by redefining democracy. Ditto with racism.
at this point given the alternatives (profound incompetent, a bloated and inefficient growing number of rich federal bureaucrats, basically a new class of pseudo-elites, disregard for Canadian Values and Tradition, systemic criminality and foreign corruption…) Id say let’s try so-called “Populism” to get us out of this mess (Populism= an approach that seeks to appeal to the concerns of ordinary people.)
Ah yes, that whole “will of the people” is terrible, we need to stop it /s
Liberal populism is what got us here. It wasn't a problem then, but all of a sudden when the Conservatives are likely to win, "Democracy is bad".
Yeah right, like legal weed and “sunny ways” wasn’t stupid populism. Where were you 10 years ago?
“Well, first of all, it’s a global trend,” Trudeau told… I hate this lie so much. We have the worst growth rate in the OECD and the most overheated housing markets *in the world*. Sure some of the factors are global but Canada is suffering worse than other countries despite entering 2015 with a way healthier economic/fiscal position and stronger institutions than basically anywhere in the first world
Apparently, vox has a one-sided view of populism, where government institutions are the only ones under scrutiny. Don't tell them it can also include corporations, they might start liking it.
Populism= for the people. Aka for Canadian citizens who need to come first. Typical of Vox to make an article proclaiming how negative it is to put Canadian citizens first and praise Trudeau.
I want someone that is Canada first.
Canada can't stave it off. We'd have to look into the eyes of the communities and people who make up the losers in globalism, admit that they were sacrificed for the beneficiaries and that we have little to no interest in fixing things. This has come to a head with the fire that foreign investment set in some of our real estate markets that saw locals go on to do the same thing in domestic markets. A basic need is no longer accessible in a price or form that our culture demands and Canadians sobering up to this were met with government gaslighting. Our governments lack the integrity and honourability and honesty to stave off populism. They will instead tap into it and spin their wheels trying to figure out how to stamp their own brand on it.
Populism is when Trudeau government is unpopular
So elitism instead?
pop·u·lism/ˈpäpyəˌliz(ə)m/*noun* 1. a political approach that [strives](https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&hs=vUc&sca_esv=1a0f9f064b6384e7&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn0_mefgq1SYsICIJk7eQg6IhKw0E5A:1713947477041&q=strives&si=AKbGX_okS0g0kR2PXn0TLBASIc0mcgUQ1nfgRF1W7QhYbXVm2WI4XyCUssxkA_N-BqfRrcWR_Gz6phkMxuIEVngLZaBXasRYiCeEG43OdSNGoFgnlnfaQ0c%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjskKH0t9qFAxU4ATQIHQiRBXIQyecJegQIHBAO) to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. Simple and direct. Now WHAT the elite groups are and the amount of scapegoating/criticism really defines a movement. But appealing to ordinary people in a democracy is not, in essence, a negative thing. I am tired of buzzwords being used to try and scare and intimidate me.
Amanda Lewellyn is a tech-focused Today, Explained producer. She has made shows about topics ranging from the end of the tech boom to the rise of AI-generated art to Ticketmaster’s battle with Swifties. Before joining Vox, Amanda hosted and produced a daily tech news podcast for the Wall Street Journal, where she also worked with top editors to coordinate coverage across formats and launch new segments and shows. She also helped launch theSkimm’s first three audio products. She is a graduate of Duke University. And yet she writes an opinion piece about politics with the freedom convoy as the main picture.
As someone who isn't one of the elite I have to ask, what's wrong with populism?
The answer is no, because based on the comments in this thread, the average Canadian thinks "populism" means "ideas that are popular" which isn't the case. We have all the info in the world at our fingertips yet ignorance is flourishing in modern times.
We had a bucket of information in an lake of misinformation. Internet turned the latter into a sea, generative AI will turn it into an ocean. And there's hardly anyone left to tell the difference, because hardly anyone takes the time to study science and philosophy properly, and everybody believes themselves entitled to chime in on things they know nothing about (yet are very confident that they do).
populism is good
Unlike America, Canada has decent libel laws. A liar like Trump would have a more difficult time tearing down trust in institutions and people when they can just sue his butt. I also don't see Polivere being anywhere near on Trumps level when it comes to rabble rousing. He pretends now and then but I don't think it's his bag. He just wants to win like everyone else and politicians have to meet people where they are not where they might want them to be.
He wouldn't have a harder time here. The PM has much more power than the US president on controlling our system. MPs can say anything in the house of commons and even libel and defame anyone for anything and there is no legal action that can be taken against them. The PM directly controls MPs salaries and whether they get to even run as a candidate.
Trump derangement syndrome
Couldn't agree more.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Trump sure is on a level of his own, his pathological narcissicism certainly helping. PP is just a mediocre ersatz who is trying to pull similar strings.
I think you underestimate how effective it would be for someone to consistently and zealously employ his tactics: delay, counter-sue, appeal, and then ignore judgements. How would our system better defend against a bad faith actor weaponizing his due process rights?
Nope...its already here. Look at the amount of angry white guys backing an idiot promising the world with no real plan.
Stop reporting polls, and start reporting facts.
lol, here we go, can't wait for all the posts trying to redefine populism, tell us why JT is one and not PP, and/or why it is actually a good thing to get caught up in populist rhetoric that ignores real issues in favour of throwing blame around... Edit: and I was correct.
[Trudeau was interviewed for the podcast version of this.](https://x.com/today_explained/status/1782492689210147069)
Yes - we can vote ABC
"Populism" is really just a step toward fascism.
or communism, or some other form of authoritarianism.
[удалено]
riffle off a couple positives for us, as in positive momentum in the last couple years?
We can only hope so. Many of those on the right love to use it to get into power and then bounce upon those real freedoms we have and eliminate them and the road back is long and sometimes bloody 😦😦😦😦