Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Almost like every country just hates whoever was in power and wants a change because economic factors (inflation) and pressure of exiting the largest recession in decade / ever (covid) has left people angry , desperate , scared and looking for people to blame and anyone who will offer a “solution” no matter how much logic and reality is behind the promises looks better then the status quo

Right, and that's generally the attitudes that fascists seize upon (see: Weimar Republic). That's why it's more important in times like these to call out fascism and people courting fascists to gain power.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well. This is a good question, but I think it needs to be rephrased.

Because at the moment, as I said in my prior post, the Global Political Climate is shifting more towards that side.

Eastern Europe, France, Sweden, UK, Italy...America!

Maybe instead of worrying about the leaders and parties we should be more concerned about the underlying cause.

Because if people want to call PP a Fascist, go ahead, fill your boots, but you're not solving any problems.

Why is this now becoming a more prevalent problem? I think thats the more important issue that needs to be addressed.

We as a society fought wars against Fascism and now we're openly welcoming it back with thunderous applause? We'd best figure out why. And in a hurry.

Maybe not the UK

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Right, and that's generally the attitudes that fascists seize upon (see: Weimar Republic). That's why it's more important in times like these to call out fascism and people courting fascists to gain power..

So who do you want people to vote for then if they hate their existing party - especially in most countries where it’s effectively a 2 or 3 party system

In 4 or 8 years these parties will be gone because their empty promises will be exposed . Rinse and repeat with a left leaning party (in most cases this is the cycle we are in ) who will then also be hated

For the most part governments are hated during economic hard times for the lower and middle class, we are just in a cycle where most of the hated current governments are left leaning

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The thesis of your post was essentially "Anything the Liberals do is automatically supported by the NDP because of the supply and confidence agreement," which is barely a high-school level of political analysis. That said, it was not a good look for Singh to come out against the binding arbitration.

Not sure if you are replying to the right thing? I didn't quote on or mentioned anything to the binding arbitration in my recent post. But since you mention it, the NDP is most definitely is seen as propping up and supporting the government. We could go to an election tomorrow (well once parliament is back in session) if the NDP held to account the Liberals on foreign interference and force a vote of confidence on he used the word "traitors". The NDP as a result of propping up the government by association are linked to all of their unpopular policies and scandals. That's the double edged problem with such a deal.

Classifying it as troll-baiting diminishes what it actually is, which is fascist dog-whistling. Do you think PP is a fascist, or is he just playing one on TV?

He's a libertarian / conservative using populist methods. He says what a large percentage of Canadians are thinking. Many of his points and stances are the opposite of the definition of fascism which is a far right ideology based on nationalism and eliminating the individual for the good of the nation (his rallying against the establishment, government owned media and Laurantien elites is the opposite of fascism). To insinuate he is fascist really says more about your views (and some of the same few folks who non-shockingly chimed in) than it does about Poilievre and would be akin to folks calling Trudeau or Singh a commie.

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's not a deflection. I've been very consistently critical of the Liberal party for the better part of a decade. My argument has consistently been that if your solution to your issues with the Liberals is to install a fascist or someone who courts fascists, you have very little moral high ground in this debate.

Again, this goes back to how the argument always seems to be "I don't like the Liberals, but the conservatives are scary and want to turn Canada into a fascist state and wants to remove all social freedoms." Is that the just of your argument? The 'cold, cruel and small' and erosion of democracy warning being preached if you do not vote Liberal?

O'Toole was the leader of the CPC for the 2021 election, he was by all measures a moderate conservative, yet we heard similar garbage from the same folks (I remember the Trudeau porta potty joke that the usuals tried to make it into more than it was, a silly potty joke). We heard how CPC needed to modernize its views and shift more to the left and socialism if it ever wants to be elected again. That was just 3 years ago.

Now the CPC has shifted right after kicking O'Toole out, brought a widely unpopular party leader that seemed like a poor choice at the time, yet as result of Liberal-NDP transgressions that contributed to Canadians seeking an "anything but" alternative, the CPC will get much more power than ever before with a super majority. Worst case scenario for the ABC.

If it was just a case of Liberals and Trudeau running its course the argument could be made that it's just the cyclical nature, and the NDP would have presented itself as the viable alternative as it once did in 2011 picked up significant shares of the votes to become the opposition party at minimum. Yet here we are, with the Conservatives looking to get more votes than the Liberals and NDP combined with the NDP projecting to have its worst showing since the early 2000s.

Conservatism and populism is resonating at a time when Canadians are angry. Your over exaggeration to try to pass the CPC as a fascist party and continued attempts to portray it as the boogyman is simply not resonating anymore. Clean the house first (looking at Liberal / NDP) to become a palatable party for swing voting Canadians (I mean I voted for the Liberals in 2015 and voted for Notley) and Canadians may pay attention. Otherwise this will be a long decade for the ABC.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Maybe not the UK

Maybe not. Maybe not today.

But Brexit was very much and anti-inclusive, anti-immigration Nationalist Policy.

You think all those voters are dead and gone?

It depends on what happens in the future, but their very recent past actions? They fit the bill.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Firebot

He's a libertarian / conservative using populist methods.

Yes, he is also using fascist rhetoric. Both can be true.

But here, from Eco:

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”

Originally Posted by Firebot

He says what a large percentage of Canadians are thinking.

6. Appeal to social frustration. “[…] one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.

13. Selective Populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.

Originally Posted by Firebot

Many of his points and stances are the opposite of the definition of fascism which is a far right ideology based on nationalism and eliminating the individual for the good of the nation

Aw, cute. Did you get that from wikipedia like Cliff did?

Originally Posted by Firebot

(his rallying against the establishment, government owned media and Laurantien elites is the opposite of fascism).

2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense, Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”

PP has appealed to anti-intellectualism and the rejection of modern science in favour of gut instinct on many occasions. This has occurred in many historical examples of fascism and in the current example of Trumpist neofascism.

To insinuate he is fascist really says more about your views (and some of the same few folks who non-shockingly chimed in) than it does about Poilievre and would be akin to folks calling Trudeau or Singh a commie.

Not really. You're kind of making my points for me.

Originally Posted by Firebot

Conservatism and populism is resonating at a time when Canadians are angry.

No ####. Do you think fascism succeeds in times where people aren't angry? The Liberals absolutely deserve their share of the blame for letting this fester. There's a reason leftist academics have been sounding the alarms for some time now that the decades of neoliberalism were leading to a level of resentment that could see the return of fascism.

Originally Posted by Firebot

Your over exaggeration to try to pass the CPC as a fascist party and continued attempts to portray it as the boogyman is simply not resonating anymore.

Have I fabricated PP's actions or words in any ways? You've also helped demonstrate how those actions mimic the fascist playbook. What exactly is being exaggerated here?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Firebot

He's a libertarian / conservative using populist methods. He says what a large percentage of Canadians are thinking. Many of his points and stances are the opposite of the definition of fascism which is a far right ideology based on nationalism and eliminating the individual for the good of the nation (his rallying against the establishment, government owned media and Laurantien elites is the opposite of fascism). To insinuate he is fascist really says more about your views (and some of the same few folks who non-shockingly chimed in) than it does about Poilievre and would be akin to folks calling Trudeau or Singh a commie.

I think you ought to actually brush up your reading on fascism and fascist rhetoric. Specifically, you should spend some time learning about neo-fascism, as your assertion that PP’s sentiments represent the opposite of fascism are not remotely fact-based.

To insinuate that PP may be a fascist because he observably uses fascist rhetoric doesn’t say anything about anyone, it’s reality and an important point of discussion that people should be interested engaging in. Nothing is gained but much could be lost through the outright refusal to acknowledge these real overlaps.

The conversation has nothing to do with Trudeau or the NDP. And the need to vote another party out is not an effective or historically favourable excuse for ignoring fascist rhetoric.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Both can be true. Whether PP is a fascist or not, he is using fascist rhetoric. That's the whole point of this debate. There are three questions we have to ask ourselves:

Why is he doing it?
What are the consequences of it?
Is it acceptable for the PM of this country to use fascist tactics and rhetoric?

Good questions

Why is he doing it? - two options the last two leaders of the party who didn’t dog whistle to these groups were turfed. His path to being a PM requires the support of the far right coming back to the PC from the PPC or he believes it. I think he is more of a political opportunist then anything.

What are the consequences - That depends on how far right Ontario and Quebec are and who holds the balance of power in the Conservative Party. In the Conservative Party votes for leader are weighted based on riding to prevent Alberta from controlling the party. This leads to smaller numbers of Ontario/Quebec conservatives being disproportionately powerful. So are these groups like Take Back Alberta or are they more like Doug Ford conservatives. If they are Doug Ford types you’d expect center right governing with Nationalist rhetoric and no real threats to Canada and essentially Harperesc policies. The government would be well within the boundaries of Canadian norms.

If TBA types control the party than there is a greater risk of rhetoric becoming policy. We will see when the campaign trial hits as if you look at Alberta outside of the APP the UCP is following its campaigned on items fairly well. So if the policies being proposed line up with the rhetoric we should believe them. If the policies are moderated we should also believe them.

One other thing that a person could do is look at who recieved first ballot votes in the last conservative rate and who was to the right and left of PP. This would be a datapoint on the political make up of the party.

To the last question I would answer No, but….. both the Liberals and the Cons routinely weaponized in and out groups and declare the out groups as morally deficient. So of the traditional governing parties I don’t think you have a choice of a person who governs in good faith. I haven’t paid enough attention to Singh but he currently blocks a lot of the investigations that are required of the liberals in committees so he isn’t clean either. No good options becomes the answer to that question.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

So who do you want people to vote for then if they hate their existing party - especially in most countries where it’s effectively a 2 or 3 party system.

Probably one of the two who aren't using fascist rhetoric. You don't have to vote for them, but at least be honest with yourself. Just admit you're comfortable with someone who uses fascist rhetoric and tactics because the other two options are worse in your eyes.

In 4 or 8 years these parties will be gone because their empty promises will be exposed . Rinse and repeat with a left leaning party (in most cases this is the cycle we are in ) who will then also be hated

A lot of damage can be done in 4 to 8 years. Fascists also seek to consolidate power and remove dissent. If PP obtains power through the use of fascist tactics, why wouldn't he continue to use them to retain power? He's already alluded to using the NWC to overrule judicial decisions he doesn't like.

We've seen on the provincial level how easy it is for far-right actors and theocrats to capture the UCP. If the leader of the CPC is already courting these actors, why couldn't they capture the party at the federal level?

Your argument seems to be "Give the guy using fascist rhetoric a chance. It might not be THAT bad." My argument is why risk it? Everyone thought that the U.S. had enough checks in place to stop Trump, and yet here we are on the precipice of having him back in power, with even more unchecked authority, and rabid base to appease.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

There’s that whole saying about those who don’t learn from history being doomed to repeat it. Perhaps modern conservatives and classical liberal thumb suckers could stop self-soothing and sticking their fingers in their ears whenever someone says the “f” word. Tough to say what the world is going to look like in 50 years, but I doubt very much anyone is going to look back and view our refusal to acknowledge the similarities between the history of fascism and modern right-wing populism (and their overlapping rhetoric) more favourably than some people that used the “f” word a little too liberally for their.

You have to be pretty naive to think flinging the term around is politically effective. George W. Bush was called fascist. So was Stephen Harper. And before them Reagan and Thatcher. The word “fascist” has been so thoroughly abused that all it accomplishes in political dialogue today is to earmark the person using it as a committed (and excitable) supporter of the left. It doesn’t move the needle politically or change the minds of any persuadable voters.

It also blinds the people misapplying the term to the differences of the emerging populist movement. Soberingly large numbers of single, non-college Black and Hispanic men support Trump. Most Trump supporters do not believe the declining share of white people in America is a bad thing. Most are not bothered by people in their community speaking a language other than english.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...2024-election/

The main cleavage emerging in politics in the West today is educational attainment, along with gender (which is itself a consequence of diverging educational outcomes). The fuel of the movement is deep distrust of institutions. That was not true of 20th century fascism - teachers and bureaucrats were among the most enthusiastic supporters of the Nazis.

Political terms aren’t like movie franchises. We can make new ones up now and then to reflect contemporary politics rather than going to the well of familiar 20th century culture over and over again.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Locke

Maybe not. Maybe not today.

But Brexit was very much and anti-inclusive, anti-immigration Nationalist Policy.

You think all those voters are dead and gone?

It depends on what happens in the future, but their very recent past actions? They fit the bill.

Yeah, I agree with your general sentiment.
Maybe the UK is further ahead on their timeline and into the next phase; who knows.
Haven't followed their politics enough but find it interesting they swung back heavily to the Labour today.
Probably will see the same here after 4 years of PP; investment a knew Liberal leader is in place.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by belsarius

In the UK the Labour Party just won a landslide.

That’s usually the result when conservatives have to live with the results of large scale changes.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The main cleavage emerging in politics in the West today is educational attainment, along with gender (which is itself a consequence of diverging educational outcomes). The fuel of the movement is deep distrust of institutions. That was not true of 20th century fascism - teachers and bureaucrats were among the most enthusiastic supporters of the Nazis.

Are you trying to be intentionally misleading, or do you honestly not know that this was directly the result of the Nazis purging leftist and Jewish academics?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Yeah, I agree with your general sentiment.
Maybe the UK is further ahead on their timeline and into the next phase; who knows.
Haven't followed their politics enough but find it interesting they swung back heavily to the Labour today.
Probably will see the same here after 4 years of PP; investment a knew Liberal leader is in place.

Which continues to ask the question..."WTF is going on in the world today?"

There are a lot of World Leaders that need a good swift smack in the face.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You have to be pretty naive to think flinging the term around is politically effective. George W. Bush was called fascist. So was Stephen Harper. And before them Reagan and Thatcher. The word “fascist” has been so thoroughly abused that all it accomplishes in political dialogue today is to earmark the person using it as a committed (and excitable) supporter of the left. It doesn’t move the needle politically or change the minds of any persuadable voters.

It also blinds the people misapplying the term to the differences of the emerging populist movement. Soberingly large numbers of single, non-college Black and Hispanic men support Trump. Most Trump supporters do not believe the declining share of white people in America is a bad thing. Most are not bothered by people in their community speaking a language other than english.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...2024-election/

The main cleavage emerging in politics in the West today is educational attainment, along with gender (which is itself a consequence of diverging educational outcomes). The fuel of the movement is deep distrust of institutions. That was not true of 20th century fascism - teachers and bureaucrats were among the most enthusiastic supporters of the Nazis.

Political terms aren’t like movie franchises. We can make new ones up now and then to reflect contemporary politics rather than going to the well of familiar 20th century culture over and over again.

Sorry, to be clear, you’re throwing the word “naive” around while:
- suggesting fascism hasn’t existed for 50 years
- suggesting anyone who uses the word “fascist” is a excitable supporter of the left
- suggesting fascism has a concrete definition (you couldn’t produce)
- rejecting expert opinions on fascism in favour of your personal armchair
- suggesting we can make new political terms up, after suggesting “neo-fascism” was just “couching it” and being unable to process any definition or evolution of fascism past WW2

Never change lol

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by rubecube

A lot of damage can be done in 4 to 8 years. Fascists also seek to consolidate power and remove dissent. If PP obtains power through the use of fascist tactics, why wouldn't he continue to use them to retain power? He's already alluded to using the NWC to overrule judicial decisions he doesn't like.

To play devils advocate, we have this happening in our govt right now with infiltration from communist nations who are all about consolidation of power and wiping out dissent.

I know we are all about protecting our democracy, seems like far right rheotric is up against the hooks of far left ideology that's already infested our govt.

[Azure]

Must be getting closer to election time and the Liberals must be not doing very well.

How do you we know? Because the usual suspects are trotting out the 'omg the other party that might get elected is evil.'

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

Must be getting closer to election time and the Liberals must be not doing very well.

How do you we know? Because the usual suspects are trotting out the 'omg the other party that might get elected is evil.'

Must be an Azure post. How do you know? Instead of engaging with the topic and evidence posted, he's opting for his usual vapid drive-bys.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

To play devils advocate, we have this happening in our govt right now with infiltration from communist nations who are all about consolidation of power and wiping out dissent.

I know we are all about protecting our democracy, seems like far right rheotric is up against the hooks of far left ideology that's already infested our govt.

Which policies/ideologies of the CCP would you say have already manifested as a result of this infestation?

[2Stonedbirds]

https://www.nsicop-cpsnr.ca/reports/...terference.pdf

Most of the particulars are censored, but lots of info in the report.

On the outside looking in, I'd say things like the online censorship bill are clearly offensive and doesn't exactly scream Canadian to me.