Chrystia Freeland, Canada's finance minister, said in an explosive letter published Monday morning that she will quit cabinet. Here's what happened on Monday, Dec. 16.
I always feel a little confused by people using “populism” as a bad thing. The literal definition is “appealing to the masses who feel their concerns are being ignored by those in power.” That is a good thing, provided they aren’t lying about their goals. Cost of living is going up and corporations are raking in record profits, homelessness is on the rise, etc. These are all problems that I feel could be addressed better by non neoliberal policies that actually don’t further entrench those in power.
I think populism is more accurately defined in its rhetoric against a “group of elites” that must be fought. Sometimes that’s based in reality, sometimes it isn’t. Trump’s brand of populism, for example, pushes this idea of a group of out of touch pedophilic liberal elites who want open borders and who want to redefine traditional gender and sexual roles. The Bernie Sanders style leftist populism defines the group of elites as the billionaire business class controlling the economic system of America such that they avoid taxes and write laws through legalized bribery. I would argue that Bernie’s populism is based in reality and Trump’s is based in exaggeration and fear mongering. But that’s my take as someone who leans left.
In both cases the populism itself is appealing to the masses, yes, but it’s specifically appealing to them by drawing clear lines around an enemy that needs to be fought. Trump’s exaggeration of this enemy is where populism becomes dangerous. As someone who has recently been studying the French revolution, I can also point to that as a great example of populism that started with an accurately defined enemy (monarchy) and over time morphed into something that was really just vague calls of “treason” aimed at anyone and everyone who could be made the subject of ill defined conspiracy theories. Populism can be a powerful force for good when the enemy is real and the ideology is clear, but it can be just as powerful a force for evil when the lines are obscured or invented whole cloth.
So the question in this case is who the enemy is. Who would a populist replacement for Trudeau be fighting and how would they define their ideology?
Can’t wait to say I told you so when he loses his seat to the CPC
Voters here like the provincial NDP, not the federal NDP. They’re far from the same thing. Besides, the only reason they barely won is because Eby is like really based. He should run for federal NDP, would be easy win.
Think through the logic and facts of what you’re proposing.
Singh is the leader of the party and will thus be given a safe seat.
Burnaby has multiple such seats, that 338 agrees will probably stay orange.
So, what is the path you envision in which Singh loses his seat? An absolute bloodbath for the NDP that goes beyond anything observed in the polls thus far? An internal revolt in the NDP? Magic?
Singh won’t and he needs to step down, He’s not a good fit for the NDP.
If Singh calls for an election now, the CPC wins a majority. I don’t see any reason why he would want that to happen.
what other choice is there?
Wait.
Similarly if he doesn’t resign we get a CPC majority
There is no way Mr Singh resigning or not resigning affects this outcome. Whether he leads the Oranges or not, there’s no way he can –
Wait. Please say Mulcair was convinced to run the show again.
Yeah if they don’t replace him with a populist then it’s a conservative majority coming soon
So the Reds replace Justin with some populist scumbag, or canada will elect a bunch of populist scumbags? Fuck, are we ever dumb.
I always feel a little confused by people using “populism” as a bad thing. The literal definition is “appealing to the masses who feel their concerns are being ignored by those in power.” That is a good thing, provided they aren’t lying about their goals. Cost of living is going up and corporations are raking in record profits, homelessness is on the rise, etc. These are all problems that I feel could be addressed better by non neoliberal policies that actually don’t further entrench those in power.
Populism by itself isn’t bad.
I think populism is more accurately defined in its rhetoric against a “group of elites” that must be fought. Sometimes that’s based in reality, sometimes it isn’t. Trump’s brand of populism, for example, pushes this idea of a group of out of touch pedophilic liberal elites who want open borders and who want to redefine traditional gender and sexual roles. The Bernie Sanders style leftist populism defines the group of elites as the billionaire business class controlling the economic system of America such that they avoid taxes and write laws through legalized bribery. I would argue that Bernie’s populism is based in reality and Trump’s is based in exaggeration and fear mongering. But that’s my take as someone who leans left.
In both cases the populism itself is appealing to the masses, yes, but it’s specifically appealing to them by drawing clear lines around an enemy that needs to be fought. Trump’s exaggeration of this enemy is where populism becomes dangerous. As someone who has recently been studying the French revolution, I can also point to that as a great example of populism that started with an accurately defined enemy (monarchy) and over time morphed into something that was really just vague calls of “treason” aimed at anyone and everyone who could be made the subject of ill defined conspiracy theories. Populism can be a powerful force for good when the enemy is real and the ideology is clear, but it can be just as powerful a force for evil when the lines are obscured or invented whole cloth.
So the question in this case is who the enemy is. Who would a populist replacement for Trudeau be fighting and how would they define their ideology?
We have to see the next few days what happens.
The fact he won’t call an election shows me he is only in it for the pension.
This is such a silly talking point, I can’t believe folks are actually parroting it seriously.
Do y’all really not understand that he gets a pension if he keeps his deep orange seat next election? Just mind numbingly silly.
If he loses his seat does he? He’s not going to win his seat again and he knows this
What on Earth are you basing that on?
Burnaby South is an NDP stronghold, last election Sing won by ten points, with the Liberals in 2nd.
Even in what was basically a bloodbath for the BC provincial NDP this year, the NDP swept all the Burnaby ridings.
And his seat has been redistricted so as the leader of the party, he’ll be put in a nearby safe seat.
So I ask you, where on Earth are you getting this silliness from?
I live in NDP stronghold Victoria and I don’t know anyone who still supports him
deleted by creator
Lol
Can’t wait to say I told you so when he loses his seat to the CPC
Voters here like the provincial NDP, not the federal NDP. They’re far from the same thing. Besides, the only reason they barely won is because Eby is like really based. He should run for federal NDP, would be easy win.
Think through the logic and facts of what you’re proposing.
Singh is the leader of the party and will thus be given a safe seat.
Burnaby has multiple such seats, that 338 agrees will probably stay orange.
So, what is the path you envision in which Singh loses his seat? An absolute bloodbath for the NDP that goes beyond anything observed in the polls thus far? An internal revolt in the NDP? Magic?