adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

The strange death and rebirth of the Liberal Party under Trudeau

Published

2 years ago

 on

The 2011 federal election seemed to have fundamentally changed Canadian politics. And maybe it did. Just not quite in the way it was imagined.

In theory, that vote heralded the arrival of a new political era. The Liberal Party’s day was done — the broadly centrist institution that dominated Canadian politics in the 20th century was no longer fit for purpose. Canada would finally become more like its sister democracies, with a clear contest between a distinct party of the political right and a distinct party of the left. The future seemed to belong to the Conservatives and the NDP.

Then things changed again, as they are wont to do. Foremost among those unforeseen developments was Justin Trudeau’s election as Liberal leader, which happened 10 years ago this week.

In the short term, Trudeau’s mere presence breathed a bit of new life into the lungs of a prostrate party. In time, it also gave the party a new sense of direction. If the worst thing that could be said about the Liberal Party was that it represented the “mushy middle,” the best thing that could be said about Trudeau’s early leadership is that he made the party less mushy.

He announced that he would support the legalization of marijuana. He declared that his party would take a strict pro-choice position in favour of abortion rights. He unceremoniously ejected Liberal senators from the party’s parliamentary caucus. And then he laid out a party platform that did not include a commitment to balancing the federal budget.

Each of these moves — like Trudeau’s own decision to seek the party leadership — was met with some level of consternation and skepticism. But four years after the party was given up for dead, the Liberals won 184 seats and Trudeau became prime minister.

What has taken shape since then is the most active and activist generation of Liberals to hold power since Lester B. Pearson’s government in the 1960s.

Justin Trudeau arrives on stage in Montreal on Oct. 20, 2015, after the Liberals won the general election. (Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)

In 2011, when Michael Ignatieff was leading the Liberals, the party platform outlined $8.2 billion in new investments spread over two years. In 2015, Trudeau’s platform covered $149.8 billion over four years. The words “racism,” “gender” and “reconciliation” don’t appear at all in the 2011 platform. Those words appeared 28, 46 and 19 times in the Liberal party’s 2021 platform.

Some of those changes in language and emphasis might simply reflect the changing times (“reconciliation” had not really entered the popular lexicon when the Liberal platform was written in 2011). But they also reflect a leader and a party that have tried enthusiastically to speak to emerging demands and issues.

On his 10th anniversary as leader, Trudeau’s government may be closer to the end of its time in office than the beginning. Much of the shine has come off the famous son of Pierre Trudeau. But the Liberals remain competitive in public opinion polling and comfortably ahead of the NDP.

Did the prophecies come true?

One way to read the events of the past 10 years is to conclude that the post-2011 theories of realignment turned out to be broadly correct — that the party system did polarize, with the Liberals shifting to become the dominant party of the left.

There may be something to that, at least in the short term. But it’s also possible to overstate how much the Liberals have moved leftward. The Liberals remain far less inclined than New Democrats to talk about class or heap scorn upon the rich and powerful.

Despite major new social investments, the Liberals still seem reluctant to create new federally run programs. Dental care is only happening because the NDP demanded it, while Liberal interest in pharmacare has waned.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, left, and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, prepare for the start of the federal election English-language Leaders debate in Gatineau, Que., on Thursday, Sept. 9, 2021.
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, left, and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh prepare for the start of the federal election English-language leaders’ debate in Gatineau, Que., on Sept. 9, 2021. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press)

Even when you consider trends in federal spending, the Liberals’ leftward lurch seems more like a nudge. As a share of GDP, federal program spending in 2023-24 is projected to be merely on par with what it was in the late 1980s, when Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative government was in office.

In electoral terms, it’s also possible to conclude that Trudeau’s election victories have merely dressed up what is actually a long-term decline in the Liberal Party’s standing.

The ceiling on Liberal support does seem to have been dropping gradually since Mackenzie King’s Liberals received 51.3 per cent of the vote in 1940. Louis St. Laurent topped out at 49.2 per cent, Pierre Trudeau at 45.4 per cent, Jean Chrétien at 41.2 per cent. While Trudeau won a majority in 2015, the Liberals could only draw 39.5 per cent of the vote.

If the ceiling falls any further, it will be hard for a future Liberal leader to stand up.

But the same is broadly true of the Conservative Party — a party that has its own existential challenges. John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservatives won 53.6 per cent of the vote in 1958 and Mulroney got 50 per cent in 1984. Stephen Harper’s Conservatives couldn’t get more than 39.6 per cent.

In a system that includes both a durable NDP and a resilient Bloc Québécois (and a Green Party of some sort), it might simply be very difficult for any party to routinely capture much more than 40 per cent of the vote.

So the Liberals probably won’t be able to dominate this century like they did the last one (from 1896 to 2006, the Liberals governed for 80 years). When they do govern, they might have to work more often with other parties (as they are now).

Not mushy enough?

Ten years after Trudeau became the 13th leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, there is a new complaint — that the party is now not mushy enough.

Political polarization is worth worrying about. Taken to extremes, it can breed the sort of tribalism that makes a democracy difficult to manage. And it’s very possible that the next Liberal leader will decide that Trudeau took the party too far to the left. Economic or political circumstances might require the Liberal Party to shift — just as it has in the past.

It’s also possible that the political centre isn’t, or wasn’t, quite where it was thought to be. And while some pundits might prefer moderation, other Canadians might fairly want progress to happen faster than a more centrist approach would allow.

Any Liberal who aspires to win elections might also note that while the Liberal vote has eroded, the combined Liberal-NDP vote has consistently hovered around 50 per cent for the last 40 years — peaking at 59.2 per cent in 2015 and only once dropping below 46 per cent (in 2008). And on an issue as central as climate change, Conservative voters are much less enthusiastic about government action.

But the ultimate lesson of the 2011 election and the last 10 years is that the future is very hard to predict — and that political success depends on both a little bit of luck and an ability to adapt.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

News

Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in ‘Baywatch’ for Halloween video asking viewers to vote

Published

2 days ago

 on

November 5, 2024

By

 

NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.

In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”

At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.

“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.

She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.

“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.

“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.

“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”

The Harris campaign has taken on Beyonce’s track “Freedom,” a cut from her landmark 2016 album “Lemonade,” as its anthem.

Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.

Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Justin Trudeau’s Announcing Cuts to Immigration Could Facilitate a Trump Win

Published

2 days ago

 on

November 5, 2024

By

Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.

Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.

Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.

My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.

Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.

My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.

To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.

Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…

The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.

The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.

The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.

Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.

In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.

If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.

Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.

______________________________________________________________

 

Nick Kossovan, a self-described connoisseur of human psychology, writes about what’s

on his mind from Toronto. You can follow Nick on Twitter and Instagram @NKossovan.

Continue Reading

Politics

RFK Jr. says Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water. ‘It’s possible,’ Trump says

Published

3 days ago

 on

November 4, 2024

By

 

PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.

Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.

Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.

“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S​. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.

Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”

The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”

Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”

The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.

In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.

Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.

In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.

A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.

In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.

Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.

What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.

But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.

Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.

“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending