adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Can the Trudeau government revive its old ‘middle class’ message?

Published

 on

Pierre Poilievre went to Charlottetown last week and stood in front of a gas station sign to restate his opposition to a pair of federal climate policies: the national price on carbon and new clean fuel regulations.

After gesturing at the price of unleaded gasoline displayed behind him, the Conservative leader said he understood the “affordability crisis” that Islanders were “suffering” through after “eight years of Trudeau.”

Poilievre is adept at conveying ire but he still lacks a plan for reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions — a significant policy gap at a time when large parts of the country are on fire. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals will also argue that regulators and governments in the Atlantic provinces have unjustifiably allowed oil companies to pass the cost of climate action on to consumers.

News crews surround Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre as he holds a news conference at a gas station in Charlottetown during a recent visit to P.E.I. (Julien Lecacheur/Radio-Canada)

But Trudeau, who arrives in Charlottetown on Monday, should understand the potency of Poilievre’s economic message. It’s not a far cry from what the prime minister himself was saying a decade ago.

“Those who think the middle class is thriving in this country should spend more time with their fellow citizens,” Trudeau wrote in October 2012, shortly after launching his bid for the Liberal leadership. “[The] squeezing of the Canadian middle class does not need to be explained to those who live it every day.”

If there’s one simple explanation for where the Liberals find themselves in the summer of 2023 — trailing by several points in the latest spate of opinion polls — it might be this current moment of “squeezing.” The Trudeau government’s re-election hopes may depend to a large extent on whether it can recapture the promise of economic security implicit in the “middle class” message that brought it to power in 2015.

Trudeau and his ministers are visiting the Cradle of Confederation this week for a cabinet retreat — the traditional late summer confab to prepare the government’s fall agenda. They’re meeting three weeks after a cabinet shuffle that was meant, at least in part, to bolster the government’s economic team.

Over three days of discussions, cabinet is expected to take part in sessions focused on housing and the challenges faced by young people —particularly those 20- and 30-somethings worried about both the cost of housing and the future of a changing economy and climate. During the session on housing, ministers will hear from two of the authors of a recent report on how the federal government can boost the availability of rental properties.

There’s a lot to talk about.

According to a survey conducted by Abacus Data in July, the rising cost of living is far and away the top concern for Canadians, while housing affordability now rivals health care as a priority. Recent data from Environics also shows that Canadians are markedly more worried about household debt than they were a decade ago — with the biggest spike in debt anxiety reported among those aged 18 to 44.

A man sits on the edge of a bed.
Polling suggests Canadians are far more worried about personal debt now. (Credit: iStock/Getty Images)

While Canadians fret, the Liberals seem to be struggling to get a hearing. According to Abacus, many Canadians believe government spending is a major driver of inflation (a central premise of Poilievre’s argument). Just 13 per cent of respondents understand that inflation is lower in Canada than in other G7 countries; 52 per cent of Canadians believe, incorrectly, that inflation is higher here.

Even with younger voters — a traditional source of support for Trudeau — the Liberals are struggling. Abacus has found that among Gen Z voters (those born between 1997 and 2005), the Liberals trail the Conservatives by four points. Among millennials (those born between 1980 and 1996), the Liberals trail by 11 points.

With up to two years remaining until the next federal election, it would be silly to draw conclusions now about the fate of Trudeau’s government. But clearly, the Liberals have work to do if they want their government to survive past 2025. And to understand how crucial that work might be, the Liberals only have to remember what brought them to power in the first place.

Trudeau’s middle class economics

From the start, Trudeau’s rhetorical and policy focus on the “middle class and those working hard to to join it” was widely debated and often derided. Poilievre openly mocked it again last week during an “axe the tax” rally he held after visiting that gas station.

“The famous middle class — remember Justin Trudeau was going to do everything for the middle class?” he scoffed.

But both the message and the policy agenda that supported it were effective. Internal Liberal polling in 2015 found that Trudeau still trailed Stephen Harper when voters were asked which party leader would best manage the economy. But when voters were asked who would do the most for the middle class, Trudeau was the overwhelming choice.

A man stands at a podium in front of a Canadian flag.
Liberal leader and incoming prime minister Justin Trudeau takes the stage at Liberal Party headquarters in Montreal early Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2015 after winning the 42nd general election. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

While Trudeau’s Liberals came to office with a number of priorities in mind — reconciliation, climate change, political reform, diversity and inclusion, gender equality — it was the idea of helping the middle class that acted as the spine of the Liberal platform, holding everything together.

Critics tended to get caught up in the wording, but the rhetorical construct of the “middle class” was really about economic equality, security and comfort. And it was a powerful factor in getting a progressive government elected. Notably, Joe Biden’s Democrats are currently pursuing the same focus as they attempt to win what might be one of the most consequential elections in American history.

The squeeze is on, again

In that op-ed from October 2012, Trudeau stressed the importance of the promise of “upward mobility” and “economic opportunity.” He wrote that the wealthiest were enjoying a disproportionate share of the benefits of economic growth, while middle class households were dealing with “unprecedented” levels of personal debt, stagnating wages and “an increasingly inaccessible housing market, especially in cities like Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver.”

A decade later, the Liberals can point to a number of things they’ve done in office to deal with the insecurity and inequality that Trudeau identified. But they can’t claim to have solved all the problems Trudeau wrote of in 2012 (if anything, the housing market is in worse shape). New sources of economic stress — inflation, higher interest rates — have emerged.

Even as parts of the country continue to burn, the high cost of groceries and mortgage payments is impossible to ignore. And just as economic security held the Liberal offer together in 2015, it now threatens to undermine everything the Liberals wish to champion.

In 2012, Trudeau warned of consequences if governments fail to address the basic economic concerns of the middle class. He seemed even to anticipate the wave of populism that would soon sweep over countries like the United States and the U.K.

“If we do not attend to this problem,” he wrote, “we should not be surprised to see the middle class question the policies, and the very system, that values and encourages growth.”

As an explanation for the origin and power of modern populism, the theory of “economic anxiety” leaves much to be desired. But if Trudeau and his ministers can’t win the argument on economic security this time, they could find themselves replaced by a very different kind of government.

 

728x90x4

Source link

News

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

Published

 on

 

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

 on

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

 on

 

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