adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Elon Musk’s politics, like Trump’s, are clear

Published

 on

When you take just a step or two back, the picture isn’t that complicated. A billionaire business executive who has given to both Democratic and Republican candidates begins to make clear that his personal politics lean more heavily to the right. This seems in part to be a function of the media environment in which he operates. It is clearly exacerbated, too, by frustration at critical reporting from traditional news outlets.

The next thing you know, he’s sharing overtly right-wing content and cocooning himself in a universe of allies — even to the detriment of his own credibility. Once just a rich celebrity, suddenly the guy is a central component of a political movement. And leaning into it.

So it was that Donald Trump became president.

Sign up for How To Read This Chart, a weekly data newsletter from Philip Bump

300x250x1

Oh, did you think I was talking about Elon Musk? Well, yeah, I was. That carefully articulated outline of behavior applies to both men by design. But that doesn’t mean that the parallels are contrived. Musk’s willing step into the spotlight has left little doubt about his current political inclinations, just as Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign made very clear — if more explicitly — where he stood.

This is worth mentioning because of a column published by the New York Times over the weekend. In it, Jeremy Peters notes that Musk’s politics can be hard to categorize, in large part because his discussions of politics tend to occur within the context of Twitter, the social media site he owns, and in part because of Musk’s political history. Is it safe to say that a guy who has given to Democratic candidates and insists he’s voted Democratic in the past and may again in the future is antithetical to the Democratic Party?

The answer is yes, for several reasons.

The first is that the contribution patterns of wealthy business executives should probably not be treated as clear indicators of their own ideologies. Giving the maximum allowable contribution to every candidate in every House and Senate race will cost you less than $3 million, money that, for a multibillionaire, is chicken scratch. Business executives admit regularly that they give to both parties to advance their interests; it was actually a central part of Trump’s shtick in 2016!

Then, of course, there’s the difference between politics and partisanship. In 2004, Trump said that he identified more as a Democrat than a Republican. Until 2008, in fact, he was registered as a Democrat — after having switched to the party from being an independent, after having been a Republican. This partisan history did not end up being a good guide to his politics.

In the months since Musk took over Twitter, he’s been more overt about both his partisanship and his politics. He’s said he would support Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in a potential 2024 presidential bid and encouraged Twitter users to vote Republican in the midterm elections as a purported counterweight to the left.

But that’s fundamentally less important than the political rhetoric he has embraced and amplified. His purchase of Twitter — a commitment, it’s worth remembering, that he tried quite hard to wriggle out of — has allowed him to occupy a much larger share of the public (and “elite”) conversation than he used to. And as he’s done so, he’s aligned both directly and indirectly with right-wing voices and arguments.

Peters walks through this at length, a recitation that by itself largely answers any questions about where Musk stands politically. That he’s engaged repeatedly with fringe actors like Mike Cernovich and “Cat Turd” and has sought to weaken the standing of traditional journalists are indirect manifestations. His repeated insistences that the left is becoming toxic are direct ones.

Then there are comments like these, published after Peters’s piece.

He went on to explain why he chose the twin targets of that tweet: that “forcing your pronouns upon others” is bad and that Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious-disease expert, was complicit in the spread of the coronavirus — unproven allegations that are common as right-wing points of attack against the epidemiologist villainized by Trump.

Musk has framed his purchase of Twitter itself as an effort to fight on behalf of free speech against the “woke mind virus,” a rationalization for the reluctant purchase that diverges from his stated reason when he first launched his bid to buy the company: spam from automated accounts.

Here, too, politics intrudes. The right has long argued that it was being unfairly targeted by social media platforms, Twitter specifically, on ideological grounds. Musk has embraced that argument, using his new stewardship of the platform to pass internal documents to sympathetic writers to present the case that Twitter had acted unfairly against the right. They have obliged, putting together multipart Twitter threads purporting to show how the platform went after right-wing actors, Trump included.

The reality that’s emerged from the “Twitter Files” releases, as Musk has framed them, is no different than the reality that preceded their release: The platform had a glitchy, subjective process for assessing high-profile accounts but that there’s no evidence efforts to reduce the reach of certain accounts was spurred by political ideology. Musk and his allies have insisted that this ideological bias has been proven by the releases, itself mirroring the behavior of Trump and his supporters: If you insist hard enough, the facts become what you want them to be.

There’s an underrecognized point here. Consider why Musk posted that “Prosecute/Fauci” thing. He wants engagement by stirring up controversy, certainly, as well as to present views that contrast with the left-wing “mind virus.” But he’s doing so by trolling, by intentionally trying to irritate people.

This, at its heart, was what Twitter began to crack down on in the wake of the 2016 election and what led to the sense that the right was being unfairly targeted. Twitter implemented new, public policies that limited the reach of people whose accounts had repeatedly been flagged as abusive. This affected a lot of users whose preferred style of using the service was to try to irritate the actual or perceived left. Trolling and “lib-owning” had become central tactics of the online right. Twitter was not cracking down on right-wing accounts because they were right wing, in other words, but in part because right-wing accounts often engaged in activity that increased the toxicity Twitter was trying to stamp out. It wasn’t the politics but the practices.

In the case of Musk’s Fauci tweet, the medium was also the message.

His pledge to reinstate those whose accounts had been frozen by Twitter in the Before Times promised to simply reinject that toxicity into the platform. Outsiders making objective observations about how the platform worked — the same group that accurately predicted how Musk’s verification scheme would collapse — suggested that many of those reinstated would simply violate the platform’s terms again and test Musk’s tolerance for abuse. (See: Ye.) We shall see.

To Musk, though, this is itself a statement of politics. This group, he feels, was overwhelmingly right leaning, and he is welcoming them back. He thinks their voices were unfairly muffled and demand to be heard, something that he frames inaccurately as being derived from the First Amendment. He is sympathetic here because he largely agrees with what they were saying and how they were saying it.

Elon Musk is right wing. He has tried hard to make that very clear.

Source link

Politics

Politics Briefing: Younger demographics not swayed by federal budget benefits targeted at them, poll indicates

Published

 on

Hello,

The federal government’s efforts to connect with Gen Z adults and millennials through programs in last week’s federal budget has not yet worked, says a new poll.

The Angus Reid Institute says today that the opposition Conservatives are running at 43 per cent voter support compared to 23 per cent for the governing Liberals, while the NDP are at 19 per cent.

Polling by the institute also finds the Liberals are the third choice among Gen Z and millennial voters, falling behind the NDP and Conservatives.

300x250x1

According to the institute, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is viewed more positively among Gen Z adults than Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, with Poilievre at 29 per cent approval and Trudeau at 17 per cent. Poilievre also has a higher favorability than Trudeau’s approval among younger and older millennials.

Gen Z adults were born between 1997 and 2012, while the birth period of millennials was 1981 to 1996.

The poll conclusions are based on online polling conducted from April 19 – three days after the budget was released – to April 23, among a randomized sample of 3, 015 Canadians. Such research has a probability sample of plus or minus two percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Asked about the poll today, Trudeau said the budget is aimed at solving problems, helping young people and delivering homes and services such as child care.

“I am confident that as Canadians see these measures happening, they will be more optimistic about their future, the way we need them to be,” Trudeau told a news conference in Oakville, Ont.

He also said he expected Canadians to be thoughtful about the future when they vote. “I trust Canadians to be reasonable,” he said.

The Globe and Mail has previously reported that Trudeau’s government has set an internal goal of narrowing the Conservative Party’s double-digit lead by five points every six months. A federal election is expected next year.

This is the daily Politics Briefing newsletter, written by Ian Bailey. It is available exclusively to our digital subscribers. If you’re reading this on the web, subscribers can sign up for the Politics newsletter and more than 20 others on our newsletter sign-up page. Have any feedback? Let us know what you think.

TODAY’S HEADLINES

Pierre Poilievre visits convoy camp, claims Trudeau is lying about ‘everything’: CBC reports that the Conservative Leader is facing questions after stopping to cheer on an anti-carbon tax convoy camp near the border between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, where he bluntly accused Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of lying about “everything.”

Smith defends appointment of task force led by doctor skeptical of COVID-19 measures: The Globe and Mail has published details of the little-known task force that was given a sweeping mandate by the government to assess data used to inform pandemic decision-making. Story here.

Canadians should expect politicians to support right to bail, Arif Virani’s office says: The office of Canada’s Justice Minister says, warning that “immediate” and “uninformed reactions” only worsens matters.

Parti Québécois is on its way back to the centre of Quebec politics: The province’s next general election isn’t until 2026, a political eternity away, and support for separating from Canada remains stagnant. But a resurgent Quebec nationalism, frustration with Ottawa, and the PQ’s youthful, upbeat leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon have put sovereignty back on the agenda.

Anaida Poilievre in B.C.: The wife of the federal Conservative Leader has been on a visit to Kelowna in recent days that was expected to conclude today, according to Castanet.net.

Ontario to do away with sick note requirement for short absences: The province will soon introduce legislation that, if passed, will no longer allow employers to require a sick note from a doctor for the provincially protected three days of sick leave workers are entitled to.

Australian reporter runs into visa trouble in India after reporting on slaying of Canadian Sikh separatist: In a statement, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said Indian authorities should safeguard press freedom and stop using visa regulations to prevent foreign journalists covering sensitive subjects.

Canadian military to destroy 11,000 Second World War-era pistols: The Ottawa Citizen reports that the move comes as the Canadian Forces confirmed it has received the final deliveries of a new nine-millimetre pistol as part of a $19.4-million project.

B.C. opposition leader in politics-free oasis: The first hint that there may be more to Kevin Falcon, leader of the official opposition BC United party, than his political stereotype comes when you pull up to his North Vancouver home – a single-level country cottage rancher dwarfed on one side by large, angular, modern monstrosity. A NorthernBeat profile.

TODAY’S POLITICAL QUOTES.

“Having an argument with CRA about not wanting to pay your taxes is not a position I want anyone to be in. Good luck with that Premier Moe.” – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the Canada Revenue Agency weighing in on Saskatchewan’s government move to stop collecting and remitting the federal carbon levy.

“That’s not something that we’re hoping for. We’re not trying to plan for an election.“ – NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, at a news conference in Edmonton today, on the possibilities of an election now ahead of the vote expected in the fall of 2025.

THIS AND THAT

Commons, Senate: The House of Commons is on a break until April 29. The Senate sits again April 30.

Deputy Prime Minister’s day: In the Newfoundland and Labrador city of Mount Pearl, Chrystia Freeland held an event to talk about the federal budget.

Ministers on the road: Cabinet efforts to sell the budget continue, with announcements largely focused on housing. Citizens’ Services Minister Terry Beech and Small Business Minister Rechie Valdez are in Burnaby, B.C. Defence Minister Bill Blair is in Yellowknife. Employment Minister Randy Boissonnault is in Edmonton. Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne and Natural Revenue Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau are in the Quebec city of Trois-Rivières.

Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu is in Lytton, B.C., with an additional event welcoming members of the Skwlāx te Secwepemcúl̓ecw band to four new subdivisions built after the 2023 Bush Creek East wildfire. International Development Minister Ahmed Hussen is in Sault Ste. Marie. Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly is in Québec City. Diversity Minister Kamal Khera is in Kingston, Ontario. Immigration Minister Marc Miller and Tourism Minister Soraya Martinez Ferrada are in Whitehorse. Justice Minister Arif Virani and Families Minister Jenna Sudds are in North York, Ont. Veterans Affairs Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor is in Charlottetown.

Meanwhile, International Trade Minister Mary Ng is in South Korea leading a group of businesses and organizations through to tomorrow.

GG in Saskatchewan: Mary Simon and her partner, Whit Fraser, on the last day of their official visit to Saskatchewan, is in Saskatoon, with commitments that include visiting the Maternal Care Centre at the Jim Pattison Hospital and meeting with Indigenous leaders.

Ukraine needs more military aid, UCC says: The Ukrainian Canadian Congress says Canada should substantially increase military assistance to Ukraine. “As President Zelensky stated, “The key now is speed,’” said a statement today from the organization. The appeal coincides with U.S. President Joe Biden signing into law an aid package that provides over US$61-billion in aid for Ukraine. “We call on the Canadian government and all allies to follow suit and to immediately and substantially increase military assistance to Ukraine,” said the statement. An update issued on the occasion of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s February visit to Ukraine noted that, since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the Canadian government has provided $13.3-billion to Ukraine.

New chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission: David Hunt, most recently an assistant deputy minister in Manitoba’s environment department, has been named to the post for a four-year term by Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay.

PRIME MINISTER’S DAY

In Oakville, near Toronto, Justin Trudeau talked about federal-budget housing measures, and took media questions.

LEADERS

Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet is in the Quebec city of Victoriaville, with commitments that include a meeting at the Centre for Social Innovation in Agriculture

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, in the Vancouver Island city of Nanaimo, attended the sentencing of deputy party leader Angela Davidson, also known as Rainbow Eyes, convicted of seven counts of criminal contempt for her participation in the Fairy Creek logging blockades on Vancouver Island.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, in Edmonton, held a media availability.

No schedule released for Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre.

THE DECIBEL

James Griffiths, The Globe’s Asia correspondent, is on the show t to discuss Article 23 – a new national security law in Hong Kong that includes seven new offences related to sedition, treason and state secrets that is expected to have a chilling effect on protest. The Decibel is here.

OPINION

The Liberals’ capital-gains tax hike punishes prosperity

“In her budget speech this month, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland pointed to 1980s-era tax changes by the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney as a precedent for boosting the tax take on capital gains. … If one were to leave it at that, the Liberals come off quite well, having decided to boost the inclusion rate for capital gains – the amount subject to tax – to two-thirds, well below that of the latter years of the Mulroney government. But Ms. Freeland was only telling half the story.” – The Globe and Mail Editorial Board

The Liberals weight-loss goal shows they are running out of options

“The bad polls are weighing down the Liberals, so they have decided to shed some weight: They aim to cut the Conservatives’ lead by five percentage points by July. Like middle-aged dieters beginning a new regime, they’ve looked in the mirror and decided they have to do something. They’ve committed to it, too.” – Campbell Clark

Fear the politicization of pensions, no matter the politician

“Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland don’t have a lot in common. But they do share at least one view: that governments could play a bigger role directing pension investments to the benefit of domestic industries and economic priorities. Canadians, no matter who they vote for, should be worried that these two political heavyweights share any common ground in this regard.” – Kelly Cryderman

The failure of Canada’s health care system is a disgrace – and a deadly one

“What can be said about Canada’s health care system that hasn’t been said countless times over, as we watch more and more people suffer and die as they wait for baseline standards of care? Despite our delusions, we don’t have “world-class” health care, as our Prime Minister has said; we don’t even have universal health care. What we have is health care if you’re lucky, or well connected, or if you happen to have a heart attack on a day when your closest ER is merely overcapacity as usual, and not stuffed to the point of incapacitation.” – Robyn Urback

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Pecker’s Trump Trial Testimony Is a Lesson in Power Politics

Published

 on

David Pecker, convivial, accommodating and as bright as a button, sat in the witness stand in a Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday and described how power is used and abused.

“What I would do is publish positive stories about Mr. Trump,” the former tabloid hegemon and fabulist allowed, as if he was sharing some of his favorite dessert recipes. “And I would publish negative stories about his opponents.”

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

300x250x1
Continue Reading

Politics

Opinion: Fear the politicization of pensions, no matter the politician

Published

 on

Open this photo in gallery:

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland don’t have a lot in common. But they do share at least one view: that governments could play a bigger role directing pension investments to the benefit of domestic industries and economic priorities.

Canadians, no matter who they vote for, should be worried that these two political heavyweights share any common ground in this regard.

It became clearer in the federal budget last week as Ottawa appointed former Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz to lead a working group to explore “how to catalyze greater domestic investment opportunities for Canadian pension funds.” The group will examine how Canadian pension funds can spur innovation and drive economic growth, while still meeting fiduciary and actuarial responsibilities.

This idea has been in discussion since it was highlighted in the fall economic statement. In March, dozens of chief executives signed an open letter urging federal and provincial finance ministers to “amend the rules governing pension funds to encourage them to invest in Canada.”

300x250x1

Rewind to last fall, and it was Alberta’s plans that were dominating controversial pension discussions. As Ms. Smith championed Alberta going it alone, Canadians (including Albertans) were dumbfounded by her government’s claim the province could be entitled to 53 per cent of Canada Pension Plan assets – $334-billion of the plan’s expected $575-billion by 2027. The Premier has made the argument that starting with this nest egg, and with the province’s large working-age population, a separate Alberta plan could provide more in the way of benefits to seniors with lower premiums.

The main point of contention between the Smith government and Justin Trudeau’s Liberals has been what amount Alberta would take, should it exit the Canada Pension Plan. All parties are now waiting on Ottawa’s counter assessment; the Office of the Chief Actuary will provide a calculation sometime this fall.

But lost in this furious debate over that dollar amount is Ms. Smith’s desire to see the province have a say in how the pension contributions of Albertans are invested. The Premier has long expressed frustration that Canadian pension funds were being influenced by fossil-fuel divestment movements, and has suggested a separate Alberta pension plan could be a counterweight to this.

In addition, a key part of the promise for many supporters of the Alberta pension plan idea – including former premier Jason Kenney and pension panel chair Jim Dinning – has been the benefits that would accrue to the province’s financial services sector.

But just as the UCP government might see the potential of using the heft of pension assets to bolster the province’s energy sector, or to spur white-collar jobs in Calgary, the federal Liberals would like see more pension dollars directed toward Canadian AI, digital infrastructure and housing. These are some of the areas Ms. Freeland has directed Mr. Poloz’s working group to focus on.

Some would deem Mr. Freeland’s goals admirable. Tax dollars are already flowing to these sectors. It comes at a time of increasing concern about the housing crunch, Canada’s weak GDP numbers, and the fact that Canada’s economy is being carried along by strong population growth.

But many Canadians are already concerned with government priorities and federal spending. Many more would balk at governments picking winning industries with pension contributions. And governments change. A Conservative government, for instance, might have very different industries in mind for its own pension-fund working group – say, for instance, to make sure Canada doesn’t cede oil market share to Venezuela or the United States.

This pension working group is a convenient sweetener for a business community that has in many ways soured on this Liberal government. It comes at a moment when Ottawa is facing pushback – from technology entrepreneurs to doctors – to its proposed capital-gains tax hike.

It doesn’t appear Ottawa wants to go as far as recreating the CPP in the image of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, which has a formal mandate that includes contributing to the province’s economic development. And this isn’t to say there’s such a thing as complete neutrality in pension management now. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board makes decisions open to debate and criticism. It should hear what governments and industry have to say, and setting up a couple of regional offices, beyond Toronto, could be helpful.

But if pension plans are formally burdened with policy imperatives from politicians, it could distract from the main goals of reasonable premiums and retirement security for Canadians. It could see the prioritization of being re-elected over returns. The regional and sectoral tug-of-wars over the cash would be never-ending.

There’s good reason to fear what an Alberta government would do should it take control of its citizens’ pension wealth. The same is most definitely true for Ottawa.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending