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 signup page. Have any feedback? Let us know what you think.
Hours before tonight’s French-language leaders debate, the Conservative Party announced they would release their costed platform – a move likely to have an impact on the two-hour event as rival party leaders weigh in.
The Liberals released a costed platform on Sept. 1 while the NDP, Greens and Bloc Québécois have not said when they will release theirs.
On Wednesday, party leaders were largely behind closed doors preparing for the evening debate, which offers leaders a last opportunity to appeal to Quebec voters after last week’s TVA debate.
Tonight’s two-hour debate, which begins at 8 p.m. ET, will be followed Thursday night by an English-language debate that begins at 9 p.m. ET. Both are being convened by a consortium of broadcasters, and will be held at the Museum of Canadian History in Gatineau, Que.
Details on where and how to listen to both debates are available here.
The French-language debate will cover five themes: climate, the cost of living and public finances, Indigenous peoples as well as cultural industries and cultural identity, justice and foreign policy, and the pandemic and health care. The moderator will be Patrice Roy of Radio-Canada, with journalists Hélène Buzzetti (Les coops de l’information), Guillaume Bourgault-Côté (L’actualité), Paul Journet (La Presse) and Marie Vastel (Le Devoir) also participating. Journalist Noémi Mercier (Noovo Info) will facilitate segments, including questions asked by members of the public directly to the party leaders.
Unlike the recent TVA debate, tonight’s debate will include Green Party Leader Annamie Paul. However, Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada, failed to meet the criteria established for participation by the independent leaders’ debate commission.
Ms. Paul’s predecessor Elizabeth May has been in this spotlight before, having participated in two previous sets of debates.
“They’re never anything but nerve-wracking,” Ms. May said in an interview. “It’s high stakes. You want to basically make a favourable impression under incredibly intense circumstances.”
Ms. May said she never prepared, as is conventional, with mock debates in which other people pretend to be the party leaders, nor went into the debates with prepared witty “zinger” lines, but rather approached the experience like an exam, studying all her files. “This may not be a winning strategy, because I am not prime minister.”
Hamish Telford, an associate professor of political science at the University of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, said the debate will likely generate clips that will be replayed on social media, helping voters draw conclusions about the proceedings.
“That’s one of the reasons why they talk over each other, to try and prevent the other person from getting memorable lines out,” he said.
SAFE HOUSES OPERATING – A network of safe houses for interpreters in Kabul is still operating to keep people out of the hands of the Taliban until they can be evacuated, but limited resources and the Canadian government’s response continue to make the situation uncertain.
O’TOOLE PROMISES VACCINATED HEALTH MINISTER – Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole says he would appoint a health minister who is fully vaccinated against COVID-19 if his party forms government, despite not requiring his candidates to be vaccinated.
LPC TAX PLAN IMPACTS SHARES – A Liberal Party campaign pledge to raise taxes on large banks and insurers is weighing on the share prices of large financial institutions and creating uncertainty for investors expecting a windfall from bumper profits the sector has earned so far this year.
SAFETY CONCERNS COMPROMISE DEBATE – A live election debate in Dawson Creek, B.C., that was supposed to take place this week has been cancelled over safety concerns amid rising conflict over COVID-19 mandates. (CBC) Story here.
GREENS FACE B.C. CHALLENGES – In British Columbia, the Greens face a slide into obscurity that could benefit the NDP in a few critical races, and complicate Liberal ambitions. Story here, from The National Post.
All major national leaders have one key commitment today, namely participating in the French-language leaders’ debate.
ELECTION SPOTLIGHT – NUNAVUT
1 Seat. At dissolution of Parliament, 1 NDP.
Corey Larocque, managing editor of the Nunatsiaq News
“At a time when Canadians are encouraging more women to run for office, we already know Nunavut’s next MP will be a woman. The Liberals, Conservatives and NDP all have female candidates in the three-way race to represent Canada’s geographically biggest riding. Nunavut should be seen as “up for grabs.” In a tight national race, it’s an open seat in a riding that has picked an MP from three different parties over the past 10 years.
“It’s a wide-open race because New Democrat Mumilaaq Qaqqaq announced in May she would not seek re-election to the seat she won in 2019.
“Qaqqaq became a high-profile MP partly due to her House of Commons farewell speech in which she said that as an Inuk woman, she felt she never belonged in Parliament, never felt safe there and that she had been racially profiled by Parliament Hill security. Earlier in 2021, she got into a war of words on Twitter with Labrador MP Liberal Yvonne Jones over Jones’ “Inuk-ness.” In the month leading up to the election, the government paid a lot of attention to Nunavut; cabinet ministers Marc Miller, Catherine McKenna, Ahmed Hussen and Dan Vandal all made government funding announcements in Iqaluit.
“Housing – a perennial issue in the North – is a hot-button issue, partly due to Qaqqaq’s efforts to raise awareness of what she called “deplorable” housing conditions in a report she prepared earlier this year.
“As of Sept. 6, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is the only party leader to visit Nunavut during the campaign. About 100 people turned out to a speech in which he pledged a Liberal government would add $360-million to housing in the North.
“In the past 10 years, the NDP, Liberals and Conservatives have all held the Nunavut riding. Former MPs Hunter Tootoo and Leona Aglukkaq were cabinet ministers in the governments of Justin Trudeau and Stephen Harper, respectively.”
Together with CTV and Nanos Research, The Globe and Mail is doing daily surveys to track which party and leader Canadians prefer. Read more here.
MANDATORY VACCINATION POLL – New data from the Angus Reid Institute finds rising support for mandatory vaccinations to enter public spaces, with support for proof of vaccination now a majority opinion in both Alberta and Saskatchewan despite opposition to vaccine passport systems by Premiers Jason Kenney and Scott Moe. Details here.
Campbell Clark (The Globe and Mail) on Justin Trudeau as the Liberal campaign’s biggest asset, turned into its greatest liability: “There is that brief pause Justin Trudeau often takes before launching into his reply to a reporter’s question, followed by a little nod, an intake of breath, and a stock opening like, “Canadians expect their government to …” Some Canadians will watch it and give it a mental thumbs-up. Others never could stand Mr. Trudeau, anyway. And some large number of Canadians will roll their eyes even when they half-agree with what he says. It’s that last portion who are making this election campaign a bigger challenge than the Liberals expected. Justin Trudeau is the Liberal campaign’s biggest asset, and its biggest liability.”
Andrew Coyne (The Globe and Mail) on why Maxime Bernier and his noxious views should be at the leaders’ debates: “There are two weeks to go until the election, but already it’s possible to declare a winner. Not the Liberals, who are down about six points in the polls since the start of the campaign. Not the Tories, whose gains to date are only enough to bring them back to where they were in 2019. The NDP have mostly gone sideways, the Bloc has slipped a little, while the Greens have lost a third of their support. No, the early winner is the People’s Party of Canada, otherwise known as the Max Bernier Experience. At roughly 5 per cent (some polls have them as high as eight), support for the Peeps is half again as high as it was at the start of the campaign, and three times what it was in the last election. They are now clearly ahead of the Greens, and within striking distance of the Bloc. This is an appalling development.”
Camellia Wong (contributor to The Globe and Mail) on how Elections Canada’s cancellation of on-campus voting program fails Canadian democracy: “My experience isn’t unique. Voting is a habit, like drinking your morning coffee or brushing your teeth. Decades of research shows that when our democracies engage young people early we can create entire generations of lifetime voters, just like me. Since the 2019 election, more than 800,000 young Canadians have become eligible to vote for the first time. In this election, many of them should have been offered opportunities to vote on their postsecondary campuses. But, to the detriment of our country’s democracy, Elections Canada has cancelled its Vote on Campus Program this year.”
Michael Wernick (Policy Options), former Privy Council clerk, on how politicians need to be honest about what’s on the table when it comes to their spending plans: “Political parties don’t like to talk about spending cuts – except perhaps to insinuate that the other parties have some hidden agenda. They try to project to voters that they can be trusted to manage the finances of the federal government, but details will always be sketchy. Campaign promises tend to be specific about shiny new programs, and occasionally about the reversal of measures the previous government took. But, generally, political parties are very vague on how to get to fiscal targets. Every party platform should end with the warning: “Check against delivery.” To paraphrase the misquoted remark attributed to Kim Campbell, an election is not seen as a great time to discuss serious matters. But Canadians should start asking for more clarity during the current campaign.”
Send along your political questions and we will look at getting answers to run in this newsletter. (Please note, it is not possible to answer each one personally.) Questions and answers will be edited for length and clarity.
Politics Professor Emeritus leads prestigious four-part lecture series – University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily
When Brantly Womack, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Virginia and Senior Faculty Fellow at the Miller Center, retired from his professorship at the University last May, there was a noticeable loss in the Politics department’s coverage of contemporary China and Chinese politics. No classes on Chinese politics are being offered this semester, and the Politics department has not yet instated a replacement for Womack as the department’s China expert. This was a catalyst for Womack’s decision to host a four-part lecture series entitled “China and the Recentering of East Asia” through the University’s own East Asia Center, beginning Thursday and with three more planned through Oct. 7.
“This is my little effort to continue presenting something available to students about the big picture on China and Asia,” Womack said.
Womack’s speaker series has been set to run for four consecutive weekly lectures, covering a chronological scope of China’s history and positioning in the changing regional and global socio-political landscape. Each session will feature Womack’s own knowledge, an assortment of attendee questions organized by a chosen moderator and significant collaboration with a renowned Chinese expert.
“I could combine the presentation, not only with a webinar, but also top Asia experts to comment on the history of Asia or comment on my ideas on the history of Asia,” Womack said. “That adds a tremendous amount to the depth and to the richness of the ideas available.”
The first session of the series took place Thursday night and was moderated by Ambassador Stephen Mull, the University’s current vice provost for global affairs. To kick off his discussion on the topic of “China’s Premodern Centricity,” Womack welcomed Wang Gungwu, a professor at National University of Singapore and renowned Chinese historian, as his first guest collaborator.
In addition to Zoom, the event welcomed both in-person attendance and a livestreamed service on YouTube for those who did not register on time. 300 people alone were registered on Zoom, and this significant online turnout was complemented by the estimated 40 to 50 in-person student and faculty attendees who gathered in Nau Hall’s large lecture space. All attendees were masked in accordance with the University’s COVID-19 policy, and everyone sat fairly distanced from each other.
East Asia Center Director Dorothy Wong welcomed all of the event’s in-person and virtual attendees at 8:30 p.m. Thursday before passing the microphone to Mull. After a brief recognition of all of Womack’s accomplishments, Mull invited the series’ host to take the stage, and the main presentation began.
Womack’s first presentation emphasized three different kinds of continuities throughout Chinese history — situational factors, asymmetric perspectives and relational interactions. The now-retired professor expanded upon each continuity with carefully articulated detail before inviting his guest Gungwu to elaborate, emphasize and challenge his presentation.
“It was a really insightful discussion,” said first-year College student Juan Arratia. “There were a whole bunch of interesting perspectives… My favorite moment would probably be when [Wang] modified a bit of what the Professor said and added a new spin to it, I liked that a lot.”
This interest certainly didn’t end with Arratia — professors and students alike sat attentively in the crowd at Nau Hall.
Attendees took notes, listened and engaged with the professor’s intellectual and humorous insights. Although reasons for attendance varied, there seemed to be a unanimous interest in the chosen subjects being discussed.
“I heard about the event through my engagements class,” first-year College student Reese Whittaker said. “I would really like to attend the other parts of the lecture series … I think it’s important to know history everywhere in the world [because] I’m a firm believer that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Brian Murphy, the East Asia Center’s administrative coordinator, furthered Whittaker’s take on the importance of understanding history from a more broad perspective.
“I mean, it’s not the type of thing that really is taught in the curriculum at any level,” Murphy said. “You know you can get a B.A. and have really no idea about the history of the East … It’s kind of amazing that that’s the case, that world history is always so Eurocentric.”
Both Murphy and Whittaker’s responses elucidate the importance of continuing to broaden our understanding of contemporary China despite the topic’s absence from the University’s curriculum this semester. In the wake of the Asian Student Union-led survey report of APIDA students released in February, opportunities like this lecture series hope to continue acting as avenues for awareness and contextualization.
“I think a lot of our students are interested,” Wong said. “I learned that among the U.Va. undergraduate population, 25 percent of students have Asian and Asian American backgrounds. I hope the University pays attention to addressing the needs of the students of Asian and Asian American background.”
In the coming weeks, Womack will return to the podium of Nau 101 and virtually welcome three more internationally esteemed guest speakers from China, Australia and Taiwan.
His selection of speakers is impressive to say the least, and might not have been possible without his ready acceptance of a hybrid format.
“They’re all friends of mine and I’m happy to say that they’re my number one choices and they all agreed immediately to do this,” Womack said. “And even though I think remote teaching has all sorts of problems, remote events — that’s something that Zoom has added a whole new dimension of possibility to that we’d never be able to pay for, let alone actually get the people who are going to be commenting over the next few weeks.”
Trudeau warns against vote split in tight Canada election
Brooklin, Ontario (Reuters) -With the Canadian election in a dead heat two days before the Sept. 20 vote, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Conservative rival implored supporters to stay the course and avoid vote splitting that could hand their opponent victory.
Both men campaigned in the same seat-rich Toronto region on Saturday as they tried to fend off voter defections to the left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) and the populist People’s Party of Canada (PPC), both of which are rising in polls.
The latest Sondage Leger poll conducted for the Journal de Montreal and the National Post newspapers put the Conservatives one percentage point ahead of Trudeau’s Liberals, with 33% over 32%. The NDP was at 19% while the PPC was at 6%.
Trudeau, 49, called an early election, seeking to convert approval for his government’s handling of the pandemic into a parliamentary majority. But he is now scrambling to save his job, with Canadians questioning the need for an early election amid a fourth pandemic wave.
“Despite what the NDP likes to say, the choice is between a Conservative or a Liberal government right now,” Trudeau said in Aurora, Ontario. “And it does make a difference to Canadians whether we have or not a progressive government.”
Trudeau has spent two of the final three days of his campaign in Ontario where polls show the NDP could gain seats, or split the progressive vote.
A tight race could result in another minority government, with the NDP, led by Jagmeet Singh, playing kingmaker. It has also put a focus on turnout, with low turnout historically favouring the Conservatives.
An Ekos poll released on Saturday also showed the main parties neck and neck though the Liberals had an edge at 30.6% compared to 27.7% for the Conservatives. At these levels, neither party appears likely to reach the 170 seats needed for a majority in the 338-seat House of Commons.
With a Liberal minority the most likely result based on polls, Trudeau was asked if this could be his last election. He responded: “There is lots of work still to do, and I’m nowhere near done yet.”
If voters give Trudeau, who was first elected in 2015, a third term, everything they dislike about him “will only get worse,” Conservative leader Erin O’Toole told supporters on Saturday, saying his party was the only option for anyone dissatisfied with the Liberals, in a dig at the PPC.
The PPC, which has channelled anger against mandatory vaccines into surprising support, could draw votes away from the Conservatives in close district races, helping the Liberals eke out a win.
An election that had appeared set to be an easy win for Trudeau, whose Liberals had led comfortably in polls before it was called, has become an unexpected slog due to a lackluster campaign, the reemergence of old scandals, and public anger over its timing.
“I wish it wasn’t happening, to be honest,” said Connie Riordan, a voter in Cambridge, Ontario, who said she had switched to the Conservatives in advance voting from the Liberals.
On Saturday, the Liberals announced they would drop a candidate over a 2019 sexual assault charge that the party said was not disclosed to them. The candidate, a naval reservist running in an open Liberal seat in downtown Toronto, will not be a member of the Liberal caucus, if he is elected, the party said.
Earlier this month, Liberal member of parliament Raj Saini ended his re-election campaign amid allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards female staffers.
O’Toole, 48, campaigned in Saini’s district on Saturday, one of three Liberal ridings he is hoping to swing his way. Earlier, he appeared in a Conservative-held riding west of Toronto that was closely fought during the 2019 election.
The area’s member of Parliament, who is not running again, came under fire last spring for saying COVID-19 lockdowns were the “single greatest breach of our civil liberties since the internment camps during WW2.”
O’Toole, who said he wants to get 90% of Canadians vaccinated, has refused to say who among Conservative Party candidates were.
(Editing by Daniel Wallis and Andrea Ricci)
5 Reasons It’s Hard For Disabled People To Trust Politics And Activism – Forbes
Disabled people’s attitudes towards politics and activism are complicated.
Distrust in politics is almost standard among Americans today. Some of that distrust extends to various forms of activism as well –– or to anyone trying to change public policy, or people’s beliefs and behaviors. But what about people with disabilities, who have historically benefitted from the fruits of politics and activism, but also felt let down by them more than once?
Despite the urgency of problems and issues disabled people face, a great many of us remain alienated and suspicious of social and political action. Exploring the reasons why is important if we are to fully understand ourselves, and if others –– especially politicians and policy makers –– are ever to understand us.
It helps to start by recognizing some of the reasons for disabled people to be optimistic about politics and activism today:
- There was more detailed focus on disability issues by the 2020 Presidential campaigns than ever before. At least ten candidates for President issued specific, multi-point disability plans, nearly all of which included at least some of disabled people’s most cherished priorities.
- Voter participation by people with disabilities significantly increased in the 2020 Elections. Rutgers University researchers Lisa Schur and Douglas Kruse report that although there is still a participation gap between disabled and non-disabled voters, it shrunk in 2020. Disabled voter turnout was 5.9 points higher than in 2016, and 17.7 million disabled people voted in the 2020 Election overall, a potentially powerful contingent of voters.
- There is a rare chance right now for passage of major investments in home care through the Better Care Better Jobs Act, and for significant reform and updating of SSI in the SSI Restoration Act. Both are high priority issues for the disability community that are finally being at least taken seriously by a Presidential administration and Congress.
All of these developments suggest that disabled people’s involvement in activism and politics really can work. And they didn’t come out of nowhere, or because politicians are suddenly more compassionate or interested in disability issues for their own sake.
These gains and opportunities exist today because of decades of organized protest, policy activism, and political engagement starting in the early 1970s by movements of disabled people, fighting for ourselves. This movement has won specific victories, like passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, as well as more gradual shifts, like inclusion in schools, deinstitutionalization, and the gradual expansion of home care.
These are impressive gains, won by disabled people’s involvement in activism and politics. But yesterday’s victories can only do so much to persuade most disabled people that fighting for change is time well spent. Many if not most of us remain wary and skeptical about organized activism and electoral politics. Some disabled people are distinctly hostile to them.
Precise reasons are hard to pin down. But there are broad factors worth considering:
1. Politics and activism aren’t accessible.
Despite clear and longstanding mandates, voting accessibility is inconsistent from region to region. Would-be disabled voters still regularly contend with inaccessible polling places, antiquated voting systems, and poorly trained poll workers.
Now, some measures that made voting a good deal more accessible in 2020 are under direct attack in many states. This includes efforts to restrict or eliminate voting by mail and early voting. Meanwhile, countless other petty measures are being passed that make the act of voting more physically restrictive and demanding rather than less. Whether intentionally or not, these measures turn voting into a test of endurance, instead of a civil right.
Political events are often inaccessible too. This includes party and campaign meetings, public forums, campaign rallies, and voter outreach activities. Disabled people who want to participate in politics constantly run into problems with:
- Wheelchair accessibility
- Sign Language interpreting
- Captioning for video content
- Transcripts for audio content
- Website accessibility
- Plan language versions of key documents
Even disability organizations can fail at some of these basic components of accessibility. And there are other, more subtle problems with inclusion in disability culture as well.
Disability activists sometimes put unreasonable physical and emotional demands on each other. Sometimes this happens because of sincere enthusiasm and momentum for a vital cause. Other times it’s part of a vain effort to demonstrate disabled people’s ability to achieve in mainstream social action, without compromise to our impairments. Either way, it’s ironic and wasteful that so many disabled people are allowed to conclude that their own disabilities make it impossible for them to do disability activism.
These practical deterrents don’t just keep disabled people out of politics and activism physically, but discourage us from even trying.
2. Mainstream politics tends to either ignore or misunderstand disability issues and culture.
Until fairly recently, disability issues and disabled voters were virtually invisible in political campaigns. When they were addressed, it was only in the most vague and inconsequential ways. There has always been lots of “support” for our rights, but little in the way of policy that was politically challenging, or likely to make a real difference in our lives. This is beginning to change, but the progress so far is lopsided.
It’s progress that ten Presidential candidates offered substantial disability plans last year, but unfortunate that they were all from one party. Republican Presidential candidates offered no plans or positions on disability policy. And few “lower ballot” candidates of any party bothered to put out disability plans, even though Congress and state legislatures have far more practical impact on disability issues than presidents do.
So despite some recent encouraging signs, “addressing disability issues” still too often means candidates running sentimental ads and photo ops with unnamed kids in wheelchairs –– or addressing the needs of disabled people indirectly and mistaking the concerns and priorities of parents, teachers, and “caregivers” as being the same as those of disabled people themselves. This condescension has done a lot to sour disabled people’s feelings about politics, despite other undeniable gains.
3. The goals are good, but it’s too hard to see or recognize results.
Disability activists and policy developers are often on the right track, and are being honest when they describe the better lives disabled people can have if we all join the push for needed reforms. But in disability activism and politics, satisfaction is usually not just denied or delayed, but also disguised.
Even when change does come, we usually have to wait far too long before seeing the direct, personal results we were promised. And it’s not always obvious that a modest improvement we are experiencing now is a result of intense and committed disability activism that happened five or more years before.
There is also often a strong status quo bias. Some disabled people don’t like their living, working, or financial circumstances, but come to believe that any sort of “change” is more likely to make their lives worse than better, no matter what activists say. This may partly explain some of the backlash, even among some disabled people, against changes like increasing funding of home and community based services, and ending sub-minimum wage.
A lot of disabled people feel burned, not just by those who oppose change, but by the disabled activists who promise it, but rarely seem to deliver. This breeds a very specific and corrosive kind of mistrust –– a mistrust of optimism itself.
4. It’s hard to keep track of what’s happening.
There is usually just too much going in disability activism and politics for most disabled people to keep track or up to date.
The disability community is fragmented. There is no one source of reliable information, no single recognized leader to rally support at key moments. This diversity is a strength. And it can be bad in a different way when a very few disabled people or disability organizations have a monopoly on attention and power. But being this decentralized is also a weakness, especially in situations where coordination and mass dissemination of information is vital.
Internet communications have more recently helped sew some of the various disability communities together. But social media is also making the task harder, because it speeds everything up even more. We have the tools to let millions of disabled people know instantly when calls are needed to pass a bill. But we can rarely count on anyone to put those tools to use in time. And most disabled people have barely even begun to explore disability networks online, much less in their own towns and local organizations.
Disability politics and activism may actually have been easier when there were fewer realistic possibilities for us. More opportunities mean more work. The disability community’s goals may be outpacing its capacity to achieve them. That’s a positive sign for the future. But it’s a real and difficult practical problem for the present.
5. Nearly every victory the disability community wins brings risks.
The Americans with Disabilities Act was a massive moral and legal victory for disabled Americans. It remains one of our proudest accomplishments and the basis for most of our current claims for access, equality and fairness. But almost as soon as it was passed in 1990, efforts were underway not so much to overturn the law, but to make it manageable and blunt its more demanding and significant mandates.
Large companies especially were quick to develop effective strategies to “comply” with the ADA, while avoiding more meaningful improvements for actual disabled people. People complain about disability activists and lawyers using the ADA to make money off seemingly small accessibility violations. But far more consultants and lawyers have been making a living for decades by teaching businesses and employers more how to avoid compliance, or accomplish it superficially and on the cheap.
This isn’t unique to the ADA. Disability policy changes are almost always so complicated that it makes them less effective. Reforms like the ABLE Act have done genuine good for disabled people. But like so many other disability policy bills, in order to pass it was limited, trimmed, and loaded with conditions in ways that leave significant numbers of disabled people out and make even approaching it intimidating. The combination of narrowed eligibility and hard to understand rules make even some of the best disability reforms and programs all but invisible to the people they are meant to help.
Advocacy success breeds other problems, too. Now that we are seeing more disabled people elected and appointed to key government positions, it’s fair to ask how much a numerical increase in high profile “disability representation” really improves things. There’s a danger that truly effective activists can win well-deserved positions in government and politics, only to be constrained by the shackles of government itself, and held back by the politics that helped win them power.
This isn’t even about corruption or “selling out.” The dilemmas disabled leaders and representatives face are real. It takes more than most people can manage to balance a true commitment to disability activism, the obligations of responsible office, and the need for political unity and mutual support within any administration. We want to see disabled people in government where they can do some good. But is that even possible?
Distrust in politics and doubts about the usefulness of disability activism are natural, even healthy feelings for disabled people to have. At best they prompt us to ask uncomfortable but necessary questions. The problem comes when healthy skepticism becomes toxic cynicism. For the disability community to keep moving forward, we have to be wary and aware, but without giving in to pessimism and apathy. If we can manage that, it could even be a lesson to all Americans, with or without disabilities.
Investors sell off Chinese real estate stocks – The Real Deal
What China developer Evergrande's debt crunch means for U.S. investors: Ed Yardeni – CNBC
Politics Professor Emeritus leads prestigious four-part lecture series – University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
Europe kicks off vaccination programs | All media content | DW | 27.12.2020 – Deutsche Welle
Iran anticipates renewed protests amid social media shutdown
Business22 hours ago
CN Rail to slash capital spending, resume stock buybacks as shareholder battle looms – The Globe and Mail
Politics17 hours ago
Trudeau warns against vote split in tight Canada election
Sports17 hours ago
WTA roundup: Finals set in Luxembourg, Portoroz
News17 hours ago
British Columbia school district to lock all schools due to anti-vax protests
Health16 hours ago
Coronavirus cases in Quebec rise by 821 with three new deaths and two more hospitalizations – CTV News Montreal
News17 hours ago
U.S. resumes talks with Huawei CFO on resolving criminal charges – Globe and Mail
News17 hours ago
U.S. lawmakers push Biden to lift Canadian travel restrictions
Art20 hours ago
Richmondite contributed artwork to support councillor Au's mobile art gallery – Richmond News