Connect with us

Politics

Politics Briefing: The Prime Minister's Tofino trip comes to a close – The Globe and Mail

Published

 on


Hello,

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.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Tofino vacation is over.

Earlier this morning, Mr. Trudeau’s office issued an advisory saying he would also be in Ottawa today for “private meetings” and to speak with Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister of Australia.

Mr. Trudeau’s return to the nation’s capital ends his break in the Vancouver Island community that caused sustained political controversy because it began last week on Canada’s first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

Over the weekend, Mr. Trudeau apologized to the chief of a B.C. First Nation after choosing to vacation in Tofino rather than attend the community’s Truth and Reconciliation Day event.

Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc had sent the Prime Minister two invitations to attend its ceremonial event near the former Kamloops Indian Residential School, where the remains of about 200 children were discovered at the site in late May. Story here.

Victoria-based national correspondent Justine Hunter sends the following Reporter’s Comment from Tofino, B.C.: “Standing in the drizzle on a surfing beach near the resort town of Tofino on Saturday morning, I could make out about two dozen surfers bobbing, indistinguishable in their black wetsuits, out where the surf breaks. One of them was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, some were part of his security detail, and the rest were tourists and locals. Surfing protocol is all very democratic – you are supposed to wait your turn, no matter who you are. But Lyla Enns, a teenager from North Vancouver, later explained that she deferred to the Prime Minister when deciding who would get to catch the next wave. “I didn’t get up because I didn’t want to hit him,” she explained to me. Another young woman, Leila Nabavi, laughed as she described a near miss with Mr. Trudeau when he caught a wave and just about crashed into her as she paddled out into the break zone.

“Mr. Trudeau is a regular visitor to Tofino and lots of locals here have had the chance to share the surf, and to take away stories like these. While the controversy swirled around his decision to come here instead of marking his newly declared National Day for Truth and Reconciliation last Thursday, the local etiquette calls for leaving him be when he is on the beach. But at some point during the day, he called the chief of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation to apologize for opting to fly to Tofino for a holiday rather than to attend Thursday’s ceremonial event near the former Kamloops Indian Residential School, where the remains of about 200 children were located earlier this year.

“He also could have attended a local truth and reconciliation ceremony in Tofino on Thursday, but didn’t. The locals I spoke with were unimpressed with that decision.”

Vacation consternation – Mr. Trudeau is not the first Canadian politician to face trouble lately for their vacation choices.

Earlier this year, B.C. Premier John Horgan faced political turmoil, detailed here, for taking a break. And Alberta Premier Jason Kenney was under fire for a recent vacation, in a situation detailed here. Former Manitoba premier Brian Pallister faced political pressure for his regular vacationing in Costa Rica, chronicled here in Maclean’s by Nancy Macdonald, now with The Globe and Mail. Vacation choices have also been a challenge for U.S. presidents, as detailed here.

John Ibbitson (The Globe and Mail) on why the Tofino trip may hasten Mr. Trudeau’s political departure: “In political terms, the timing is especially unfortunate for Mr. Trudeau, because it reminds Liberal supporters of something they must already have been wondering: whether it is time to change horses… While the Prime Minister typically brazens through his misjudgments, this time Mr. Trudeau apologized. No doubt he was genuinely sorry. But also, he must have realized he was starting to run out of political lives.”

TODAY’S HEADLINES

TREATY INVOKED TO DEAL WITH LINE 5 DISPUTE – The Canadian government is invoking a 1977 treaty with the United States to formally commence government-to-government negotiations over the fate of Line 5, a vital petroleum pipeline for Canada that faces a threat of shutdown from the State of Michigan.

GOVERNMENT URGED TO EXTEND EMERGENCY COVID-19 BENEFITS – The federal government is facing calls from business and labour leaders to extend emergency COVID-19 benefits before they expire on Oct. 23, a move that was not explicitly promised in the Liberal Party’s election platform.

ONTARIO PROMISES CAUTIOUS COVID-19 REOPENING – Ontario remains committed to “the most cautious reopening in Canada” to avoid future COVID-19 lockdowns, the provincial government said in a Throne Speech on Monday, while promising an economic recovery fuelled by growth and not “painful tax hikes or spending cuts.”

THE CURRENT STATE OF CANADA’S KABUL EMBASSY – Senior international correspondent Mark MacKinnon checks out Canada’s abandoned embassy in Kabul under Taliban rule. Islamist militants now guard the former headquarters of Canada’s diplomatic mission in the Afghan capital – and they say the Canadians can come back any time. Story here.

AFGHAN WOMEN SOUGHT CANADA’S HELP – Afghan women ministers made pleas to Canadian politicians for help – and shared warnings about atrocities and the erosion of women’s rights – two months before the Taliban took control of Kabul. The desperate request was made during a Zoom meeting of the Canada-Afghanistan Parliamentary Friendship Group, attended by Canadian ministers, MPs and senators. Story here.

PAUL HURTING GREENS: MAY – Saanich-Gulf Islands Green Party MP Elizabeth May, the party’s former leader, says departing leader Annamie Paul is hurting the Green Party by remaining in control of its communications. From CTV.

HOW TO BE A PRIME MINISTER

From Governing Canada, A Guide to the Tradecraft of Politics by Michael Wernick (Published by On Point Press, an imprint of UBC Press)

As clerk of the privy council from 2016 to 2019, Michael Wernick was the head of the federal public service with responsibility for advising the prime minister and elected government officials. It was a key role in a public-service career that included senior roles serving four prime ministers.

Mr. Wernick has now written a newly published book about the operation of government. Governing Canada, A Guide to the Tradecraft of Politics occasionally reads like the manual that would be given to a rookie prime minister, cabinet minister or deputy minister – which makes it a very interesting book. (Parliamentary reporter Kristy Kirkup reported on the project here.) It is not a tell-all – it is, at 212 pages, succinct, evocative, blunt and never dull.

This week, the Politics Briefing newsletter will include short excerpts from a key chapter in the book, Advice to a Prime Minister. We’ll begin with Mr. Wernick’s observations on an aspect of being a prime minister that may be timely in light of current events:

“Being a prime minister is all about continuous multitasking, which won’t stop until you leave the job…Time for family, for exercise or relaxation, and for old friends outside of politics will be squeezed to the margins unless you work to protect it. By now, you have figured out what seems to work for you – your own approach to exercise and relaxation and to work. Do you prefer to finish up as much as you can at the office, or do you like to take work home?

“Try to consciously create a structure and a routine that work for your family so that you can return to that routine any time you are knocked off stride. It isn’t easy to fit spouses, children and parents into the grind of your new job. Work will tend to crowd out time for things that you used to do, like watching sports, binge-watching television series, or staying current on pop culture. Reading anything other than work-related documents will soon start to feel like a luxury. If your past pursuits are important to you, you will have to force time for them into your schedule.”

PRIME MINISTER’S DAY

Private meetings in Ottawa, and the Prime Minister talks with Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison.

LEADERS

No schedules released for party leaders.

OPINION

Konrad Yakabuski (The Globe and Mail) on Montreal’s mayoral race as another epic duel between Valérie Plante and Denis Coderre: Four years later, the tables have been turned as Montrealers gear up for, if not exactly the rematch of the century, then another epic duel between Ms. Plante and Mr. Coderre. Except that this time, having undergone a stunning physical and philosophical transformation, Mr. Coderre is running as a hope-and-change candidate while Ms. Plante seeks to defend her record.”

Andrew Cohen (Contributor to The Globe and Mail) on how Justin Trudeau became Lester Pearson: “Today, Justin Trudeau is in an eerily similar position. Like Mr. Pearson, he rebuilt a shattered party and led it back to power. Like Mr. Pearson, he called a snap election that gave him only two more seats, 11 short of a majority. Like Mr. Pearson, he has weathered scandal. Like Mr. Pearson, he faces a second minority government, navigating the shallows of a hung Parliament. But in calamity, opportunity. If Mr. Trudeau learns from his mistakes, rallies progressives and puts policy before politics, he can do much. Rather than spending the next three years contemplating his place in Parliament, he can find his place in history.”

Erica Ifill (Contributor to The Globe and Mail) on why Annamie Paul’s leadership never really had a chance: “There will be those who insist that race wasn’t a factor in the Green Party’s marginalization of Annamie Paul. But of course race is a factor when the first Black woman to lead a federal party doesn’t actually get a real chance to lead over a short term, and is instead bogged down by internal attacks, leadership questions and a lack of support that wasn’t evident before she arrived. This is misogynoir – and it’s the status quo in our political structures.”

Tasha Kheiriddin (National Post) on why rebuilding the Tories `big tent’ starts with new Canadians: Ironically, at the same time the Tories curbed family reunification, they aggressively sought to capture the votes of so-called “cultural communities,” notably in the suburbs of Vancouver and Toronto. However, then-immigration minister Jason Kenney’s infamous “curry in a hurry” strategy produced little more than indigestion. The lesson here is that opportunism will not build connection. There has to be more on offer than the promise of a say in government, or the implicit benefits of siding with the “winning” party. That something is making conservatism – the worldview, the philosophy, the vision – relevant to new Canadians. It is allowing them to identify with and see themselves in its future. To do this, the party has to both talk the talk, and walk the walk.”

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.

Got a news tip that you’d like us to look into? E-mail us at tips@globeandmail.com. Need to share documents securely? Reach out via SecureDrop

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Politics

Canada’s Trudeau to unveil Cabinet amid push to fight climate change

Published

 on

 Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who fell short of a majority in last month’s election, will introduce a Cabinet on Tuesday that analysts say should hone in on the fight against climate change.

Trudeau’s Liberals gained four seats to 159, but fell short of the 170 needed to pass legislation without the support of an opposition party. Minority governments normally last about two years instead of a full, four-year term.

Trudeau, 49, has promised to spend tens of billions of extra dollars over five years to help the economy recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. But analysts said Ottawa should narrow its focus and make fighting climate change a clear priority.

Peter Donolo, a political strategist at Hill+Knowlton who was communications director for Liberal former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, said the campaign had “a very ambitious agenda.”

“I would simplify it … on how to position Canada as a winner in the greener global economy over the longer term, and then on how to ensure that those benefits are shared more equitably,” he said by phone.

One option Trudeau is considering is a climate portfolio that pulls together some policies normally handled by several ministries, according to one Liberal source.

The new Cabinet will be sworn in at 10:30 a.m. (1430 GMT). Trudeau says it will be composed of an equal number of men and women, a pattern he set when first taking office in 2015.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland will keep her job, Trudeau said shortly after the vote, and has begun to reduce https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-govt-provinces-agree-covid-19-vaccine-travel-passport-officials-2021-10-21 COVID-19 support programs as the economy recovers and inflation https://www.reuters.com/business/canadas-annual-inflation-rate-hits-44-september-highest-since-2003-2021-10-20 hovers at an 18-year high.

Last month’s vote marked Trudeau’s third win as Liberal leader. Unhappiness over his decision to call an early election during the pandemic left him short https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-election-idAFKBN2GG06L of a majority.

Trudeau’s priorities are managing COVID-19, bolstering healthcare, fighting climate change and fostering a green economy, supporting economic growth, delivering national childcare and affordable housing plans, and following through on reconciliation with indigenous Canadians, a separate source with direct knowledge of the Cabinet said.

“This is only an 18- to 24-month government, so the idea that you can address all four or five or six or seven of those issues … is preposterous,” said Ian Lee, a business professor at Ottawa’s Carleton University.

Lee said growing the green economy should be a priority and merited a U.S.-style climate czar “with gravitas and with skill, and who has sharp elbows and is not afraid.”

Liberal officials say Public Services and Procurement Minister Anita Anand, who played a major role in obtaining COVID-19 vaccines, is set for a promotion, and Tourism Minister Melanie Joly also might get a more important role.

Anand could replace Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, who has been widely assailed over what critics say has been a lackluster effort to address allegations of sexual assault in the military, two Liberal sources said.

 

(Reporting by Steve Scherer; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Continue Reading

Politics

Class Politics in America Is Far From Dead – Jacobin magazine

Published

 on


Class Politics in America Is Far From Dead

A venerable theory about people’s political values is making a comeback: the theory of “postmaterialism.” But despite what you may have heard, the theory doesn’t say class politics is doomed in rich countries — and neither did the scholar who created it.

If the Democrats’ very existence as a governing party depends on reversing at least some share of their losses with working-class whites, how should it go about trying? But more fundamentally — is it even possible? (Brick Broadcasting / Flickr)

In his much-talked-about New York Times profile of Democratic data scientist David Shor last month, Ezra Klein dropped a G-bomb. That’s right. Götterdämmerung.

The word — which comes to us from the composer Richard Wagner and means “cataclysm,” basically —  is an apt summary of the long-term disaster now looming for Democrats in the Senate,  a threat Shor has been warning about for some time.

Klein relayed the jaw-dropping figures: If the Democrats perform as expected in next year’s midterms and then win 51 percent of the vote in the 2024 Senate elections — not an easy feat given the list of states that happen to have Senate elections that year — the party will walk away with just forty-three of the 100 Senate seats, seven less than they have now.

The cause of the Democrats’ brutal math has to do with the geography and demography of the world’s greatest — if, by greatest, one means sixth-most-malapportioned — deliberative body. The chamber’s one-state-one-vote scheme of representation (or two votes, in this case) vastly overrepresents the inhabitants of the states with the smallest populations — populations that happen to comprise far more “noncollege whites” (in pollster patois) than the general population.

Since this is a demographic group that’s been trending away from the Democrats for decades — once at the pace of a trickle, but growing into a flood since the emergence of Donald Trump — the upper chamber is rapidly becoming hostile, if not impermeable, terrain for the Democrats.

The problem is serious: Shor is basically suggesting that, barring some impossible-to-foresee twist in history, one can reasonably question whether the Democrats will ever obtain a governing majority again.

As the implications of this predicament have dawned on Democratic-aligned commentators and political operators over the past year, it’s had the notable effect of sparking a mini-revival of the hoary “white working class” debate, which, in its modern form, might be said to date back to George W. Bush–era books like John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira’s The Emerging Democratic Majority and Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas.

The question has suddenly gained urgency: If the Democrats’ very existence as a governing party depends on reversing at least some share of their losses with working-class whites, how should it go about trying?

But more fundamentally — is it even possible?

Immaterial Politics

Enter science. In a long article last month, New York magazine’s Eric Levitz, who has made a beat out of covering the Democratic Party’s numerous dilemmas and conundrums, riffed on an academic paper titled “Morals as Luxury Goods and Political Polarization” by political scientists Mattias Polborn of Vanderbilt University and Benjamin Enke and Alex A. Wu of Harvard. A symphony of equations and model-building, with a wan kazoo’s worth of empirical evidence thrown in, the paper is meant to advance the authors’ hypothesis that, as the title suggests, “moral values are a luxury good” — that is, as their incomes rise, the “relative weight that voters place on moral rather than material considerations increases.”

This was how the authors proposed to explain the puzzle of a rising tide of rich Democrats and poor Republicans in the US electorate. Although not true to the same extent for all Americans (poor Americans are still poorer than rich Americans, after all), as a group, the authors argue, Americans have reached such a pitch of affluence that they can afford not to care any longer which party or policy would benefit them in grubby material terms. They have slipped the surly bonds of kitchen-table concerns and now float freely in that rarefied stratum of the political universe — the Greater Bannon Cluster — where politics is pure culture war.

And there’s no going back: Since per capita income, the authors’ preferred proxy for affluence, is what’s driving this trend, and since, in the long run, per capita income almost always rises, it means the era of class politics — at least in the traditional sense of those at the bottom struggling to wrest wealth and power from those at the top — lies permanently behind us, extruded from history by the workings of an iron law.

But, as Levitz notes, and as the paper’s authors acknowledge, the underlying idea here is not new. It’s an extension, or application, or revision, of one of the most venerable research traditions in the past half-century of social science: the theory of postmaterialism.

Levitz wrote:

The political scientist Ronald Inglehart put forward a similar theory of why voters had started to prioritize “postmaterialist values” decades ago. And the World Values Survey has consistently substantiated Inglehart’s theory: In any given year, rich survey respondents tend to report greater concern with values and rights than with material security, while poor respondents evince the opposite preference. Further, as average incomes have increased over time, the American population as a whole has grown more post-material in its concerns.

The “Morals As Luxury Goods” paper’s original contribution is to show that post-materialism can explain a wide variety of oddities in contemporary politics.

Levitz’s article is just one example of a noticeable uptick in invocations of postmaterialism that has accompanied the resurgence of “white working-class” political discourse. For those who want to argue for the permanent irrelevance of class politics — whether as something to regret or as something to celebrate — it can serve as a tempting crutch, a supposedly scientific basis for the claim that politics is destined to descend more and more into a permanent culture war.

There are two major problems with the use of postmaterialism as a theory of the inevitable disappearance of class politics. The first is that it gets the theory wrong. But that’s just my non-expert opinion, so it’s not nearly as important as the second problem, which is that Ronald Inglehart himself —the political scientist who originated the postmaterialism thesis — thought it gets the theory wrong, too.

Time Out of Mind

When Inglehart developed the idea in the 1970s, his starting point was the observation that, thanks to economic growth on the one hand, and the expansion of welfare states on the other, the postwar baby boom generation had spent their formative childhood and teenage years in a material environment far more comfortable and secure — that is, sheltered from primal, physical threats to life and limb, like malnutrition or intercommunal violence — than any previous generation.

If you coupled that observation with the predictions of Albert Maslow’s famous hypothesis about a “hierarchy of needs” — the idea of a universal sequence of human priorities, with “higher” needs, like self-actualization, that individuals only start to care about once the “lower,” more basic needs, like food, have been satisfied — you could be led to suppose that the postwar generation’s ideas and assumptions about politics and society would be substantially different, in predictable ways, from those of their parents’ and grandparents’ generations.

That’s just what Inglehart found in the survey data of the 1970s: an accumulation of evidence that younger cohorts born in the rich countries after the war were, in relative terms, less focused on issues related to mere “survival,” like the cost of living or street crime — and therefore less accepting of “survival-oriented” values like loyalty and conformity to the norms of one’s group — and more preoccupied with issues of individual autonomy and self-realization, like the rights of sexual minorities or environmentalism.

Postmaterialism was one of the great success stories of postwar US social science. Starting with his 1971 article “The Silent Revolution in Europe: Intergenerational Change in Post-Industrial Societies,” Inglehart — the quintessential academic entrepreneur — defended, refined, extended, and restated his theory in dozens of books and reports and hundreds of articles, aided by regular infusions of data from the massive World Values Survey, which he founded in 1981. By the end of his life — he died in May of this year — he was the most-cited living political scientist in the English-speaking world.

Although Inglehart regarded postmaterialism as having broad implications for a range of questions in the social sciences, citations to his work (in my impressionistic judgment) tend to focus disproportionately on just one narrow application of the theory: its use as an explanation for the unraveling of traditional class-party alignments in Europe amid the emergence of the “new social issues” and the rise of green and right-wing populist parties in the 1970s and 1980s.

Perhaps it’s not surprising, then, that postmaterialism has at times been mistaken for a universal “theory of the death of class politics,” wherein the demise is shown to be the inevitable outcome of some law of history whose inner workings Inglehart laid bare. In reality, the theory, in itself, makes no fixed predictions one way or the other about future prospects for class politics. Inglehart himself was very explicit about this, as I’ll show in a minute.

But even without an appeal to Inglehartian authority, there are achingly obvious reasons to question the logic of such arguments. For one thing, the logic of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is that it’s a hierarchy: It predicts that people will not prioritize the higher needs unless the lower needs are taken care of — not that people will ever stop caring about the lower needs.

One could easily imagine a world in which people become more, rather than less, sensitized to threats to their economic security — the foundation all their “higher” pursuits depend upon — once they’ve tasted the emancipatory fruits of affluence. That was, more or less, the dynamic said to be at work in another golden oldie of postwar social science — the “revolution of rising expectations,” also known as the “J-curve” hypothesis, which posited that rapid economic growth and modernization in developing countries were intensifying class-based politics centered around material demands.

And then, there’s, like — actual history?

Even the most fleeting consideration of the historical record — pick any country you like, whichever time period you prefer — should leave you in a state of bafflement that anyone could think there was ever some era in the past when politics focused on material issues because the polity was too poor to indulge a taste for culture war.

I mean, where does the term “culture war” come from? It comes from the German Kulturkampf of the 1870s, the Imperial campaign of state repression against German Catholicism, a social bloc whose insistence on “traditional values” and opposition to political and social reform was seen by Prussia’s liberal middle classes as an obstacle to every kind of moral and material progress, whether concerning education, artistic and intellectual freedom, the status of women, or the freedom of conscience. (Otto von Bismarck, who launched the campaign, was not himself a liberal, of course, but he waged it in part to solidify the liberals’ support for the new German Empire and for himself personally.) The German Catholic masses, predictably, took political shelter in a confessional Catholic political party, the Zentrum.

You may be unfamiliar with the old cliché about Whigs and Tories in postreform Britain — that theirs was a clash “between Church and chapel” (i.e., Anglicans and Dissenters). But maybe you’ve heard of the Dreyfus Affair?

If none of those ring a bell, there’s literally the whole political history of the United States before the advent of the New Deal to consider. Though it hasn’t been a hot topic in academia for decades, the dominant school of thought among historians who study nineteenth-century parties and elections — basically the only school of thought, inasmuch as no one any longer challenges its main empirical claims — is called “the ethnocultural interpretation,” and when summarized (the summary below is by the labor historian Richard Oestreicher), it refutes the premise of “Morals as Luxury Goods” point by point.

Here’s what politics was like, according to a broad consensus of historians, in a country where the per capita GDP for 1880 is estimated at $7,600 in today’s dollars, less than in today’s Guatemala, Jamaica, or Vietnam:

Americans, contrary to consensus theorists, were bitterly divided about basic values and loyalties. But until the 1930s cultural issues aroused voters more consistently than economic issues or class interests. Class identities did not determine votes for most voters in most elections. . . .

Political parties, nonetheless, symbolized “irreconcilable belief systems” and resembled “political churches” mobilized around diametrically opposed reactions to the “strident Yankee moralism” of pietistic Protestants. . . . The Republican party, the political vehicle for that crusade in the late nineteenth century, could depend on the support of the overwhelming majority of northern native Protestants as well as immigrant Protestants with a similar theological orientation. Workers, farmers, and businessmen of such ethnocultural backgrounds supported the Republicans in similar proportions.

Arrayed against these cultural imperialists was a Democratic coalition of the targets of pietistic wrath: slaveholders and later most white southerners, Catholics, nonpietistic Protestant immigrants . . . drinkers, and the wider urban subcultures of plebeian sensual pleasures. . . .  Immigrant and Catholic businessmen were just as ready as their working-class neighbors to man Democratic barricades of cultural defense.

I’ve run through these examples not to score cheap debating points, but because they cut to the heart of the issue. If it turns out that history isn’t, in fact, a one-way march from the politics of scarcity to the politics of self-expression, pushed along by rising GDP — if it drifts back and forth between conflict over the material demands of the dispossessed and arguments about the symbolic and the sacred — then we’re left with no particular reason to accept the insistently proffered brief for the futility of class politics (unless we choose to commit the Journalist’s Fallacy of deducing the future from the present).

Back to the Future

And this was Inglehart’s view, too. From Silent Revolution (1977), his first book about value change, he was at pains to emphasize that, while he believed his theory could explain the ongoing scrambling of class-party alignments in Europe — and, in part, the gradual decentering of class issues that went with it — one could not draw a straight line from the 1980s indefinitely into the future, for two reasons.

First, the declining centrality of class was caused, in his theory, by the rise of a competing dimension of conflict, the materialist/postmaterialist divide. But if current trends continued, and the number of postmaterialists kept growing, eventually there would be too few materialists left to have a conflict with.

Second, while it might, arguably, be a safe bet that per capita GDP would keep rising indefinitely, the theory never held rising GDP per se to be responsible for the rising share of postmaterialists.

“Per capita income and educational levels are among the best readily available indicators of the conditions leading to the shift from materialist to postmaterialist goals,” he and Pippa Norris wrote in 2016, “but the­ theoretically crucial factor is not per capita income itself, but one’s sense of existential secu­rity — which means that the impact of economic and physical security is mediated by the given society’s social security system.”

It can’t be stressed enough that the public opinion data Inglehart analyzed in his initial works, in which he discovered the existence of a sharp and growing materialist/postmaterialist cleavage in rich countries, reflected the divergence in values between a generation that had been raised in the most cataclysmic era of modern history and a generation raised in what was, on average, probably the least threatening of all time.

But that is no longer true today. The end of rising security has, as Inglehart’s theory always predicted it would, brought the postmaterialist tide to a halt in country after country. In Inglehart’s cowritten book on the Trump-Brexit populism phenomenon, again with Pippa Norris, the authors trace out the underlying reasons for the reversal. They note that while

intergenerational population replacement is still taking place, in recent years it seems to have been offset by powerful period-effects linked with declining economic security. Millennials face greater risk of unemployment, stagnant wages, welfare cuts, and growing levels of student debt, so they are no longer growing up under dramatically more secure conditions than their elders. The declining strength of organized labor, economic liberalization, and the opening of borders to the free flow of labor, goods, trade, and services, has brought falling real income and the loss of job security to unskilled workers and the less educated populations in Western societies.

And what would a true believer in postmaterialism expect to happen under those conditions? What else, if not a return of class struggle?

In a 2016 article in Foreign Affairs, Inglehart laid out the reasons he believed the political shifts caused by postmaterialism’s ascent, which he’d been documenting uninterruptedly for virtually the whole of his long career, would go into reverse.

What had happened, he explained, was that

the success of the modern welfare state made further redistribution seem less urgent. . . . Globalization and deindustrialization undermined the strength of unions. And the information revolution helped establish a winner-take-all economy. Together these eroded the political base for redistributive policies, and as those policies fell out of favor, economic inequality rose once more.

Today, large economic gains are still being made in developed countries, but they are going primarily to those at the very top of the income distribution, whereas those lower down have seen their real incomes stagnate or even diminish. The rich, in turn, have used their privilege to shape policies that further increase the concentration of wealth, often against the wishes and interests of the middle and lower classes.

The “crucial questions for future politics in the developed world,” he reflected, were “how and when that majority develops a sense of common interest.” Would a sufficient number of “today’s dispossessed” come to “develop what Marx might have called ‘class consciousness’” and transform themselves into “a decisive political force?”

It wouldn’t happen overnight, he suspected, given how “crosscutting cultural divisions still exist and can still divert attention from common economic interests.” But Inglehart saw clear signs that cultural issues were already losing their potency — pointing to the unexpected implosion of the anti-same-sex-marriage crusade, whose comprehensive defeat no one would have predicted just a few years earlier.

Moreover, this time the fight would be “between a tiny elite and the great majority of citizens,” so that “the more current trends continue, the more pressure will build up to tackle inequality once again.”

“The signs of such a stirring are already visible,” wrote the father of postmaterialism, a few years before he died, “and in time, the practical consequences will be as well.”

This might seem sudden and unexpected; just a few years earlier, the idea of class struggle returning to the center of politics would have seemed absurd. But the story Inglehart tells is a tale as old as time.

“Postmaterialism,” he concluded, “eventually became its own gravedigger.”

Well burrowed, old mole!

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Edward Rogers saga involving Ujiri extension a reminder politics is intertwined in sports – CBC.ca

Published

 on


Despite the prolonged negotiation of Toronto Raptors vice-chairman and president Masai Ujiri’s contract, the real drama behind the scenes has reportedly come to light.

The Toronto Star exclusively reported on Monday that Edward Rogers, former chairman of Rogers Communications Inc., had “actively fought plans” to re-sign Ujiri, feeling as though he was not worth the amount offered to him.

Rogers Communications Inc. owns 37.5 per cent of the Raptors organization.

On the latest episode of CBC Sports video series Bring It In, host Morgan Campbell is joined by panellists Meghan McPeak and Dave Zirin to discuss what Ujiri has meant to the Raptors, as well as taking a closer look into the deep-rooted issues that led to Rogers’ stance on Ujiri.

WATCH | Bring It In panel discusses Edward Rodgers saga involving Ujiri:

Edward Rogers attempted to force Masai Ujiri out of Toronto | Bring It In

7 hours ago

The Bring It In panel reacts to The Toronto Star’s report that MLSE executive Edward Rogers did not want Masai Ujiri to return as Raptors president. 10:41

Regarding the situation, Rogers had reportedly referred to Ujiri as being arrogant and not wanting to share his vision for the Raptors franchise. Campbell made note of Rogers’ admiration for Donald Trump and how he’s similar to that of the former U.S. President.

“All of these machinations seem Trumpian. You don’t really have a plan, someone rubs you the wrong way, or questions your authority, ‘fire him, fire him, fire him, fire her, hire a bunch of people who are going to be loyal to me whether or not they know how to do the job,'” Campbell said.

Zirin noted that although he should be aware of what his words mean, Rogers knew what he was doing when making that statement and also exhibited his own arrogance.

“When you have people born on third base and think they hit a triple, they tend to be arrogant themselves and say and do things that are not in the best interest of the franchise.

“If you’re willing to give Masai Ujiri the stiff-arm after all we’ve seen over the last couple of years, you really don’t belong in any position of authority of an NBA franchise.”

McPeak went on to highlight Ujiri’s foundational work that has helped elevate the franchise and league as a whole.

“I think the most obvious one, the elephant in the room if you will, is the 2019 championship run,” McPeak said, highlighting everything he’s done on and off the court, for and with the team.

“You think of all his philanthropy that he does off the court through Giants of Africa … people within MLSE and the Raptors organization are a lot of the people who help him on the Giants of Africa trips that he takes.”

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending