Too much academic, theoretical blather. I don’t want the proto fascist, Trump aligned PP to win. I don’t want the NDP rewarded for the dismantling of unified opposition. I want a calm, able, likeable, strong person to lead the ‘natural’ political party of Canada to victory. I’m with Carney.
This 5th grader doesn’t have the time or inclination to sort through the academic nuances of why a candidate does not exhibit the ideal profile of our future leader. This happened in the US where everybody had some problem with something Harris said or did that revealed her flaws. In the meantime, the empire was being set alight by people who either never participate in the democratic echochamber or seize on the divisions and faults in our arguments as evidence of weakness. So. Keep it simple, direct, moral and effective. That is my point.
Why does all public thinking have to take the form of four-word "direct, moral and effective" slogans? What does "effective" even mean here? That is a nonsensical retort
Also LOL if you think the reason Harris lost was because of think pieces like this. And not, you know, being silent on genocide and her platform offering nothing new to working class americans (destroying the federal jobs program, abandoning anti-fracking stance etc etc etc)
Right. And there we have it. You don’t see how you are proving my point here? All of those evil aspects of her pounded by the right and far left have increased her vulnerability. And those clever commentators on the “woke” left have traded a candidate who failed them in some ways for a candidate who fails them in all ways. A human being for a slime ball who will usher in decades of uncertainty and conflict.
All your points may be correct (they are not) but you are losing the objective. Consider if your influence is better deployed into the very small circle of political scientists digging for intellectual nuance or into the real politics of winning with the candidate who will respond to the majority in the most inclusive way. It’s all about winning. Not necessarily about in-depth understanding of each issue. No one will listen to you and those that do represent a club faction with little influence. Winning.
So, in an exceptionally long winded narrative, you caution, strongly, against believing in Mark Carney’s suggested approaches to countering Trump's threats to our very existence as a nation, and observe (correctly) that Poillievre’s perpetually angry rhetoric is also not the answer to our current dilemma, but offer absolutely no concrete reasons why, or how any other Canadian politician could do better. May I suggest, Mr Savage, that you register as a leadership candidate yourself and take your soapbox to the street corners of our country? Good luck in helping to stop the increasingly unhinged “king” to the south.
Speaking as a pragmatist, it seems our choice will be between Carney and Poilievre. Which one is more likely to do what must be done? Regardless of these "reservations" about Carney, I believe that Poilievre has major red flags attached and not even a semblance of coherent policy to deal with all these issues that are now present and will also continue to manifest in new ways. How about a full analysis of Poilievre "policy" and his competence or lack thereof to guide Canadians through these crises? The logical, thinking voting population has no other choice than Carney in this moment.
how has "Lesser Evilism" been working for the last 30-40+ years? record levels of homelessness, record levels of food bank usage among children, record levels of rent inflation, record high grocery prices...Trudeau didn't prevent any of this, Carney won't fix any of this, and they're the best we can do? No. Weak Trudeau/Carney liberals create the conditions for Poilievre/Trump strongmen. They enable them.
Your frustration at PP needs to extend beyond the voting booth. Worker organization and socialist electoral powerblocks growing *between* elections are the only things that will prevent Trump style corporatism from migrating north
Certainly hope your belief that Carney will somehow fail, suggests that you think that PP the politician with a paperboy’s worldly experience will be Canada’s saviour. Please say it ain’t so
Countries are capable of boosting military spending and keeping that investment domestic: Denmark has rapidly grown theirs to 3.2% of GDP in response to the growing threat of the now all but formalised US-Russia axis. Denmark has done this in 2 years.
In contrast, Carney's promise of 2% by 2030 is paltry, timid and underscores his weakness on issues of international affairs – no mention yet of Ukraine, Palestine, ICJ, ICC, foreign development aid, etc. In fairness, he did discuss focusing that spending domestically. He is politically wise to ignore the unavoidable pain of US-Canada supply-chain decoupling. Can't blame the man for enjoying the free ride from our compromised media establishment for as long as it lasts. All the way to the PMO?
Too much academic, theoretical blather. I don’t want the proto fascist, Trump aligned PP to win. I don’t want the NDP rewarded for the dismantling of unified opposition. I want a calm, able, likeable, strong person to lead the ‘natural’ political party of Canada to victory. I’m with Carney.
blather? this is so clearly written a 5th grader could understand it
This 5th grader doesn’t have the time or inclination to sort through the academic nuances of why a candidate does not exhibit the ideal profile of our future leader. This happened in the US where everybody had some problem with something Harris said or did that revealed her flaws. In the meantime, the empire was being set alight by people who either never participate in the democratic echochamber or seize on the divisions and faults in our arguments as evidence of weakness. So. Keep it simple, direct, moral and effective. That is my point.
Why does all public thinking have to take the form of four-word "direct, moral and effective" slogans? What does "effective" even mean here? That is a nonsensical retort
Also LOL if you think the reason Harris lost was because of think pieces like this. And not, you know, being silent on genocide and her platform offering nothing new to working class americans (destroying the federal jobs program, abandoning anti-fracking stance etc etc etc)
Right. And there we have it. You don’t see how you are proving my point here? All of those evil aspects of her pounded by the right and far left have increased her vulnerability. And those clever commentators on the “woke” left have traded a candidate who failed them in some ways for a candidate who fails them in all ways. A human being for a slime ball who will usher in decades of uncertainty and conflict.
All your points may be correct (they are not) but you are losing the objective. Consider if your influence is better deployed into the very small circle of political scientists digging for intellectual nuance or into the real politics of winning with the candidate who will respond to the majority in the most inclusive way. It’s all about winning. Not necessarily about in-depth understanding of each issue. No one will listen to you and those that do represent a club faction with little influence. Winning.
So, in an exceptionally long winded narrative, you caution, strongly, against believing in Mark Carney’s suggested approaches to countering Trump's threats to our very existence as a nation, and observe (correctly) that Poillievre’s perpetually angry rhetoric is also not the answer to our current dilemma, but offer absolutely no concrete reasons why, or how any other Canadian politician could do better. May I suggest, Mr Savage, that you register as a leadership candidate yourself and take your soapbox to the street corners of our country? Good luck in helping to stop the increasingly unhinged “king” to the south.
Speaking as a pragmatist, it seems our choice will be between Carney and Poilievre. Which one is more likely to do what must be done? Regardless of these "reservations" about Carney, I believe that Poilievre has major red flags attached and not even a semblance of coherent policy to deal with all these issues that are now present and will also continue to manifest in new ways. How about a full analysis of Poilievre "policy" and his competence or lack thereof to guide Canadians through these crises? The logical, thinking voting population has no other choice than Carney in this moment.
how has "Lesser Evilism" been working for the last 30-40+ years? record levels of homelessness, record levels of food bank usage among children, record levels of rent inflation, record high grocery prices...Trudeau didn't prevent any of this, Carney won't fix any of this, and they're the best we can do? No. Weak Trudeau/Carney liberals create the conditions for Poilievre/Trump strongmen. They enable them.
Your frustration at PP needs to extend beyond the voting booth. Worker organization and socialist electoral powerblocks growing *between* elections are the only things that will prevent Trump style corporatism from migrating north
I think Carney is “just a little further past the post” than you have written here. With your expertise I’m surprised you haven’t noticed that.
Canada was part of the Europe talks yesterday. Why don’t you weigh in on that next round.
Certainly hope your belief that Carney will somehow fail, suggests that you think that PP the politician with a paperboy’s worldly experience will be Canada’s saviour. Please say it ain’t so
I am not a fan or supporter of Pierre Poilievre, no.
What a bizarre conclusion.
Thank you for your clarification
Thank you. Great assessment of the situation.
Carney could end up being our Biden, with all that that implies.
What is the alternative?
we have to make one. if we wait around for a saviour we are doomed to keep ratcheting rightward our whole lives
Countries are capable of boosting military spending and keeping that investment domestic: Denmark has rapidly grown theirs to 3.2% of GDP in response to the growing threat of the now all but formalised US-Russia axis. Denmark has done this in 2 years.
In contrast, Carney's promise of 2% by 2030 is paltry, timid and underscores his weakness on issues of international affairs – no mention yet of Ukraine, Palestine, ICJ, ICC, foreign development aid, etc. In fairness, he did discuss focusing that spending domestically. He is politically wise to ignore the unavoidable pain of US-Canada supply-chain decoupling. Can't blame the man for enjoying the free ride from our compromised media establishment for as long as it lasts. All the way to the PMO?
Having followed MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) over a decade, it has become clear that economic orthodoxy cannot be challenged.
All the ‘experts’ are weighing in now. 🙄
Curious to hear your thoughts on degrowth, eco-marxism, et cetera. I absolutely love Kohei Saito's "Slow down."