A Q&A with Harvard research fellow Eric Protzer and University of Victoria professor Paul Summerville, authors of Reclaiming Populism
Why is populism perceived to be a bad thing? Is it because it rises up in response to inequality of opportunity? That should be a good thing, drawing attention to that core problem. I don't understand why populism seems to be branded as racist etc when it is precisely the opposite. Is that because those in control of the narrative are threatened by being exposed as being exactly those things themselves? The time honoured liberal premise of freedom of speech has been trampled by the current "acceptable" narrative that completely controls the government and elitist social media. Pointing that out by the populists is a bad thing?
Very interesting and timely interview. But they miscall it with respect to
the convoy, because they don’t understand the issues and that the federal government hasn’t lifted a single discriminatory rule that fuelled the revolt. Then the Lib/NDPers put a nail in their coffin by evoking the Emergencies Act, something that will always be on their record. This will be the big factor in the next election.
Shocking to see people with serious economic backgrounds advocate capital gains taxes on a principle residence. It's not only unpopular, it is economically illiterate.
Yes, the rapid rise in housing valuations has created a strata of the population that is benefiting in terms of nominal values, and leaving other stratas out of that largely ephemeral benefit. But this is a historical development largely created by government ineptitude. It will naturally end as housing is now so priced out of the reach of many that future rapid gains are very unlikely. It was a mess created by rock-bottom interest rates that drove credit expansion. The answer is not to now punish those who sell into a frothy market and thus become millionaires, especially since for most their only option is to buy back into that same frothy market, with no net gain. The solution is to normalize interest rates. House prices will come down, as few people could afford today's prices at higher interest rates.
‘The failure of virtually every human endeavor begins with the inability or unwillingness to grasp and act upon reality.’
This is a BS article extracted from the musings of two ivory tower academics so profoundly disconnected from the world around them it beggars the imagination. Not surprisingly, they got NOTHING right. ‘Populism’ is simple to explain. It is the rising collective awareness of the public that they are being played by the hypocrites and kleptocrats who rule them. There is an increasing understanding that tyrannical governments are desperate to retain their hold on power, and to do so requires deflecting public attention away from their machinations and redirecting to deliberately engineered issues designed to amplify the distinctions of race, class, gender and sexual preference, etc., thus turning the groups against each other. The tools of tyrants are propaganda, using the cheerful liars in MSM, and the carefully crafted distribution of money and ‘privilege’ to select groups at the expense of others. ‘Populism’ takes off when the warring parties realize they all have something in common - they are ALL being impoverished by a corrupt system - and thus they all have a common enemy.
As for the issue of immigration, the authors again miss this, not by a mile but by several astronomical units. While there are different drivers that vary by country, in the US, the leftist democrat administration has chosen to flood the country with Mexicans and South Americans by the millions, with the intent of constructing a permanent, irreversible voting bloc. This cynical, unlawful, brazen campaign is designed to deny conservative voters ANY influence in their futures. Their resentment is NOT driven by class envy or fear of losing a job they didn’t want in the first place. It is the transparently corrupt end game of an immoral government, and the folks are increasingly on to it.
There is much more to be said, but this is a comment section and not a repository for personal treatises. I conclude my diatribe with this: The article reflects the typical Marxist academic world view, which sees all things through the lens of class and economic conflict, neglecting the overarching CAUSE of conflict - corrupt government and its unrelenting pursuit of power and control absent any moral or ethical boundaries.
Tara, I'm interested in academic views...but not to the exclusion of the real world concerns. Professional learners too often live in a world devoid of common, day-to-day issues--exposure to unemployment, inadequate income, inaccessibility to thoughtful dialogue.
I'd welcome your attention to some less-ethereal thinking. For example:
The invocation of the Emergency Act highlighted the ability of the federal government to, retroactively and unilaterally, declare a donation as an "emergency" worthy of frozen bank accounts. This may have imposed a significant (?) chill on Canadian philanthropy. It certainly has on me.
I welcome your thinking on more tactical issues also.
I thought this piece was highly insightful and constructive, and it provides reasonable direction going forward. The authors' survey has confirmed what many of us already know intuitively: there are large numbers of people in western liberal democracies, Canada included, who feel that they are being treated unfairly and dismissively by those in power. Instead of demonizing and dismissing these views as "unacceptable", politicians need to listen carefully and use these expressions of discontent as a "canary in the coal mine" that can help better inform policy development and lead to a more harmonious (and less divided!!!) society. But here's the problem: How do we get the politicians on board? Especially incompetent, unscrupulous self-congratulating jackasses like Justin Trudeau?
Frankly, I get tired of this type of pseudo-academic overthink.
It's just a pretentious word-salad concealing the fact that people are pissed-off.
Once they reach their LOPO levels then they will either shut things down, break them or replace them. ( LOPO=level of pissed-offness )
I think many of the commenters here are on more or less the same page, and yes the featured book may have a good use, to help educate the so far uneducated about what really is going on in the world. We live in a world where people believe what they want to, we are divided in that, at least partly because there is so much info out there, so people are highly selective. At some point, Truths leaks out. For those attuned to finding info, they found the truth first and for the rest of us it takes months or years to 'get it'. The Truckers, much like Trump winning, woke a few people up. They realized they had been wearing blinders, and much like Trudeau's 8 horses, they didn't realize their ignorance was trampling some of their fellow citizens.
This story below, the only story going on right now, is 2 weeks old. The Ukraine crisis could have happened any time, and has been telegraphed for years. We are are talking about the Covid injections when we're talking about populism or authoritarian over reach, or the WEF apostles of which Putin was once. Here is Naomi Wolf interviewing Edward Dowd about the greatest crime in modern history. The populists are telling you what the academics have been unable to:
I may end up getting this book.
Populism is a loaded word: a word used most often by a certain class of person, as a derogatory against another class of person, that ends up justifying the term and legitimizing the 'condemned' as a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy. I'm glad the authors seem to get this.
Thanks for the article but I found them dismissive of Canada’s situation. Yes, they have a global perspective but don’t feel they grasped the impact of invoking the emergencies act.
Tara, your interview with Paul, and Eric using words like Populism, meritocratic, fairness, Social mobility with the phrase, “…the system is rigged by the elites for the elites,….” I don’t know about Canada, but that’s a fact here in America. Princeton University did a study, and it showed that Congress pretty much only cares about: (interest groups alignment) and (elites’ preference) which pretty much serves the top 10% and leaves the bottom 90% with very little voice in what happens here in America. If you’re lazy, go to Upworthy. If you want to appear studious, go to Princeton. Tara, I certainly don’t know about Canada, but here in America, it makes no difference if 90% of the population wants a policy; how does Canada compare?
"[I think] maybe Canada now has to face the fact that it’s time to tax capital gains on a principal home. But how would you present that to the public?"
Housing is extremely unaffordable and the solution presented, without considering any alternatives, is to give more money to a government that didn't see fit to table a budget in 2020?
Populism by its very wording is nothing more than empty words by empty politicians. It grabs the immediate with no long term effects other than more empty promises to all. I have often pondered why it is there not more of the everyday person in politics to run things and use ideas that affect the every day existence of daily life, jobs, housing, shopping, all the essential items that make and keep people balanced and happy. But no we get a bunch of toady's in power who cant think for themselves, blindly follow some lout who has zero life experience and cant tell one side of a coin from the other. We need people in power who can and will define every life who understand how things work and does not have to pull unicorns and rainbows out of their collective asses and pass this bilge water off a good politics. And as to equality, that comes when society is on a level balanced platform that has steady jobs, good affordable housing and lives that people can live in and with and know and understand how things work...30
From the article: "If you think about the levels of foreign-born people, in Australia, New Zealand it is around 30 percent. Canada’s around 25 percent."
It's interesting how those 3 countries are points of comparison vis a vis Europe and the US.
Australia has a population of 26 million, New Zealand 5 million, and Canada 38 million.
In other words, those 3 countries have about the population of Texas and California combined.
Overall, Europe has 746 million and the US of 330.
So how illustrative are those comparisons? And in terms of immigration, keep in mind that both Australia and New Zealand are islands, and Canada has the US to its south. And all 3 countries are very picky about whom they let in. Not so the US (because of illegal immigration) and Europe (also the site of much illegal immigration).