CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1453
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:16 pm
 


In August, Prime Minister Stephen Harper attacked the “liberal media and academic elites” who supposedly supported Justin Trudeau and the federal Liberals.He took pains to portray himself as standing up for the little guy against these supposed elites, who are supposedly out to get him.

On one level, this is nonsense. With the exception of the Toronto Star, pretty much every major media outlet in the country endorsed the Harper Conservatives in the 2011 election, and Harper himself enjoys the support of media and academic elites like Ezra Levant, John Ibbitson and Barry Cooper. The country’s media and academic elites can be just as apt to support the Conservatives as any other party, just as ordinary, hardworking Canadians who play hockey in the streets and drink Tim Hortons coffee are just as likely to support the Liberals, the NDP or the Green party as they are the Tories.

However, that perception of an arrogant, self-serving progressive elite comes from a very real source-one that represents a very real danger to progressive goals.

In her seminal book Crazy Town: The Rob Ford Story, reporter Robyn Doolittle talked about the “bubble” that many downtown Toronto residents lived in, and that was burst when Rob Ford was elected. Doolittle mentions how these downtowners came across as convinced of their own superiority, and looked down their noses at more suburban types who were more inclined to drive cars than take public transit, considering the latter backwards and inferior while congratulating themselves on their open-mindedness and superior, “progressive” values.

Twenty years ago, in Nationalism Without Walls: The Unbearable Lightness Of Being Canadian, Richard Gwyn described various activists and the movements for equality that they spoke for (whether based on gender, culture, sexual orientation, etc.) and their attacks on the “privileged majority” that was said to be responsible for this oppression. These activists ranged from judges to academics to various political leaders. Gwyn notes how critics of these movements could easily be denounced as bigots or oppressors, which in turn triggered a vicious backlash against the activists and their movements.

The problem is not necessarily the actual goals these movements were striving for. Indeed, in many cases the goals might have been quite worthwhile. However, the problem is the way they risk coming across-that anyone who dares to criticize them is not a fellow citizen with a legitimate point of view, but an enemy to be hated and destroyed, who are inherently discriminatory. In one notable example, a young university student asked longtime activist Naomi Klein why, if it was alright to be proud of being a woman or a person of colour, why he couldn’t also be proud of being white and male. Klein later confessed that she couldn’t think of a response.

This is what has fed the narrative of an activist elite determined to impose its own agenda, even as it demonizes anyone who dares to disagree with it. Many of the Human Rights Commissions and their excesses were textbook examples, such as a woman who sued for discrimination because her employer complained about the smell of the food she cooked for lunch, claiming that the employer was enforcing a discriminatory use of the company microwave policy against her.This type of absurdity is one of the main reasons why Ezra Levant’s activism against the HRCs has been so successful over the past several years.

These types of excesses run the serious risk of alienating people outside the movement who end up feeling as though they’re accused of being stupid, bigoted, inferior or even un-Canadian for their views, and are otherwise looked down on by the advocates of various policies. Progressive columnist Frances Russell provides a classic example:

$1:
Ekos’ polling shows that the current political landscape has shifted dramatically since the Harper majority victory of 2011 and could well be an aberration. Canada has been a blend of Red Tory/Progressive Conservative/Social Liberal/Social Gospel political culture since its birth under Red Tory Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald. With its core in highly Americanized Alberta and to a lesser extent Saskatchewan, Stephen Harper’s government is an outlier, the Canadian branch plant of U.S. Republicanism.


Whether she intends to or not, Russell comes across as implying that people who support Harper, and indeed people in general who live in Alberta and Saskatchewan, as somehow un-Canadian in their views. That ties into the narrative painting Russell as an elitist who looks down on Albertans and doesn’t see them as truly Canadian, or otherwise consider them inferior. Never mind that many people voted for Harper for perfectly legitimate reasons, simply because they felt he was the best choice to manage the country out of all the options available.

Another example comes from Justin Trudeau as head of the federal Liberals, who's being accused of demonstrating his father's arrogant dismissal of other peoples' views:

$1:

Mr. Trudeau is 42. He hasn’t made clear when a man becomes “old”. (In French, his tweet was targeted at “les hommes aux cheveux gris”, so we know hair colour has something to do with it.) Scott Brison is just 47 – five years his senior. Is that old yet? His hair still looks pretty dark, but maybe he touches it up. Should Mr. Brison start curbing his opinions in preparation for turning 50? Or is 55 the cut-off point? Mr. Trudeau hasn’t made that clear, but perhaps he’s holding back for the election, as he is with the rest of his platform.

...

But wait: Isn’t the point of democracy the right to choose candidates who reflect your views and values? I’m betting there are relatively few Liberal voters who would support a strongly anti-abortion candidate, but if one or two constituencies out of 338 should feel that way, would it destroy the Liberal party to allow them a seat in caucus, if only to hear the other side? Apparently so. For Trudeau Liberals, democracy isn’t about the freedom to disagree, but about towing the line, even if it violates your conscience

...

Whatever else we may not know about Mr. Trudeau, we know he isn’t after the CARP vote. He has all that Trudeau arrogance the grey-hairs remember from way back when. When his father got annoyed at protesters on a western tour in 1982, he flipped them the bird. His son (who was reportedly on the train at the time) hasn’t got around to that yet, but there’s plenty of time. Lucky for him he’s still young, and knows everything.



There's also the perception of entitlement, that these elites feel they have the right to spend as much taxpayer money as they like on whatever junkets and pet projects they want, even if such spending has little or nothing to do with their responsibilities:

$1:

Here are a few simple rules for Toronto school trustees, Ontario Pan Am Games executives, Canadian Senators, government consultants and politicians to follow to avoid public outrage when filing travel and expense claims, paid for by taxpayers.

First, don’t charge for anything you couldn’t justify were it to appear on the front page of your newspaper the next day.

...

Third, before embarking on any “business trip”, ask yourself (a) is this really necessary? (b) how many times have I been there before? (c) what can I accomplish that can’t be done by phone or online?

(d) how related is this to what I actually do?

(Hint: If you’re a school trustee, it’s probably a bad idea to charge the public almost $4,000 for a walking tour of Israel.)



For a Toronto-specific example, here's a sample of some of the things that Rob Ford cited as part of the City Hall "gravy train":

$1:

Toronto taxpayers will this year give $250,000 to an international environmental organization the city no longer wants to be part of, spend $140,000 funding the London, England, office of the climate-change group chaired by Mayor David Miller, and pay $250,000 to study the impact of extreme weather.

Toronto's proposed $8.7-billion operating budget was approved by the budget committee yesterday, despite much grumbling from councillors that the spending plan is "too rich."

...

"It's almost like running yourself into a brick wall," he said. "There's probably little change that is ever going to be affected, that's just the way it is here. The Mayor and his group have the votes to pass whatever they want and that's what they do.



These types of attitudes risk alienating Canadians who might otherwise be sympathetic to what the people expressing these attitudes might have to say. They also feed into narratives like Harper’s, that everyone with such views consider those who dare to disagree with them to be not just people with different opinions, but bigoted, misogynistic, not caring about the environment, or not even truly Canadian.

In that way, progressive goals of equality and sustainability risk being endangered by many of their very own advocates.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:50 pm
 


I guess the underlying assumption you have is that you want people to see things your way. I don't actually spend a lot of time worrying what others think of me.While I never go out of my way to be deliberately antagonistic, neither do I feel particualrly predisposed to change my attitudes or actions to be more palatable to those with whom I don't agree on much politically anyway. I don't care if reactionary right-wingers feel alienated. Rather than change the way I do things, I'd probably advise them to turn off the news for a while.

But I am central enough politically to find myself on the right-wing side of issues ocassionally. I have noticed that, when I disagree with a right person (very generally speaking) they will dismiss me or insult me. But when I disagree with left wingers (very generally speaking) they will try to turn me, to sway me to their point of view. In more annoying cases this can reach the point of Jehovah Witness like evangelism. :lol:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:54 pm
 


I nominate Jared for the typewriter award. Holy shit.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1453
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:23 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I guess the underlying assumption you have is that you want people to see things your way. I don't actually spend a lot of time worrying what others think of me.While I never go out of my way to be deliberately antagonistic, neither do I feel particualrly predisposed to change my attitudes or actions to be more palatable to those with whom I don't agree on much politically anyway. I don't care if reactionary right-wingers feel alienated. Rather than change the way I do things, I'd probably advise them to turn off the news for a while.

But I am central enough politically to find myself on the right-wing side of issues ocassionally. I have noticed that, when I disagree with a right person (very generally speaking) they will dismiss me or insult me. But when I disagree with left wingers (very generally speaking) they will try to turn me, to sway me to their point of view. In more annoying cases this can reach the point of Jehovah Witness like evangelism. :lol:


For me, it's the attitude as much as anything. From what I've seen of your posts on this site, you state your opinion and leave it at that. You don't demonize anyone who dares to disagree with you, or imply that they're somehow bigoted, mentally stunted or anything like that. If people disagree with you, that's fine.

What I'm talking about, rather, are the people who convey themselves as having some sort of a monopoly on virtue, acting as if anyone who dares to disagree with them is just blinded by patriarchy, homophobic, un-Canadian or whatever else. You don't display it, but the people I cited above frequently do, and they end up getting everyone else who could be associated with them tarred with the same brush.

I've never fully understood the appeal in being deliberately antagonistic-that just gives ammunition to your opponents while doing little to persuade the people who disagree with you. So many of the people I cite in the initial post are either running for office or otherwise trying to effect social change, and their attitudes end up hurting their cause far more than they are helping it, in my view.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:30 pm
 


too much to read, but I get the impression it's an anti anti-right screed. Seems to me the Reforacons have pretty well dominated the shitting on anybody that disagrees with them platform for quite some time now.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1453
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:50 pm
 


andyt andyt:
too much to read, but I get the impression it's an anti anti-right screed. Seems to me the Reforacons have pretty well dominated the shitting on anybody that disagrees with them platform for quite some time now.


Nothing wrong with criticizing right-wing positions, but the gist of what I'm saying is that activists and politicians need to be careful in how they come across and present themselves. Do it wrong and you play right into the narrative employed by the Rob Fords and Ezra Levants of Canada.

And Levant himself is hardly any better-whether he's fondling a My Little Pony when talking about Justin Trudeau, or wearing an orange wig and drinking Crush soda right after Jack Layton's death, he can be just as crass and insulting as anyone on the left. I have a hard time seeing how many of the antics he engages in on his show will help convince anyone who doesn't already agree with him. While I share his views on things like the human rights commissions, Levant himself did nothing to convince me-rather, it was other conservatives who persuaded me of their views without coming across as though they'd hate me for the rest of their lives for daring to so much as question them.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:03 pm
 


OK. I get what you're saying. there are people on all sides who are wrapped up in their little bubbles. You won't reach those anyway. In the same way, the righties play into the narrative of the left with some of their bozo eruptions. All just part of the marketplace of ideas. I think most people look beyond that.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1453
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:08 pm
 


andyt andyt:
OK. I get what you're saying. there are people on all sides who are wrapped up in their little bubbles. You won't reach those anyway. In the same way, the righties play into the narrative of the left with some of their bozo eruptions. All just part of the marketplace of ideas. I think most people look beyond that.


They often do, but at the same time these bozo eruptions provide unnecessary ammunition to peoples' critics and risk making them look bad to people who don't know as much about their issues. Alberta has a classic example with the Wildrose Alliance and Alan Hunsperger's "lake of fire" comments that pretty much destroyed any chance they had of getting elected in our last provincial election...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:17 pm
 


Wait, I get it now, after rereading the top part. Your angst is because he called Alberta Americanized. That sort of thing. I guess that will lose a few votes in Alta, not many votes to be had there for non-Reformacons anyway. You all are on one end of the Canadian spectrum, that's for sure. Just embrace who you are

How come Albertans are so thin skinned. You, Thanos, Dr Caleb, talk about touchy. YOu should take lessons from Unsound. Or from us BC'rs. We get lots of shit flung our way, and I don't know anybody here that gets bent out of shape about it. We just laugh. Might even have some truth to it. Just blast another blunt, pass the doritos, and groove on the beautiful scenery, man.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1453
PostPosted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:09 pm
 


andyt andyt:
Wait, I get it now, after rereading the top part. Your angst is because he called Alberta Americanized. That sort of thing. I guess that will lose a few votes in Alta, not many votes to be had there for non-Reformacons anyway. You all are on one end of the Canadian spectrum, that's for sure. Just embrace who you are

How come Albertans are so thin skinned. You, Thanos, Dr Caleb, talk about touchy. YOu should take lessons from Unsound. Or from us BC'rs. We get lots of shit flung our way, and I don't know anybody here that gets bent out of shape about it. We just laugh. Might even have some truth to it. Just blast another blunt, pass the doritos, and groove on the beautiful scenery, man.


You're fixating on one example of what I'm talking about-how some activists use these kinds of labels to shield themselves from criticism.

People opposed to Harper refer to supporters as somehow Americanized and un-Canadian; Gay activists can call people who question them homophobic; feminist activists can attack their critics as sexist; Aboriginal activist can call their opponents racists. Sometimes, as Gwyn noted, they'll even mount these types of criticisms against people who share their ideas but don't toe the line sufficiently.

Do all activists in any given camp do this? Hell no, and you and Zipperfish have pointed out just how activists on the right can do this-witness how the term "Red Tory" has become a slur among conservatives to attack anyone they deem to not be conservative enough. The problem is that people on the right, like Harper and Levant, have successfully used the actions of a few bad apples to smear a large part of their opposition as part of some sort of party of elitists (or as Levant calls it, the "Media Party") that's determined to have its way no matter what. It also alienates Canadians who might otherwise be sympathetic to what they're advocating.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:20 pm
 


JaredMilne JaredMilne:
In August, Prime Minister Stephen Harper (said the Liberals) are supposedly out to get him.


No kidding, really? You mean Harper thinks the opposition party opposes him and you're mocking him for stating the obvious as if he's paranoid? [bonk]

If the Liberals aren't out to get him then they're doing it wrong.

Next up you're going to tell us how the Roadrunner is paranoid because he thinks Wile Coyote is out to get him. :roll:


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1453
PostPosted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:30 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
JaredMilne JaredMilne:
In August, Prime Minister Stephen Harper (says the Liberals) are supposedly out to get him.


No kidding, really? You mean Harper thinks the opposition party opposes him and you're mocking him for stating the obvious as if he's paranoid? [bonk]

If the Liberals aren't out to get him then they're doing it wrong.

Next up you're going to tell us how the Roadrunner is paranoid because he thinks Wile Coyote is out to get him. :roll:


Of course the Liberals are out to get him-that's politics. And you're not quoting me correctly-I was criticizing his mentioning of the "liberal and academic elite" that was apparently out to get him, while conveniently ignoring that he himself is supported by other elites, some of whom I name in the original post. The implication was that the Tories are fighting for the average Johnny and Janey Canuck in the street, and that only elites support the progressive parties.

Never mind that, as I've repeatedly said, hockey parents and Tim Horton's patrons are just as apt to vote Liberal, NDP or Green as they Conservative...

I was pointing how how some of these elites feed directly into Harper's narrative with the shit some of them say and do.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:41 pm
 


Given that North American universities and etc. poll at over 90% to the left then the comment of "liberal and academic elite" stands scrutiny. Hell, I didn't even notice it. It's like saying that you find fish in water. Of course you do.

To me saying 'liberal academic elite' isn't an epithet, it's just an accurate statement of known demographics.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42160
PostPosted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:53 pm
 


certain fields are more prone to the disorder than others. You don't find too many hard left (or far right) dreamers in the disciplines that require rational analytical thought and a dedication to scientific processes. Center and center right tends to be where they are most at home, with a live and let live approach.....but fuck with me and mine and I'll wipe the lot of you out.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:56 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Given that North American universities and etc. poll at over 90% to the left then the comment of "liberal and academic elite" stands scrutiny. Hell, I didn't even notice it. It's like saying that you find fish in water. Of course you do.

To me saying 'liberal academic elite' isn't an epithet, it's just an accurate statement of known demographics.



Betterta keep 'em stoopid and down at the trailer park eh, Clem?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.