Perilous Populism

We live in a time replete with constant reminders that having and maintaining a healthy democracy requires hard work, work predicated on knowledge, analysis and citizen involvement. Unfortunately, it is also a time when so many are living precarious lives, struggling to make ends meet; asking for more intelligent engagement is a very tall order indeed. Hence, the rise of populist politicians, those who count on a disconnected, disengaged and disaffected cadre of voters to put them and maintain them in power.

We see the most obvious manifestations in the U.S. under the fascist Trump, who is systematically stripping away protections from people even as they cheer him on. However, we can look much closer to home to see populism's pernicious perils. Both Canada and Ontario offer prime examples.

In a well-considered column, Althia Raj points out the hypocritical rage-farming (a mainstay of populism) here at home.

[W]e do have politicians seeking to sow seeds of division by presenting selective versions of the facts. The offences are not as egregious, but their purpose is similar: to get voters riled up, and to spread Trump-style grievance politics. 

Conservative House Leader Andrew Sheer went down that path on X, framing his legitimate criticism of government policy in provocative terms:

Scheer lambasts the Liberals for passing legislation (C-5, although he doesn’t name the bill) that allows Prime Minister Mark Carney to selectively apply laws — giving “himself the same power that dictators the world over” have, he says. 

Scheer compares the Liberal government to regimes in Russia, Venezuela and Equatorial Guinea, and raises concerns that selective application of laws will allow “powerful politicians (to) pick and choose which projects get approved, who gets the permit, and by extension, who makes the money. 

His hypocrisy is to be found in the fact that he and his party voted in favour of the bill.

He personally voted for it. This law that, he says, is so bad that it “expose(s) Canada’s political system to the possibility of corruption on a massive scale,” and “completely changes the nature of how our economy works,” is only law because Conservatives wanted this legislation to pass.

With the bill opposed by the other parties, the Conservatives could have played a constructive role ,

demand[ing] changes, amendments, more study. They had the power to dictate to the Liberals what they wanted to see in this bill. Instead, they fast-tracked its approval. 

This context is not part of Scheer’s video. Why not? Why is he trying to mislead the public about his own party’s sense of alarm over this law? 

Here in Ontario, the same populism is at work with Premier Doug Ford, still riding very high in the polls since the most recent election. With an almost childish provincial electorate, he is able to get away with egregiously bad legislation, the most recent his vow to end speed cameras designed to slow traffic in safety zones such as schools. In high populist dudgeon, he denounces the cameras (which, by the way, he allowed through legislation) as nothing more than cash grabs that go back into "general city coffers."

Both are absolute lies; all the cities I am aware of use the money for additional traffic and pedestrian safety measures, hardly the cash grab he denounces. As well, all of the statistics I have read show that they do work, evidenced by the declining number of speeding tickets issued on an annual basis. As well, this populist might want to reckon with the fact that this vow to end the cameras has resulted in strong backlash throughout the province. Both police agencies across the province and average citizens are expressing their outrage over a move that will surely result in more injuries and deaths of the innocent.

But truth never matters to people of such ilk until they reach a critical mass. As long as the polls show voters walking blinding, listening to provocative lies, nothing will change; indeed, they will likely get much, much worse.