What The Transcript Shows

 

My previous post addressed a concern that the media are writing narratives for us, telling us what to think, creating a consensus that may be at variance with reality. I cited the conclusions drawn about the Liberal loss in the Toronto by-election of Toronto-St. Paul and the debate between Joe Biden and Don Trump.

A producer of nine federal leaders' debates in Canada, Mark Bulgutch, offers his view of the American debate, observing that if one were just to read the transcript and not fixate on Biden's weak performance, one might come away with a different perspective.

Compare the content, not the performance, and then decide who should be president.

For example, when Trump spoke about abortion, he claimed that Democrats, “will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month, and even after birth — after birth.”

Biden responded, “He’s lying. That is simply not true.”

Trump: “Every legal scholar, throughout the world, the most respected, wanted it [abortion law] brought back to the states.”

Biden: “The idea that states are able to do this is a little like saying, we’re going to turn civil rights back to the states, let each state have a different rule.”

Trump on illegal immigrants: “We have the largest number of terrorists coming into our country right now. All terrorists, all over the world — not just in South America, all over the world. They come from the Middle East, everywhere. All over the world, they’re pouring in.”

Biden: “I’m not saying no terrorist ever got through. But the idea they’re emptying their prisons, we’re welcoming these people, that’s simply not true. There’s no data to support what he said.”

Trump: “And because of his ridiculous, insane and very stupid policies, people are coming in and they’re killing our citizens at a level that we’ve never seen.”

Biden: “Every single thing he said is a lie, every single one.”

As I said in my post, Biden did, despite his muddling performance, had policy on his side, while Trump relied on his usual strategy of total fabrication.

When Trump was asked about climate change, the best he could do was, “I want absolutely immaculate clean water and I want absolutely clean air, and we had it. We had H2O.”

Biden pounced. “The idea that he is claiming to have done something that had the cleanest water? He had not done a damn thing with the environment. The only existential threat to humanity is climate change. And he didn’t do a damn thing about it.”

Biden skewered Trump time after time. On Trump’s election denial: You’re a whiner. When you lost the first time, you continued to appeal and appeal to courts all across the country. Not one single court in America said any of your claims had any merit.”

On Trump’s accommodation of white supremacists: “What American president would ever say Nazis coming out of fields, carrying torches, singing the same antisemitic bile, carrying swastikas, were fine people?”

And finally, on why those who have seen Trump close-up now flee from what they saw: “His own vice president — look, there’s a reason why 40 of his 44 top cabinet officers refused to endorse him this time. They know him well. They served with him. Why are they not endorsing him?”

And I have nothing to add to Bulgutch's conclusion:

Yes, Joe Biden had some truly awful moments during the debate. But I’m not sure a president makes his toughest decisions in two-minute sound bites. Judge what he said, not how he said it.

 

 

Tell Me A Story

Regular readers of this blog will likely know that I have great faith in the so-called legacy media, especially newspapers. The reasearch and thought that go into articles and columns far surpass much of what one will find on the internet, especially that very poisoned segment known as social media. However, there are times when lazy thinking and herd mentality supplant reasoned commentary in the mainstream media.

I have been especially mindful of that fact given two recent events: the Liberal loss in the Toronto-St Paul by-election, and the Biden-Trump debate. A consensus narrative quickly emerged that has quickly become political orthodoxy, denying people the opportunity to analyse these two events for themselves.

By all accounts, the by-election loss was a devastating judgement of Justin Trudeau. Almost all of the ensuing stories concluded that it is time for the Prime Minister to go. While there is no doubt that his plummeting popularity played a significant role in the results, there are also other factors to consider, factors the press seems loathe to consider. 

First, there were over 80 candidates to choose from, giving voters the formidable task of wading through a jumble of names. Rather than enhancing democracy, this stunt served to make a joke out of the electoral process, as almost none of the alternatives were serious candidates. That the Liberal candidate, Leslie Church. lost by a mere 500 votes seemed to merit barely a notice.

Second, by-elections are traditionally seen, not so much as a referendum on the party in power but as a safe way to take them to task for perceived deficiencies; they are not necessarily an augury of future general election results. Instead, the narrative we have been handed almost exclusively focusses on Trudeau and his unfitness to lead the Liberals into the next election. While I am not suggesting there isn't room for such speculation, the fact that this is the sole interpretation of the result should disturb all of us capable of thinking for ourselves.

The same might be said about the Biden-Trump debate. While Biden's performance was not good, again, the media are presenting his performance as proof he will lead the Democrats to disaster in the November election. Having watched the entire debate, while Biden moments were indeed cringe-worthy, he did offer reminders of Democratic policies that have benefitted wide swaths of Americans, but did so in a less than strong, forthright way. On the other hand, Don Trump let loose with his usually litany of lies, but the attitude of the press seemed to be, "Well, that's just Donald being Donald." And, of course, little was said about his refusal to answer the questions asked as he indulged in efforts to refute previously-made points by Biden.

There are no doubt many amongst us who want to be told what to think. I am not one of them, and I am sure there are many more who prefer to exeercise their critical faculties rather than be force-fed what can only be described as media group-think.

Patterns

 

As a regular consumer of media, I find myself more and more looking for patterns. While there is likely no such thing as totally consistent media narratives, I do think a preponderance of print, television and social media frame stories in ways that doubtlessly influence our perception of events.

Two recent events suggest such patterns: the Trudeau government's decision to raise capital gains taxes to a 66% attribution rate from 50% for those making more than $250,000 in such profits per year, and the coverage of the increasingly widespread protests on campuses over the Israeli genocidal actions in Gaza subsequent to the murderous Hamas attack last October.*

In a previous post, I discussed in some detail the howls of outrage from the business community over the capital gains hike; that outrage has spread to doctors, small businesses (despite some pretty strong mitigation measures) and, a group with whom so many identify, hapless cottage owners. 

There is a reason I subscribe to The Toronto Star. If there is to be a voice that breaks from the media chorus, it will be found there. A recent article by David Olive demonstrates this with some much-needed perspective, since

raising the inclusion rate on capital gains strengthens the country’s social fabric by making the tax system a bit fairer at a time of punishing income inequality.

Canada’s marginal effective tax rate (METR), which accounts for all business taxes and tax deductions by federal, provincial, and territorial governments, is the lowest in the G7.

Canada’s METR is 14.5 per cent compared to America’s 19.7 per cent and Japan’s 31.4 per cent. 

 Most critics of the capital gains reform say it will worsen Canada’s laggard productivity growth.

Those critics must answer for the chronic underinvestment by Canadian business in productivity enhancing plant, machinery, R&D and skills training during the past 24 years when the inclusion rate was just 50 per cent. 

Meanwhile, businesses have found the money for stock buybacks that inflate the price of shares to which executive pay is tied.

The anemic rate of business investment has so undermined productivity growth that the Bank of Canada recently called the situation an “emergency.” 

 It’s as if Ottawa decided that since the lower inclusion rate wasn’t boosting productivity, the government might as well tax a larger share of those idle profits.

And to use that money to finance its ambitious $8.5 housing plan, a new $1.5 billion pharmacare program, funding for more daycare spaces, one of the biggest-ever increases in defence spending ($8.1 billion), and a new $1 billion school lunch program.

And to make those additional investments without increasing the deficit, which is projected at $39.8 billion in fiscal 2024-25, basically unchanged from the previous year’s $40 billion deficit.

No one likes higher taxes. But in its reform of capital gains taxes, Ottawa has settled on a least-bad way of financing improvements to Canadian quality of life.

While that point of view may be anathema to those who regard capitalism as a zero-sum game, the rest of us should just take a few breaths and disengage from the media narrative seeking to villainize anything that seeks to make things just a bit fairer for all.

* Since this post went a bit long, I will save the discussion of campus unrest for another post. In the meantime, if so inclined, see if you can detect the pattern in that reportage.