Political Inertia

Whenever our next election rolls around, I'll be ready - ready not to vote for the Conservatives. Ready not to vote for the Liberals. By default, I shall, in all likelihood, vote for the NDP. And it will hardly be an enthusiastic endorsement. 

Our political landscape, with few exceptions, has grown stale and complacent. Once it sets in, inertia is a hard force to break free from.  Journalist Justin Ling takes some lessons from the recent American presidential race.

In trying to paint Trump as a danger to democracy, the Democrats twisted themselves in knots to become guardians of the status quo. They avoided, even shut down, difficult conversations on pressing social issues because they are fearful of how bigots might weaponize those discussions.

Harris spent the campaign bombarding voters with tightly-messaged scripts about why they should vote against Trump. By election day, Americans had few good reasons to vote for the vice president. And yet it’s this strategy that Trudeau looks set to replicate.

Unfortunately, if the polls are to be believed,  Canada's electoral die has already been cast, and PP's simplistic, binary rhetoric is captivating many. Indeed, some of his barbs hit quite close to home, if one really examines them. Recently, for example, he gave a hard-hitting address to many of Canada's corporate elites, accusing them of "crony capitalism," saying they and Mr. Trudeau are too close and too dependent on lobbying and subsidies. If he wins, PP promises to change that, a promise that will undoubtedly resonate with many.

For example: longstanding Canadian law restricts foreign ownership in parts of the telecom, media, financial and transportation industries, which has resulted in a consolidation of power in a handful of companies such as BCE, Rogers Communications Inc., Air Canada and the major banks. Harper and Trudeau’s governments have tried at times to stoke more competition, but they’ve mostly stopped short of major reforms to liberalize protected sectors.

There is little doubt that the Trudeau Liberals have a too-close relationship with the powerful.

Poilievre’s “crony capitalism” charge rings true to people like [Jim] Balsillie, who has been critical of the close links between Trudeau’s government and some executives at big companies in highly regulated industries. He cites the example of Navdeep Bains, who was Trudeau’s industry minister, left politics in 2021, quickly landed at Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and now works as a senior executive at Rogers — a job announced just weeks after the government allowed Rogers to acquire a large rival cable company.

The government has been slow to move on open banking, a regulatory framework that makes it easier for consumers to move around their financial information and use the services of new financial technology startups.

“Why after nine years do we still not have open banking?” Balsillie said. “Who’s had total keys to the throne on fixing that for nine years? It’s clear that the Liberals have been captured by Bay Street.”

I suspect those who entertain ongoing outrage over the high costs of wireless and the predatory, protected practices of the banking industry would find little to disagree with here.

Justin Ling is pessimistic about the prospects for change within either the Liberal or NDP leadership.

Trudeau is neither innovating new policy nor reaching out to unlikely places. Their most significant accomplishments of late, national pharmacare and dentalcare plans, won’t cover most working people and come as medicare plunges further into crisis.

The Liberals’ lack of vision or ambition ought to leave an open lane for the NDP to offer a bold, uncompromising, and ambitious agenda for change. Yet they are the architects of the dental and pharmacare plans, and now seem bereft of other ideas. Despite their anti-billionaire rhetoric, Jagmeet Singh’s most ambitious policy is to implement price controls for groceries (also a riff on a Harris policy.) Voters are, understandably, disinterested.

Singh and Trudeau and stuck in their scripts, damned by the anxieties, purity, and dourness of their parties. The only tactic left at their disposal is to compare Poilievre to Trump, unconvincingly and to the frustration of the Conservatives’ new-found working-class base.

Institutional stasis is an almost always-certain eventuality, demonstrated amply in the above. And time on the bench seems to be the only fix to the inertia that currently plagues our politics.Without new vision and new leadership, I suspect the next election will, unfortunately prove current polling to be correct. 

 

 

Happy Thanksgiving

To new and long-term readers, the best of the season. 

H/t Greg Perry

And this warning seems appropriate for the times in which we live:

Suddenly, Canadians aren’t so different from Americans

We Canadians have always seen ourselves — rightly or wrongly — as  smarter, kinder, more sensible, more progressive and more forward-thinking than our American neighbours. We watch with a mix of horror and bemusement the three-ring circus American politics has become. Then along came Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and suddenly we have to ask ourselves “What happened?” His insufferable sloganeering — if I hear “axe the tax” one more time, I think I’ll scream — his aspiration to climb down to the lowest common denominator, and his mean-spirited, schoolyard name calling have somehow appealed to a shockingly large portion of our population. He has increasingly been following the Donald Trump playbook, maybe even trying to “trump” Trump with his outrageous accusations.

Suddenly, we find ourselves not so different from Americans and the social and political mess in which they find themselves. Ironically, we still don’t see ourselves as “them.” We need to open our eyes and search our consciences because at this rate, if things don’t change, it won’t be long.

Michael Bines, Toronto 

Puzzling But Instructive

My three-year-old granddaughter has developed a fondness for jigsaw puzzles, usually of the 48-piece variety designated for children. Given my own spatial limitations, I have worked slowly with her on a couple of them, but they don't come easily to me. 

Encouraged by her example, I picked up a 300-piece one and have been working away at it, despite my deep suspicion that there are pieces missing from the used one I purchased at a thrift store. My goal is to see if doing jig-saws improves spatial abilities and perhaps even cognitive processes. 

One can imagine my dismay while I watched the evening news last night and was subjected to, not once, but twice, an ad from PP's campaign showing him doing a jigsaw of Canada with his toddler. His goal was to put Canada back together since, as he tells us, it is broken:

The subject of PP wearies me, being all too aware of the both subtle and gross manipulation of the citizens that Poilievre delights in. Having read an article this morning about generative AI, I decided to use the tool to create a blog post, the first time (and probably the last) I have ever made such an attempt. I asked it to write on PP's advertising in the style of my blog. The results, as you will see below if you care to read it, aren't bad at all. (Parenthetically, I do pledge to identify any AI-generated material if I ever make a future attempt at this. Otherwise, everything you read in this blog will always be my own thoughts and scribblings.):

Here’s a blog-style post inspired by Lorne’s Politics and its Discontents, which often takes a critical, thoughtful tone in analyzing political discourse:

Pierre Poilievre’s Political Advertising: A Masterclass in Manipulation or Messaging?

If there is one thing that can be said about Pierre Poilievre’s political strategy, it’s that he understands the power of advertising. From social media snippets to slickly produced videos, Poilievre has capitalized on modern media to craft a message that resonates deeply with a certain demographic. But the question remains: Is this messaging reflective of the leadership qualities Canadians deserve, or is it simply a manipulative ploy designed to stoke division?

The Politics of Persona

Poilievre’s ads often feature him as a man of the people—a relatable everyman taking on “elites” who, in his words, are responsible for many of the economic woes Canadians face today. His latest ad campaign sees him strolling through picturesque small towns, sleeves rolled up, declaring that he is here to “bring home” common sense to a country that’s lost its way.

But beneath this veneer of populism lies a far more calculated strategy. His ads are not about providing concrete policy solutions; rather, they exploit frustration and uncertainty, carefully designed to channel anger towards convenient scapegoats—whether that be Justin Trudeau, immigrants, or “woke culture.” The buzzwords are meant to incite, not inform, and therein lies the danger.

Simplifying Complex Issues

One hallmark of Poilievre’s advertising is how it simplifies Canada’s most pressing issues, reducing them to soundbites devoid of nuance. Take, for example, his stance on inflation. In his videos, he talks about the rising cost of living as if it were solely the fault of reckless government spending, conveniently ignoring the complex global factors that contribute to economic challenges. By reducing the problem to “bad governance,” Poilievre presents himself as the obvious antidote without ever having to provide a detailed plan.

This is not to say the government is beyond reproach on these matters. Far from it. But Poilievre’s ads trade in the politics of blame rather than the politics of solutions. They are designed to inflame passions, all while presenting himself as the knight in shining armor, ready to rescue Canadians from the very institutions he spent much of his career working within.

The Influence of American-style Politics

One cannot help but notice the creeping influence of American-style political advertising in Poilievre’s campaigns. His use of “freedom” as a rallying cry mirrors the tactics of conservative figures south of the border, particularly those who have been adept at weaponizing fear and frustration for political gain. Much like the Republicans’ framing of the “elites” and the “deep state,” Poilievre casts Trudeau and his government as the out-of-touch villains who stand between the average Canadian and prosperity.

This approach, while effective in securing support from a vocal minority, threatens to further polarize an already divided country. Rather than fostering dialogue or proposing realistic solutions to complex problems, Poilievre’s ads encourage an “us vs. them” mentality that diminishes the quality of political discourse in Canada.

What’s the Endgame?

Ultimately, Poilievre’s advertising is less about policy and more about positioning. His goal is to establish himself as the champion of those who feel left behind by economic and social change. Yet, the lack of substance behind the messaging raises concerns about what a Poilievre-led Canada would actually look like. If his ads are any indication, we should expect more division, more polarization, and less of the thoughtful, evidence-based leadership that Canada desperately needs.

In a time when critical thinking is more important than ever, we should be cautious about political figures who rely on shallow advertising to sway voters. While Poilievre’s message may resonate with those looking for simple answers, it is our duty to demand more from those who seek to lead us.

After all, good governance is not about pointing fingers—it’s about finding real solutions.

This post captures the tone and style of critical analysis, focusing on political behavior and the consequences of polarizing rhetoric, much like Lorne’s own critiques.

Nix The Fix

I have written previously about Pierre Poilievre's fondness for aphorisms, phrases that encapsulate a simplistic solution to complex problems. While reading this morning's paper, I came upon his 'solution' to our opioid crisis: forced rehabilitation- another aphoristic fix that, at least in Ontario, has its doubters.

Ontario Health Minister Sylvia Jones is taking issue with federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s talk of forcing people with drug addictions into treatment as the country grapples with a deadly opioid crisis.

In another sign of tensions between the provincial and federal Tories, with polls suggesting Poilievre is poised to become Canada’s next prime minister, Jones said mandatory rehab is the wrong path.

“I have concerns that involuntary treatment would not lead to the outcomes that we want,” Jones said Wednesday at Mount Sinai Hospital. 

“But having said that, when we see the opportunity and the need for intervention, and people are willing to take on those treatments to make a difference, that’s when we can show them our government is committed.”

Already worried enough about a Poilievre victory in the next federal election that would mean nothing good for the provinces (reduced transfer payments, ending the Trudeau strategy on EV production, etc.), Doug Ford is said to be contemplating an early Ontario election to get ahead of the fiscal bloodshed that will ensue with a Poilievre victory. It is therefore crucial for him to distinguish his government from the federal one-in-waiting, without alienating his right-wing supporters.

Jones said the province, where Premier Doug Ford has expressed reservations about safe consumption sites, has a new addictions plan coming in which “treatment is a very large portion.”

No further details were made available, but it is clear Ford sees the danger in too close an alignment with the kinds of draconian measures being proposed by Poilievre. But he will also have to face the fact that even more than his own government, Poilievre is very good at dumbing down important public policy issues to mere soundbites. Indeed, I would not be surprised if, along with his other facile pronouncements like axe the tax,  spike the hike, jail, not bail and hard time for hard crime, PP's braintrust comes up with something like nix the fix!

Has a bit of a ring, doncha think?

Choices

When the next federal election comes, there are those who will vote with a certitude we all should be wary of. Because they are sick of Justin Trudeau, many will eagerly cast their vote for Pierre Poilievre, the putative prime minister-in-waiting. On the other hand, those of us possessed of at least a modicum of thinking skills will vote, not with eagerness, but with deliberation, braced by the knowledge that our choice could very well have a long-lasting impact on Canada's trajectory. 

Two letter-writers in today's Star offer a reality check for those who vote, not out of careful consideration, but rather spite and weariness:

How long it will take to become really sick of Pierre Poilievre?

This isn’t just another byelection in Toronto, June 15

Those in the riding of St. Paul’s who are “sick, really sick of Justin Trudeau,” ask yourselves how long it will take you to become really sick of Pierre Poilievre. The federal Conservatives will weaken, not advance the urgent battle to limit climate change, they will pull back on Truth and Reconciliation initiatives, which will eventually lead to renewed blockades and hostility, and they will weaken gun control, even though the scourge of antisemitism has recently included shots fired at a synagogue and Jewish community centre. Poilievre will, of course, not talk about any of this. Nor may voters recall just how well the Trudeau government shepherded Canada through the pandemic, giving us one of the most minimized death tolls in the developed world. Many may be in the mood to break up with their feminist boyfriend, but waiting in the wings is a wolf in sheep’s clothing who squints when he looks you in the eyes. And did no one tell the dental hygienist who can’t bear to look at Trudeau about the new dental care program?

Ron Charach, Toronto

No real alternative to Trudeau

Most people agree Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is past his best-buy date. But what are the alternatives? Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has never had a real job outside politics. He proffers no policies just personal attacks and vacuous statements such as “common sense revolutions” a la Mike Harris, who destroyed education and other social supports. We look south and despair of common sense. The hard-working class listens to populist statements from politicians because they despair … but these politicians do them no favours.

John Bullick, Mississauga

We have always been taught that voting is a civic responsibility. Let us hope that our fellow Canadians cast measured ballots in the next election rather than following the lemming-like directives of those for whom thinking is but an optional, occasional and, apparently, a painful activity.

UPDATED: The Hits Keep Coming

No doubt the PP crowd on the West Coast is all abuzz over the fact that they will soon enjoy his presence as part of his Axe The Tax tour.

No word yet as to whether will be musical accompaniment, but Michael de Adder has some 'sound' ideas in that regard:

UPDATE: The redoubtable Moudakis adds more pungent, poignant spice to PP's shenanigans:

I'm Sure It Is All Very Innocent

 On the 'contradictory' relationship PP has with corporate lobbyists:

H/t trapdinawrpool.bsky.social

For Your Consideration

In a time when reflexive rather than reflective responses are elicited by some of our politicians, a little food for thought from Patrick Corrigan. Axe the tax, spike the hike, bring it home and other such mindless slogans may never be quite the same again.

If You Are Of A Certain Age

 ... you will get this, the latest from Moudakis.

Makes Perfect Sense To Me

 What's good for the silly goose should be good for the gander, eh?

Straight-Pride Guy's Disappointment

 As Kermit the Frog said, it's not easy being green.

H/t Dean Blundell

UPDATED: Just A Victim Of Circumstances?

Fate can be cruel. It is not unheard of to be going about, minding one's own business, when a person of unknown provenance accosts you and demands a photo with you. Results of such encounters can vary.

There was, one may recall, an incident in 2002 when the Mayor of Toronto shook hands with a member of The Hell's Angels.

Mel faced some criticism for that encounter, but claimed he had no idea that the outlaw biker gang dealt in drugs, guns, and violence.

Just a victim of circumstances.

No serendipity was involved in the disgusting picture of former PM Stephen Harper shaking hands with quasi-dictator Viktor Orban of Hungary. For this, he made no apologies, and at least owned up to the fact that the handshake was intentional as he advocates closer ties with him.

But the case of Pierre Poilievre, or, as I like to call him, PP, is a whole other category. Photographic misfortune stalks him. One remembers the time he posed with Jeremy Mackenzie, founder of the Diagolon group, during the former's leadership campaign.

PP's explanation:

“Over the course of my campaign I have shaken hands with literally tens of thousands of people at public rallies. It is impossible to do a background check on every single person who attends my events,” Poilievre’s campaign team said in response to Global News’ request for comment on Aug. 20.

“As I always have, I denounce racism and anyone who spreads it. I didn’t and don’t know or recognize this particular individual.”

And now that the prime ministerial aspirant has doffed his glasses and donned makeup, his photographic presence is in even greater demand:

But again, poor PP is just a victim of unfortunate circumstances:

A spokesman for Pierre Poilievre said Mondaythe federal Conservative leader does not agree with the message of “straight pride,” after he was photographed with a man wearing a T-shirt bearing those words.

Sebastian Skamski said Poilievre had been posing with “hundreds of people” at the Calgary Stampede on Saturday when he was photographed with an individual “without reading what was written on his shirt.”

The bright green T-shirt featured the symbols for men and women that are often posted to the doors of public restrooms.

It said, “Thank a straight person today for your existence,” in black capital letters, with “straight pride” written at the bottom.

Skamski said that “Poilievre does not agree with the message displayed on the T-shirt,” adding that Conservatives are working to build a country where everyone is free to be themselves, “regardless of their sexual orientation.”

PP's lapses are alarming to some; however, I suspect they are very loud dog whistles to others. 

Circumstances, fate, or character revelation? You decide.

UPDATE: Dean Blundell has his interpretation that aligns with mine. 

 

Ideological Soulmates

 

 

Well, it appears Pierre Poilievre, that would-be master disinformation-trafficker, has found his true soulmate in another man-child, Elon Musk. They have had a meeting of the minds when it comes to the CBC - dearest Elon has agreed to PP's request that the publicly-funded networked be labelled "government-funded media," a tag that used to apply only to propaganda outlets like RT (Russia Today).

"Government-funded media is defined as outlets where the government provides some or all of the outlet's funding and may have varying degrees of government involvement over editorial content," according to Twitter.

National Public Radio in the U.S. announced earlier this month that it is leaving the platform after Twitter labelled its account as "state-affiliated media," saying that doing so undermines their credibility by "falsely implying that we are not editorially independent."

U.S. public broadcaster PBS followed suit, also leaving Twitter after it received the "government-funded" stamp.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre recently called on Twitter CEO Elon Musk to add a "government-funded" label to accounts that promote "news-related" content from CBC.

Such a designation will undoubtedly provide sweet succor to the simple  amongst PP's clan of followers (but aren't they all a bit simple?) and will undoubtedly raise his 'street cred' with them. And just in case some of them missed the significance of this label, PP tweeted out that the CBC has been "officially exposed" as "Trudeau propaganda, not news."

The CBC was quick to admonish the thinking behind this assault of the media:

The CBC is a Crown corporation, wholly owned by the state but operated at arm's length from government.

In a statement Sunday night, CBC corporate spokesperson Leon Mar emphasized the government does not influence CBC's editorial content.

The CBC is a Crown corporation, wholly owned by the state but operated at arm's length from government.

Such machinations, of course, only help to illustrate PP's discord-sowing ways that make him manifestly unfit to sit in the prime minister's office; they also, however, demonstrate something else a credulous electorate should bear in mind: his hypocrisy:

Angry Talking Heads

 

When I was a teacher, it used to bother me to no end that it only took one or two ignorant, badly-behaved kids to spoil the atmosphere and discourse in a class. For those who think it should have been a simple matter to silence those voices, well, let's just say they don't understand the reality and the dynamics of teaching.

I feel the same frustration today when I see angry men-children like Elon Musk and his Canadian counterpart, Pierre Poilievre, spreading their mischief to gain either attention or political advantage. Take, for example, Musk's impish decision to label publicly-funded media as government-funded, the implication being that they are merely organs of government propaganda. In the United States, this has led both NPR and PBS to close their Twitter accounts.

Not to be outdone, our own domestic mischief-maker, Pierre Poilievre, wants the same designation for the CBC. This is perhaps not surprising, coming from the man who is trying to exact as much political mileage as possible out of his promise to defund the CBC.

Like the problem students I dealt with, they clearly have too much power to influence the agenda. Unlike the classroom, however, all of us have a role to play in mitigating such madness, as pointed out in the following letter from a Star readers:

Trying too hard to make CBC the enemy, April 13

Bruce Arthur is right to pay attention to Elon Musk and Pierre Poilievre championing the word freedoms in order to destroy it when it comes to the public funding of national media like the CBC. Clearly these two are not reformers but transformers and destroyers of our democracy. As antistatist freedom fighters they appeal to everyone’s sense of liberty while bringing about its end in the media.

Like the typical 1980s neo-con U.S. President Ronald Reagan who identified government as the enemy of the people, Musk and Poilievre regard publicly funded media to express the national will of its people as illegitimate. They demand that the marketplace is the only way to provide free and balanced reporting.

The fact that such free enterprise thinking resulted in Fox News, becoming the lying propaganda media for Republicans only is ignored.

The fact that Musk bought Twitter promising to free it up so that everyone would be heard but turned it into the embodiment of censorship is overlooked. (Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s opposition is censored in Indian and Substack notes’ links are censored in the U.S.)

The fact that magical thinking that freedom bestows legitimacy on anything done in its name has proven to do major harm to democracy is ignored.

History has shown that public funding for national media like the CBC is the only democratic economic system that allows individuals to vote for how their money is to be used in the media. They can vote out the government and replace it with a different policy about its funding.

Musk can’t be voted out. Poilievre with such anti-democratic views should not be voted in.

Tony D’Andrea, Toronto

Perhaps a tall order from Mr. D'Andrea, but one that none of us who believe in a healthy democracy can afford to shirk.

 

 

 

We Need To Talk About PP

 

You have probably heard all about PP courting the incels, a profoundly misogynistic conglomeration of sad sacks who hate women because they can't seem to forge a relationship with them. The following is a video I found on Twitter that examines the type of people the would-be PM courts.

“Pierre Pollivere has been caught using a hashtag specifically designed to target anti feminist and hate groups…..”

UPDATED: The Great Pivot, A.K.A., Refashioning His Image

By now you have probably heard about Pierre Poilievre's outrage over an apparent threat against his wife, Anaida.

The threat, made by Jeremy MacKenzie, is, of course, reprehensible and unacceptable. However, the outrage Poilievre expresses is tinged with a heavy measure of hypocrisy. 

Here is a shot of PP with MacKenzie:

Poilievre had previously sidestepped calls to denounce MacKenzie, including from leadership rival Jean Charest, after the men were photographed together at an event during the Conservative leadership race this summer.

Nick Seebruch wrote on Sept.2,  

Jeremy MacKenzie, the de facto leader of the Diagolon cult... has gone on social media calling for the execution of Canadian Armed Forces personnel. He has encouraged his followers to harass health care professionals, and is facing assault and weapons charges in Sask., and weapons charges in N.S. in an unrelated case as well.

After the photo of MacKenzie shaking hands with Poilievre began circulating on social media, he refused to denounce MacKenzie or Diagolon by name instead stating: “As I always have, I denounce racism and anyone who spreads it,” then deflecting by pointing to what he called “. . .Justin Trudeau’s many racist outbursts . . .”

Then there is the unpleasant participation of PP's wife, Anaida, in inciting hatred, associating Trudeau with pedophiles and terrorist, as I wrote about in a previous post:

That the rage-farmer's wife is all in with Pierre's pursuit of power at any price is evident in a recent Tweet she sent, recommending Canadians visit an extremely right-wing site trafficking in sensational headlines, love of 'freedom' and hatred for Trudeau.'

I could go on and include references to Poilievre's own indifference when members of the media, especially females, have been subjected to terrible abuse and threats, as well as his self-serving response in reaction to Chrystia Freeland's verbal assault when she visited Alberta, but I think you get the picture.

The hands of both PP and his wife are unclean, precisely what happens when flinging mud at others. The fact that Poilievre now posts supreme outrage at the inevitable result of stirring up the baser instincts of people is unseemly and hollow. 

One suspects he is making the "Great Pivot" to appear now as a regular public official, only concerned about his family. 

And who, if they don't know any better, could argue with that?

UPDATE: Our national satirical treasure, The Beaverton, has some acerbic fun with PP. Here is their headline:

Pierre Poilievre asks extremist group to go back to threatening other peoples’ families

Creepy

Wasn't Socrates executed for corrupting the youth?

Courting a child wearing Minnie Mouse ears sets my 'Spidey sense' tingling.

H/t The Salamander Horde

We've Been Warned

With the NDP hinting that their pact supporting the Liberals until 2025 could be under strain, a timely reminder from de Adder about the alternative:

Rage Farming And Hypocrisy Come So Easily To Him

While political hypocrisy is hardly rare, in my view Pierre Poilievre 'elevates' it to an entirely new level - new at least in Canadian politics. And while his blind followers will no doubt fail to see this, rational, reflective citizens will.

By now, most people will have heard about or seen the video in which deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland is viciously verbally assaulted by Alberta miscreant Elliott McDavid. If you haven't, I placed it on a previous post. While one cannot draw a direct link between McDavid's disgraceful behaviour and Poilievre, it is clear that the kind of reckless, divisive rhetoric favoured by the soon-to-be-crowned new leader of the CPC emboldens such heinous harassment.

A story in The Tyee  quotes McDavid as saying he is proud of what he did:

“Why did I do that? Because I want the rest of the country to wake up and realize that she is a traitor to the country. She is selling out the country,” Elliot McDavid said in a phone interview Saturday.

 University of Alberta political scientist Jared Wesley told the Tyee

 he expects aggressive attacks on politicians to increase in Canada as right-wing politicians continue to engage in “rage farming” by advancing false and misleading conspiracy narratives.

But, of course, the most dangerous rage farmer, Mr. Poilievre, refuses to take any responsibility for the current rancourous landscape that he so willfully cultivates and exploits. Indeed, until he was confronted by a reporter about the Freeland incident, he offered no denunciation of it. His 'repudiation' of it, as you can see in the following video, was completely self-serving:

He refers in the above to the online abuse his wife, Anaida, has experienced, so perhaps she deserves some scrutiny. Clearly a fellow traveller and soulmate, she reminds me a bit of Lady Macbeth, Macbeth's perfect partner-in-crime:

""But screw your courage to the sticking-place and we'll not fail!"

That the rage-farmer's wife is all in with Pierre's pursuit of power at any price is evident in a recent Tweet she sent, recommending Canadians visit an extremely right-wing site trafficking in sensational headlines, love of 'freedom' and hatred for Trudeau.'

Oh… 7 times Trudeau met with pedophiles, terrorists and extremists | True North

tnc.news

7 times Trudeau met with pedophiles, terrorists and extremists

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has a long record of hob-knobbing with individuals who have been convicted or accused of committing heinous crimes such as possessing child pornography or even attempted...

This kind of scurrilous recommendation by the wife of a possible future prime minister is unprecedented in Canadian politics, as far as I know. That she panders like Pierre to an angry and reactive rabble does not bode well for a return to a more civilized discourse, but perhaps helps explain some of the putative reactions she has stoked.

It is said that behind every successful man stands a woman. In this situation, it might be more accurate to say that behind every unscrupulous politician stands an equally unscrupulous wife.

They make quite the power couple, eh?