... for demagoguery, at least if you are Pierre Poilievre. The leading contender for the helm of the Conservative Party of Canada is, of course, making a concerted effort at preaching the virtues of freedom while conspicuously eschewing its yoked counterpart, responsibility. And as he exalts the individual and their pursuit of this 'vision', he is giving the middle finger to any notion of the collective good.
Rick Salutin scrutinizes these notions, writing that even right-wing 'institutes' like the Cato and Frasier give Canada high rankings on their Freedom Index, landing at #8 our of 165,
a mere .36 of a point behind Switzerland, which is surely a statistical tie.
So by Poilievre’s own right-wing standards, Canada’s already ahead of almost everyone — including the U.K. and U.S., ranked 14 and 15. So what’ll he devote his effort to as PM — housing? Climate? Health? No: making us even freester (since we’re already freest). How gloriously pointless.
It essentially comes down to freedom for me (“personal freedom” à la the indexes) or freedom through commonality, as in ... FDR’s New Deal.
And it is clear that Mr. Poilievre is championing the former while disdaining the latter, as reflected in his embrace of the truckers' convoy that paralyzed Ottawa for three long weeks.
The freedom demanded there was almost all “personal”: snarling traffic, blaring horns till residents felt deranged. And an ultimatum to end COVID mandates — which BTW never forced anyone to get vaxxed, but did prohibit participation in public situations to protect others’ freedom not to get sick.
During the civil rights years in the U.S., there was an anthem called “Oh Freedom!” When the singer sang, Over me, others echoed, Over me — because we were fighting for freedom over us all.
I feel as if Pierre Poilievre responds, Over you, to calls for freedom, especially from those he favours. He’s a personal freedom kind of guy who doesn’t view freedom as a necessarily shared activity. Nor does he have the excuse of being endearingly nuts. It’s just the way he thinks.
As in the United States, the ideological lines are clearly drawn. And because we still live in a country in which we can engage in that collective, democratic activity known as voting, it falls to all of us to determine what vision ultimately prevails.
