Could Trump-type politics succeed in Canada?

[Moonflake]

That's right. Write-off young Canadians as ill-informed and naive... at your own peril.

I didn't write off all young voters, but one can't deny that there is some truth to what I said. The majority of people--of all ages--aren't very engaged in politics. Obviously, there are exceptions, and well informed youth voters that saw Trudeau as the better option.

 

[APTA-2048]

I didn't write off all young voters, but one can't deny that there is some truth to what I said. The majority of people--of all ages--aren't very engaged in politics. Obviously, there are exceptions, and well informed youth voters that saw Trudeau as the better option.

I'm glad that you say that. I've found that a lot of people who said what you said in your previous post, don't. It's a little insulting to those who actually looked at all candidates and made an inform decision.

 

[King of Kensington]

While Rob Ford was an outrageous populist - and personally very racist against Blacks, South Asians, Chinese, Jews - Fordism wasn't at all a "whitelash." In fact Harper's 2015 campaign was far more racist than any of fhose of the Fords but was still a pretty orthodox small-"c" conservative campaign rather than a populist one (more Sarkozy than Marine Le Pen, more Romney than Trump, more Cameron than Farage). The gains the Conservatives had made among South Asians - collapsed, while Ford did very well among South Asians and other minorities.

I don't see how a populist rightwing national campaign that appeals to preserving "traditional Canadian values" would resonate among South Asians.

One thing stopping full on Trumpism is the country's bilingual character, rather than the inherent goodness of the Canadian people or whatever. How many right-wing demagogues articulate in both official languages are there?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

He isn't? What about the whole legalizing pot thing? You don't suppose Trudeau exploited much of the youth vote with this frivolous issue? All politicians are demagogues to varying degrees. Unfortunately, that's the nature of politics these days.

If you think that legalizing pot (a "frivolous" activity that is already normalized for the lack of a better word) is more harmful than demagogy that basically tars entire subgroups of population, I can't help you.

All the more reason why his celebrity appeal was so beneficial. He didn't win the campaign solely off his platform, but--largely among youth voters--because he is young, charming, handsome, "in touch" and has that casual/regular guy appeal (like he is someone's cool uncle), etc. Many shallow, apathetic girls voted for him just because they think he is cute. His image was/is a massive advantage for him. And no doubt his drama background helped him convince many people to vote for him. Have just about anyone else run the same campaign (especially some square, older white guy) and the results wouldn't be nearly what they were. No one voted for Stephen Harper because they think he is a hip, sexy guy with a hairy chest...Well, maybe some did. I swear, I wasn't one of them.

And you think that Stephen Harper didn't get votes because his created image was one of down to earthness (the "one of us" Tim Horton drinker), fatherly figure in ugly as sin sweaters at the head of the family who knows best in dangerous times? Please, the posturing is hardly something unique to Trudeau - every politician try to mine their character for overt and subtle clues that supporters can latch onto.

AoD

 

[wild goose chase]

One thing I was wondering about -- how well would a "Make Canada great again" message sell? While we do have a rust belt in Ontario, and income inequality rose since the 70s as it did stateside, I don't know how well harking back to an idealized period of prosperity (often, the '50s) and framing it as a time when we supposedly were great and accomplished things, relative to today, appeals to people nationwide, rural or urban.

My impression is it's less common here than stateside to idealize/romanticize the post-war period but then again, I haven't really lived in Ontario's rust belt, and when you live in Toronto I doubt many consider 1950s or 60s Toronto with its factories to be the heyday of our city, especially since many locals are descended from folks who were elsewhere in the world at the time.

 

[wild goose chase]

While Rob Ford was an outrageous populist - and personally very racist against Blacks, South Asians, Chinese, Jews - Fordism wasn't at all a "whitelash." In fact Harper's 2015 campaign was far more racist than any of fhose of the Fords but was still a pretty orthodox small-"c" conservative campaign rather than a populist one (more Sarkozy than Marine Le Pen, more Romney than Trump, more Cameron than Farage). The gains the Conservatives had made among South Asians - collapsed, while Ford did very well among South Asians and other minorities.

I don't see how a populist rightwing national campaign that appeals to preserving "traditional Canadian values" would resonate among South Asians.

One thing stopping full on Trumpism is the country's bilingual character, rather than the inherent goodness of the Canadian people or whatever. How many right-wing demagogues articulate in both official languages are there?

I wonder about the relative importance of ethnic minorities' vote in Canada relative to stateside. Do we have a sense of if minorities are a larger voting bloc, have proportionately higher turnout, or are more easily put off by candidates that "alienate" or "other" them (eg. trying to distinguish between them and "old stock Canadians")? On the one hand, minorities I think in general make up more of the US electorate and also Canadian minorities tend to be more first-generation which could mean lower turnout, but on the other hand, minorities in Canada are concentrated in bigger cities and bigger cities have more sway here than stateside.

But there is far less surveying of demographics here compared to stateside where it seems to be done, analyzed and discussed very frequently so it's hard to say.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

One thing I was wondering about -- how well would a "Make Canada great again" message sell? While we do have a rust belt in Ontario, and income inequality rose since the 70s as it did stateside, I don't know how well harking back to an idealized period of prosperity (often, the '50s) and framing it as a time when we supposedly were great and accomplished things, relative to today, appeals to people nationwide, rural or urban.

My impression is it's less common here than stateside to idealize/romanticize the post-war period but then again, I haven't really lived in Ontario's rust belt, and when you live in Toronto I doubt many consider 1950s or 60s Toronto with its factories to be the heyday of our city, especially since many locals are descended from folks who were elsewhere in the world at the time.

Is it about "prosperity" per se, or is it also about idealizing America at the zenith of its' power? When you parse the language and the imagery being passed around - there is an awful lot of bravado and hypermasculinity - and putting down others (liberals, assertive women, LGBT, whatnot) is almost like a reassertion of "lost power" - the "if these people could just shut up, we would have been strong, etc".

AoD

 

[wild goose chase]

Idealizing a "golden age" when a country was previously relatively more powerful seems to be a common tactic by certain people who sometimes label themselves social conservatives or what is often called the "reactionary" worldview (eg. whether it's 1950s suburban America, or Victorian times when the sun didn't set on the British empire, or ideas by modern nationalists from European, Asian countries etc. who even idealize and portray their pre-modern nations/kingdoms as being set in their country's glory days), even when in absolute terms in technology, poverty and social advancement we've come a long way and most probably wouldn't enjoy taking a time machine back.

But Canada in its young history and modest international stature doesn't seem as prone to this, which is probably for the better. Even conservatives in Canada more rarely frame their kind of conservatism as intending to hark back to a golden age. For example, most Canadians accept post 1960s social changes like Medicare, multiculturalism, the Quiet Revolution as things that aren't good to reverse or take away.

 

[typezed]

You can't map the Trump example onto Canadian trends and say if this particular thing doesn't fit, won't happen here. Trump is a unique event. Something similar here would occur in uncountable unpredictable ways that are different from the way populism and extremism (if that's what Trump brings) happened elsewhere. Canada can bubble up parties easier than in the States. Reform, Bloc Quebecois, Wild Rose. They all had rapid success. Canada may not have myths of our founding or our character that are as strong as those in the US, but how many times in a winter do I hear from the likes of Canadian Tire or Tim Hortons that hockey equals Canada. That's a superficial example, and nothing to fuel a political movement, but we do have our traditionalism, and people are receptive to it. Probably more so if they are working class and live outside population centres.

 

[Moonflake]

If you think that legalizing pot (a "frivolous" activity that is already normalized for the lack of a better word) is more harmful than demagogy that basically tars entire subgroups of population, I can't help you.



And you think that Stephen Harper didn't get votes because his created image was one of down to earthness (the "one of us" Tim Horton drinker), fatherly figure in ugly as sin sweaters at the head of the family who knows best in dangerous times? Please, the posturing is hardly something unique to Trudeau - every politician try to mine their character for overt and subtle clues that supporters can latch onto.

AoD

I never said or implied that pot is more harmful. Though legalizing pot is very harmful both for individuals and society as a whole, in many ways; but that is for another discussion.

Of course Harper also played to the emotions of hockey dads and Anne Murray listening moms; the same way Michael Ignatieff catered to peregrine falcons. But, that seems to be all that Trudeau excels at: being, Mr. Cool (Obama's dumber protégé) He is a cheddar ball with a meager intellect. Harper (and I don't even like him) is a far more cultivated person (anyone would be fooling themselves to think otherwise), despite his personality being as enjoyable as a daddy long legs in one's cereal. That being said, it was time for him to go and, unfortunately, Trudeau was his replacement. The former is basically George Stroumboulopoulos with better hair (actually, Strombo is smarter than him, but they have roughly the same level of maturity).

Now if we could only persuade Uncle D to run in the next election, we could finally get back to having a respectable country. But that might take some brown nosing.

 

[jje1000]

One thing I was wondering about -- how well would a "Make Canada great again" message sell? While we do have a rust belt in Ontario, and income inequality rose since the 70s as it did stateside, I don't know how well harking back to an idealized period of prosperity (often, the '50s) and framing it as a time when we supposedly were great and accomplished things, relative to today, appeals to people nationwide, rural or urban.

My impression is it's less common here than stateside to idealize/romanticize the post-war period but then again, I haven't really lived in Ontario's rust belt, and when you live in Toronto I doubt many consider 1950s or 60s Toronto with its factories to be the heyday of our city, especially since many locals are descended from folks who were elsewhere in the world at the time.

I wonder, when would Ontario's golden age be? I remember that the province's manufacturing industry survived longer than most US states'- into the 90s and early 00s.

Thus if Conservatives harken back to an idealized past, they would likely directly point at the Liberal's 16-year rule rather that supposing an idealized past distorted by memory, and state that they would be the ones to bring back the prosperity.

 

[BurlOak]

Ontario's manufacturing was starting to slip in the early 1990's, but did make a brief comeback in the late 90's and early 2000's. Basically, coinciding with Mike Harris.

 

[christiesplits]

I could see a strange amalgam of Rob Ford and Donald Trump ideologies coming to power in either Ontario or Canada. However, unlike Trump's (and Leitch's) approach, I don't think xenophobia will be the centrepiece of that populist wave. Rather, it would be a brunt, anti-intellectual, anti-cosmopolitan smorgasbord of Prairie reformism, SW Ontario rust belt resentment, suburban 'keeping up with the Joneses' economic anxiety, and a rump of regional discontent, likely from Atlantic Canada.

Pretty much the Stephen Harper coalition, but much more brazen in their anti-urban and anti-elitist sentiment. I think Patrick Brown could win all of these constituencies in 2018. Wynne would keep Fort Toronto and a couple of ridings in York and Peel.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Ontario's manufacturing was starting to slip in the early 1990's, but did make a brief comeback in the late 90's and early 2000's. Basically, coinciding with Mike Harris.

Not really

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/ltr/2014/ch3.html

The increasing trend started before Mike Harris' tenure and already flatlined before he left. Also, note the correlation between the 1992-2002 period with US-Canada exchange rate trends:

http://www.moneysense.ca/spend/shopping/whats-the-deal-with-the-canada-u-s-exchange-rate/

AoD

 

[Euphoria]

The problem with some of the ideology presented on here is that it plays into an oversimplification of the problem. Some said that Ford was undoubtedly a racist, even though in many ways he saw and proclaimed himself as a champion of the disenfranchised. Go into housing projects and talk to some of Toronto's poorest communities. Ford was known for his personal touch visiting people in their low income apartments, taking care of simple things like potholes and local concerns. He championed the Scarborough subway for that very reason. Ford lacked sophistication and was a populist, in the same category as Boris Yeltsin, Donald Trump, and Boris Johnson (as Brexit leader). However, both Borises were ultimately hemmed in by institutions and the political expediency of remaining electable. Even Ford had to mind his p's and q's. When Ford once said that immigrants work like dogs, he was slammed as racist by the kind of radical political correctness that is getting professors fired at universities and causing a large swath of the masses to feel controlled by the 'special interests'. I do worry about Trump in the sense that as President he has immense powers. Let's hope he shows restraint and seeks consensus. Let's hope that at the end of the day he's a reasonable, basically decent guy with a few wrong-headed ideas that won't go very far because of the system of checks and balances. In that case, his role is largely rhetorical, to make us really question what kind of society we want to have. Quebec went through this a few years ago with reasonable accommodation of 'non-Quebecois values.' The conservatives in Canada, like Trump, appeal to this to get elected, but ultimately, no one wants to see anyone get hurt. Minorities are an important part of the fabric of Canada and the U.S.. Perhaps what Trump can bring for the positive as a disrupter, is to make us think about priorities. It's not really about race, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or elevating rights anymore, though those things are important and will come to the surface as issues from time to time. It's about making sure that everyone gets a piece of the pie and feels successful, not just the one percenters. Bernie Sanders isn't that far off from this same position.