Carney speaks human, Freeland speaks expert in the battle of the technocrats
Left: Chrystia Freeland. Photo by: Alex Tétreault. Right: Mark Carney. Photo via Bank of England/Flickr (CC BY-ND 2.0). Illustration by Canada's National Observer.
Mark Carney is running for leader of the Liberal Party and prime minister of Canada, putting to rest years of speculation and the joke uttered whenever the government made a decision: “What does this mean for Mark Carney?” He’ll be up against erstwhile finance minister and deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland, who was a Trudeau stalwart almost to the bitter end.
There are other contenders including long-time Cabinet minister Karina Gould and two other members of Parliament, Jaime Battiste and Chandra Arya, but the odds-on favourites in the race are Carney and Freeland. They’ll be locked in a battle over who can connect quickly with voters, and the early advantage goes to Carney — with a caveat or two.
It’s a shame that we’re often stuck reducing politics to aesthetics, but we are. Most people aren’t policy experts and spend their days in other ways, living their lives without worry about the minutiae of this or that issue. When it comes time to make a political decision, like who to back in an election, they use mental shortcuts to make decisions. One popular shortcut is likeability, an emotional connection that draws one person to another or repels them. And part of that is whether the politician in question can speak human.
Chrystia Freeland is a competent and capable politician. Like Carney, she’s a technocrat who knows files inside and out and believes there are technical solutions driven by expertise that can solve Canada’s problems. But she also speaks like an expert and technocrat. When she tries to leave that terrain, things get dicey.
In the spring of 2023, she tried to relate to people struggling through the cost of living crisis, likening cutting a Disney+ subscription to how she approached managing government finances. That analogy was taken out of context and weaponized in subsequent attacks on her. She was painted as an elite, entitled insider for whom ten bucks a month or so is a rounding error on a rounding error.
Suffice to say, her attempt to relate to ordinary Canadians didn’t go well. It’s unfair, but politics is unfair. To win, you’ve got to minimize the chances that your opponent can make an unfair attack stick to you. She’s going to have a hard time doing that in the weeks to come as opponents within the party and outside it tie her to the status quo and every problem plaguing the country. She’ll have a hard time talking her way out of that.
Mark Carney, on the other hand, is surprisingly smooth and even funny. Carney’s campaign soft-launch on the Daily Show revealed a more affable man with a sense of humour. It turns out the guy — a two-time head of a national central bank — has a bit of charisma. An early poll from Leger has him ahead of Freeland by six per cent.
But Carney, who is working to cast himself as an outsider, has two fundamental weaknesses. One, he’s thoroughly an elite — a central banker, the chair of an asset management firm, an advisor to both the Liberal Party and the UN. For many, that CV will read as about as insider as it gets, even if he hasn’t been previously elected to political office. He also has his own aesthetic liability: he speaks in platitudes and clichés.
Over time, people see through them.
In a late-December op-ed for the Globe and Mail, Carney wrote “These are not easy times. And we shouldn’t kid ourselves that there are quick fixes. But Canadians don’t shrink from challenges — we face them head on. With the right resolutions, we can build the future we want, and the future our kids and grandkids deserve.”
That’s the kind of thing I tell myself in January before I’m eating three Snickers bars a day in February.
Carney’s op-ed was about as platitudinous as it gets. He suggests Canada’s future rests with resolutions to “Stand up for Canada,” “Play as a team” and “Embrace change.” He might as well have said we must “give 110 percent” or “leave it all on the ice.” He added some more pabulum before hitting the mother of them all: “Bring the Stanley Cup back home to Canada, where it belongs.”
Speaking human is one thing, communicating in an accessible way to those you seek to govern. That’s good. But if you’re not careful, that accessibility becomes patronizing, insincere, and unserious. People see through it, because though they may not be experts in politics, they aren’t stupid. We all know when we’re being talked down to.
In the short run, Carney might be able to out-talk Freeland, connecting with Liberal voters, relying on an avuncular, dad-out-for-a-canal-skate posture. He might win the leadership and become prime minister, for a short time anyway. But against Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives, and facing the entire country, not just Liberal voters, the kindly everyman bit risks wearing thin fast, particularly at a time when the country is in a less than cheerful mood.
As a politician, speaking like a human doesn’t mean executing small talk about the weather or your favourite hockey team’s chances this year. It means saying true things in a way that resonates with those you would be elected to serve, and offering solutions to their problems that sound credible and sincere (a practice Poilievre has mastered, even if his “solutions” are unlikely to solve Canada’s problems). And while Carney might get closer to the mark than Freeland, eventually people will catch on to the bit — and tire of it. Fast.
January 16th 2025
Comments
In the end..
Whose solutions are likely to solve Canada’s problems.. ?
That person gets my vote..
I think we've reached the point where Canadians need to learn more about those exact points:
1. What, in fact, are our true problems (and, equally, what are their origins/ root causes)?
2. What are candidate solutions and what sort of future would those proposals lead us towards? (i.e. let's avoid jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire)
Nobody's really. Even the NDP don't have the guts, although they come closer than the other major parties.
And mine. But the current problem is to select a representative for a party that wants the votes of *other* *people*. After USA2024, I'm entirely down with running a nitwit figurehead, as long as the nitwit gets votes.
Freeland should be in Jail and if she was in China.. she would be.. something I respect about China is corrupt unaccountable government representatives don't get to act above the law
In your opinion, on what charges and with what evidence should Ms. Freeland have been charged, convicted and sent to jail?
Ditto that question.
https://ncio.ca/briefings/mp-chrystia-freeland-continues-to-blatantly-v…
I can't think of a way to make this not sound patronizing. Sorry.
I think you could advance your argument more effectively; let me suggest a few ways.
1. Figure out the difference between "treason" and a difference of opinion in either policy or action.
2. Find a better source to reference. There are many sources of good of information without quoting from questionable sites. And, regardless of what you read, always put it through your bullshit detector.
3. Let me refer to the WEF. I'm thankful you mentioned Ms. Freeland's position as a trustee; I was either unaware or had forgotten.
In my view, the WEF is deserving of significant criticism in its basic philosophies of what characterizes desirable society. Unfortunately, legitimate criticism is at risk of being immediately marginalized due to wild conspiracy theories that taint any such criticism, regardless of how considered and measured.
I invite you to read the book (I mentioned it elsewhere), "Davos Man: How the Billionaires Devoured the World". There are plenty of other intelligently written books relating to the current economic systems, politics, environment, society. Start reading them.
Any citizen is free to join associate with others. It's not surprising that elected officials join various organizations. Ms . Freeland has written books about the very rich; you might read one (perhaps "Plutocrats", to pick one) and see if it offers any clues as to why she has engaged with the WEF.
The world doesn't need random slogans; it needs voices of people who have something to say. If you don't want to run for office yourself, volunteer for a candidate who you think is halfway intelligent and doesn't speak in mere platitudes.
Again, sorry for undoubtedly sounding patronizing.
how about her part in the unconstitutional emergencies Act and the abitrarily freezing of Canadians bank accounts to name just a couple.. lying about balancing the budge, [its not a crime in Canada, but in china it is bc they are not to be decieving the taxpayers] over spending, investing in vaccines and over buying so many that ended up in the dump, then of course the fact that her and her gang paid to have mercenaries sent to Ukraine .. I could go on and on.. same with Traitor Trudeau,, he should be hung for treason.. maybe it would set an example.. jailed at the very least.. but of course government agents are above the law aren't they..
https://ncio.ca/briefings/chrystia-freeland-defined-as-a-war-criminal-f…
Someone check the padded room. I think its occupant might have escaped!
Hi Brian,
I think you are sincere in your beliefs, but nevertheless misinformed.
I think the point you might have missed in the prior responder's reply to your message is that the site you quote from is a "garbage" site. There are thousands of them, many informed by foreign propaganda.
That website's author also might be sincere in his beliefs. However, he clearly lacks understanding of definitions and usages of various terms used, and apparently counts on his readers to suffer under the same.
Individuals don't get to define what's constitutional or not, and that's probably a good thing.
There was much whining and kvetching and bitching about Covid measures, vaccination requirements, and a misunderstood "freedom" that apparently entailed liberty to endanger the lives of others, almost all of it lacking fact.
I mention that because all of the above were wound up in a misbegotten ball of nonsense about the WEF, NATO, the UN, and a New World Order that was never described or defined, as far as I know. I became acquainted with these through a friend in the US, who got sucked in to the whole schmeer. It's not really her "fault." She's a good person, and I expect you are too. She fled her home at 14, because of physical and sexual abuse, and never got as far as middle school, let alone high school graduation, even. She's done her best, against overwhelming odds.
People complained about quarantines: because they'd never experienced them, they thought they were new. But both Canada and the US had Quarantine Acts going way back into the 19th C. And many Canadians (and Americans) had relatives who told them about the "1918" 'flu, and possibly about their friends and family who died of it -- not to mention those who died of illnesses like diptheria.
I'd suggest that nobody's perfect, nobody's without mistakes. But the things you apparently hold against Freeland aren't what the dude at ncio.ca says.
I've no idea what you know about the history of Ukraine or the history of Russia, let alone understanding of the current war. There's a very interesting lecture series on YouTube. Just Google by "Timothy Snyder" Ukraine history Yale. I found a fair bit in there that isn't what we were taught in school. Perhaps that's as it should be: I first went to school 7 decades ago, and more *should* be known now than was known then.
I don't know offhand of a good resource to help you quickly identify a "Fake" site ... but what stuck out to me on the site you reference is (a) the motto: it seems to be a mashup of Toronto Police and the US Army; and (b) the material on it is sensationalist ... as well as being contrary to fact.
I have some sympathy for your ire given that you seem to believe what you write. But there are all kinds of resources online that could help you to understand the difference between any particular fiction and the actual facts that apply.
I wish you the best in learning to tell the difference. And in the meantime, please stop spreading falsehoods.
Ukraine has from the very near the beginning welcomed foreign volunteers in its military, and paid them the same as it paid its citizens in the military. That's different from an individual gathering together an army, and deploying it as they choose. And so on.
Meanwhile, despite speaking human, Carney hasn't been able to convince a bunch of major banks to stick with his pet project in green capitalism: https://www.cbc.ca/news/climate/carney-esg-climate-finance-1.7428281
The difference between being PM and being a UN Envoy lies in being able to legislate.
If people think poilievre's "solutions" sound credible and sincere we are are really, really screwed.
Sorry name one solution Pollievre has come up with. Other than to tear down everything the Liberals built and slogans. Thats all he is, slogans.
It's unfortunate that a conspiracy theory is swirling about, regarding the World Economic Forum, because even considered critique of the forum can be instantly tarnished and ignored. Which is too bad.
If one is content with the current look of, and the likely future prospects for, the global situation as exemplified by what's happening in the USA, then just keep on keeping on and don't seek any further understanding.
For me, on a feel-good vibe level, I really enjoyed the interview, while also wondering why a wannabe prime minister would be playing coy on an American TV show. Ultimately, however, the interview was simply candy. And who doesn't like the person handing out the candy?
Beyond that, however, I really would like to know if Mr. Carney is content with the state of the Global North's financial and economic systems, and their priorities, and the tight linkages they have with the deteriorating state of politics and societal well-being.
PAUSE FOR A CUP OF TEA
CONTINUING...
There's a tremendous book out now which takes a learned, critical look at the state of the world and looks at who the true beneficiaries are. The author is NY Times economics journalist, Peter Goodman. The book is called -- and if you're sensitized to the conspiracy theory, please set it aside for the moment:
Davos Man: How the Billionaires Devoured the World.
I highly recommend it.
Mark Carney obviously has a connection to the WEF, how could he not given his past positions as central banker. What I have yet to devine is Mr. Carney's views regarding the current trend towards ever increasing concentration of wealth, monopoly in commerce, plutocracy/ oligopoly/ fascism, and continuing destruction of both the demos and the biosphere.
In short, are his pronouncements regarding climate finance, and his book, indicative of anything beyond simply dealing with an annoying bump on the road to "prosperity". That is to say: is he, or is he not, a Davos Man?
It is that question to which I seek a clear answer.
Great question!
I saw the Daily Show episode with Mark Carney, and I was surprised at how affable and likable he is. And he's supposed to be a boring banker?
He used the example of the insurance industry reaction to climate events in California to counter climate denial narratives regurgitated ad nauseum by skeptics. On that one comment, he got my attention. But he will have to distance himself farther from oil and gas (unlike the Liberals under Trudeau, despite his rhetoric) and get closer to directly supporting renewables and making our cities better to earn my vote.
Now is the time to toughen him up. Affability will not stand up well to attack dog politics, bullying and shouting in debates, unless he learns to use humour to launch venomous, one phrase retorts and not give way to constant interruptions in a discussion. Humour is disarming. Winston Churchill and Tommy Douglas used it very effectively. It takes a lot of wisdom to master it.
Of course, that's only about style and delivery. Carney would excel in substance over Poilievre any day of the week. But so would Donald Duck, meaning Poilievre's substance and content of character bar is really, really low.
Being an angry asshole wins votes because anger is so often mistaken as strength. Poilievre and Harper specialize in it. But delivering policy in plain language while using humour to both disarm a political opponent and deliver complex ideas in plain language is an art.
In addition, Carney needs to come down from the boardroom to working folk's world and show that he truly understands the circumstances fast food servers, bus drivers and single mom students experience every day. Poilievre's lack of experience in the real world (desks in the House of Commons are not in the real world) is plain to anyone that looks, photo ops at McDonalds and crunching on apples notwithstanding. But I also see Carney's dainty, uncalloused hands too. He needs to get some dirt under those nails, learn to drive a farm tractor and be seen playing hockey with torn, bloodstained gear.
Anyway, a bit of natural scruff on Carney's obvious large intellect can only help him connect and defeat the loudmouth on the other side.
Chrystia Freeland is also a very capable and smart person with expertise and good leadership qualities. However, she's part of the stale Old Guard just as Canadians are now looking for fresh blood. She offers far more good than Poilievre could ever muster, but Carney's outsider experience seems to be a more beneficial asset to governing. Freeland speaks something like five languages, and I thought she was a great international affairs minister.
Lastly, both Carney and Freeland should give serious thought to engaging positively with the NDP. This is a new century and governing as mature adults includes considering building coalitions with other parties that have good ideas.
IOW, he should demonstrate his bona fides by pretending to be something he's not?
I'm not aware of any climate policy the federal NDP has. Provincially, here in Ontario, they're great. But the provincial and federal parties differ.
But I don't think it's NDP supporters the Liberals need to convert: it's the Poilievre fans. And I'm far from sure they're convertible. Too many years of swallowing disinformaiton whole.
Trudeau's big error was probably that he thought "sunny ways" would win over the oil provinces, and prove he was only nominally the Son of Pierre. That, he's proven, in spades ... but not to the incessantly and unendingly greedy oil patch.
Carney seems like a nice fellow. He wants capitalism with a human face. So did Justin Trudeau. So did a bunch of small-l liberal saviors. Where are they all now?
As supporters of the status quo, none of them were willing to do anything to help people that might disrupt the status quo and the wealthy interests status quontrolling it. And it turned out, "solutions" that don't do that, don't do anything. So they all did basically nothing useful, and disillusionment grew.
Two kinds of politics have grown as a response to the failure of the centre: The Maga, Pierre Poilievre, fascist-if-given-the-chance kind, and the left that's far enough left to be into some serious redistribution. But the wealthy-owned media know that only one of those two kinds of politics targets the rich, so they know which kind to yack about and which kind to quietly cancel. As a result, alt-right politics have grown much, much faster in most places. And are beginning to gain control.
Unfortunately, alt-right politics just replace do-nothing governments with do-horrible-useless-things governments. Actively making problems worse and inventing new ones is not an improvement on doing nothing about problems. I just hope by the time people get disillusioned by the right in turn, there will still be democratic mechanisms for turfing them out.
History suggests that by the time people get really fed up with the alt right, they will go crawling back to the do-nothing centre, never really considering the possibility of a politics that actually reduces the power of the people screwing them over . . . the wealthy capitalists.
Are you saying there are two kinds of politics and both of them are futile?
I'm saying centrist and right wing politics are both futile.
There's a class war going, waged by the rich against everyone else. The centre wants to ignore it and pretend everyone is friends. The right wants to wage it on the wealthy's behalf, ideally recruiting parts of the lower classes to help them crush other parts.
The only politics that could be useful would be one that fights back against the rich. Which is to say, hard left politics. Unfortunately, the owners of the media know that. There are formidable barriers in the way of any serious left politics gaining strength. Doesn't mean it won't ever happen, but it's very difficult.
Anyone who's not yet done so might consider the role of ex-PM Harper in promoting the alt.right world-wide. He calls them "conservative."
As a counter-example (I see that now), I did the dumbest thing after the bad Freeland interview: I devoted hours of research, made a map of rental/ownership rates, and wrote over 1500 words explaining how right Freeland was, how mendacious and unfair her tormenters were:
http://brander.ca/stackback#rentvscar
...it wasn't about Freeland, with whom I'm 'Ok-but-shrug'. It was about living downtown saving you the cost of a CAR, never mind Disney. And the lying assertion that she lived in a rich neighbourhood, when that very interview talked about breadlines there.
But David is right: my response was just self-amusement that could never earn a vote back. The need is to not get into the hole in the first place.
But, my problem with Carney is the same as with Trudeau and lots of others: they stay out of those holes by never taking a risk, never saying ANYTHING if that can help it. That's frankly worse, to me.
Oh: even worse, I came back a bit later to even defend the "Disney" comment, because I'm a cord-cutter and proud of it.
http://brander.ca/stackback#disneycost
The Liberals are going to lose the next election regardless of who they choose as their leader; even that radical socialist Jesus himself could not save them at this point.
Will the new leader manage to break the record set by the then-Progressive Conservatives in November 1993, and then be obliged to choose between promptly falling on their sword or taking the multitude of knives in the back for months or years after? Regardless, the Libs will be in the political wilderness for at least the next two election cycles.
I have watched the Carney/Stewart fun-fest a couple of times now, with great amusement and even greater amazement, and at a different moment in history Carney would be the person for the leader/PM job.
The only question is which party will be the Official Opposition to Poilievre. And personally, I don't think it will be the Liberals.
For the record: I have never supported or voted Liberal.