Thank you for helping us meet our fundraising goal!
In “How Justin Trudeau lost Canada,” Max Fawcett argues that the Liberals wasted many opportunities to implement consistent policies, and one can hardly disagree. I and others on the left have not held back our criticism of the Liberals’ failings. Crucially, the Liberals failed to implement democratizing political reforms and allocate resources to communicate the need for such reforms and their benefits, as well as citizen engagement in policymaking. But, unlike the populist far-right movement, our criticisms were rooted in proposals to strengthen the country’s democracy.
It matters deeply that it is not criticisms of policy failures or proposals for reform that have caused Trudeau’s downfall, but rather a coordinated campaign of misinformation and personal attacks on Trudeau from the right. This campaign, building in strength since Pierre Poilievre took over the Conservative Party, has dominated media content and shifted public opinion to the right. It is the right that has cause to celebrate a government coup that has opened the path to its seizure of power. It is urgent that we grasp what this means for Canadian democracy — and for the electoral prospects of centre-left parties.
To this end, I offer a different take on Trudeau’s resignation, one that shifts attention from the Liberals’ mistakes to the roles of right-wing parties, their corporate allies and the largely corporate-owned media. This bloc created a tsunami of propaganda that demonstrates their control over the existing media system. What we are witnessing is a right-wing coup d’etat led not by military forces, but by the media.
The very fact that centre-left commentators repeat the right’s claim that Trudeau’s policies or political style were “divisive” indicates how successful the far-right has been in blaming Trudeau for the divisions its own actors have worked assiduously to construct. Their intention was to make it impossible for the Liberals to govern.
The concentration of mass media in the hands of a small number of profit-driven and right-leaning corporate owners and the dynamics of social media have played leading roles in political “polarization.” Corporate and conservative political actors have had an enormous advantage in struggles to shape public opinion.
Postmedia, which owns the majority of the largest English-language daily newspapers, as well as tabloids and small papers across the country, has been a reliable purveyor (and financial beneficiary) of the propaganda of conservative parties, right-wing think-tanks, business associations and organizations like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
Longtime media analyst Marc Edge describes Postmedia as the chain that replaces local content with “political and oil propaganda.” Its editors and columnists have played a significant part in generating the deluge of anti-Trudeau and anti-Liberal punditry and news coverage. We should not underestimate the effectiveness of the incessant repetition of selected messages across the country and across time in shaping public opinion.
At the “progressive” pole are smaller, independent news organizations like Canada’s National Observer, the Narwhal, the Tyee, the Breach, Press Progress and numerous local or provincial-level, website-based news sources, blogs and podcasts. These offer high-quality journalism and political analysis, but reach smaller or more localized audiences than the “mainstream” commercial news outlets.
According to recent data, five companies, led by Bell Canada Enterprises (BCE), own more than half of all commercial radio stations. Many of these skew ideologically to the right — especially their talk show hosts and pundits. Sixty-eight per cent of Canadians listen to commercial radio at least every week, while 32 per cent listen to CBC Radio/ICI Radio Canada. The “tuning share” of non-commercial radio stations (community, campus, Indigenous, religious) was 2.3 per cent.
The CBC — which Poilievre and his circle believe is run by communists — has shifted noticeably to the right in its framing of many issues (particularly CBC television news). Thanks to budget cuts under Liberal and Conservative governments, the CBC no longer has adequate resources for investigative journalism. More than 200 experts surveyed in 2018 positioned CBC and Radio Canada as just left of centre on the ideological scale. However, what this means depends on what constitutes the “centre” when the question is asked.
An analysis of social media’s influence on generating divisions among Canadians would, I believe, support the argument that much of the “polarization” attributed to Trudeau’s policies or personality has been manufactured by actors on the political right.
There is no scope to develop such an analysis here, but I note that comparative research and research on Canada have shown that far-right organizations have used social media more effectively than left-wing organizations. This research by Professor Marc Owen Jones indicates that MAGA and “Make Canada Great Again” bots played a significant role in X calling for Trudeau’s resignation.
For years now, conservative provincial governments — most significantly, in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario (and New Brunswick, under former premier Blaine Higgs) — have waged propaganda campaigns against the “nation-building” social programs and environmental policies supported by the Liberals and NDP.
The only action presented by the Liberals as being in the “national interest” that these governments supported was the purchase of the TMX pipeline from Kinder Morgan. (Even then, the Liberals did not get much credit from the right.) These governments do not hesitate to mischaracterize the system of equalization payments, or climate policy, taking every opportunity to foment nativist sentiments that pit one region of the country against the other, as well as the federal government.
Governments of Alberta (Conservative, NDP, and UCP) have spent millions on media campaigns and an “energy war room” to persuade not only Albertans, but also other Canadians, that every initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector is a conspiracy against the livelihoods and energy security of Canadians.
The Ford government committed $30 million to oppose the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. During election campaigns, right-wing, third-party advertisers with donations from people with deep pockets play significant roles in shaping public opinion.
At a deeper level, we should be paying attention to the corporate interests supporting the provincial and federal populist, far-right parties and their civil society organizations (think tanks, “grassroots” groups, trucker convoys).
At their core are the fossil fuel corporations and their business associations — hence the longstanding captured nature of politics and government in the fossil-fuel exporting provinces. But, as social science researchers have shown, there is an interlinked elite that develops collective responses to government initiatives through their interactions on corporate boards and business associations.
Despite their privileged access to federal civil servants, and their considerable success in shaping federal climate and other areas of policy, corporate interests have simultaneously used every means available to obstruct federal policy and regulations they perceive as threatening their bottom lines. And one of their favourite strategies is pitting one group of Canadians or one region against another. The hypocrisy involved in constructing these conflicts to achieve one’s political-economic objectives, while blaming the targeted policymakers for the ensuing crisis of governability, defies description.
Could the Liberal government (or any government) have withstood this propaganda onslaught? In theory, yes, had it armed itself with the means of communicating directly with Canadians and engaging citizens in meaningful deliberations about policy options, and had it provided substantial resources to progressive civil society organizations, the CBC, and independent media. Stronger measures to require online media to fact-check and filter hate speech are also likely to be needed. Herein lie critical lessons for any future government of the left or centre-left.
Laurie Adkin is a professor emerita of political science at the University of Alberta, and the editor and-author of books and other publications on environmental conflict and democracy, as well as the restructuring of post-secondary education. Her website is https://apps.ualberta.ca/directory/person/ladkin.
Comments
Excellent analysis of the role of corporate right-wing media in setting various regions of Canada against one another and against the federal government. Trudeau made serious mistakes, including ethical ones. He was also subject to unending and vicious vilification far outweighing those weaknesses. This is indeed propaganda. Canadians should know better.
Finally, an honest and accurate analysis of the propaganda war that led to the downfall of Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party. The majority ownership (67%) of Postmedia, the publisher of Canada's so-called National newspaper, is by an American hedge fund with strong ties to the Republican Party.
Maybe in some part it's a matter of "what goes around, comes around." Think back to 2015, when the Liberals hired Cambridge Analytica's Vancouver branch plant ...
Well Hallelujah!!! At last.
Thank you so much for this, Professor Emeritus. And NO.
Doubt it s in time to save us now but maybe a young mind or two will be inspired to get up and turn things back again down the road.
Maybe even a brainwashed journo will reflect and come to Heysus.
It s been so horrifying that this happened in total silence.
Oops Professor Emerita. It s been a loong time since my last Latin class.
Excellent article, totally agree. It was unfortunate that the Trudeau Liberals did not spend any time challenging Pierre "Snake Oil Salesman" Poilievre to prove to Canadians his disinformation was fact in the HoC. You know that Pee Pee would have continued to sidestep any challenge which would have exposed his disinformation campaign. In addition, an investigation should have been done of the social media platform sources that only mirrored the same disinformation almost word for word and exposed that the CPC was behind them.
I have said from day one, that Stephen Harper's "International Democrat Union" (IDU) should be flagged as a terrorist organization for inflicting the similar disinformation around the globe and interferring in free elections everywhere. The IDU is behind much of the disinformation that Pee Pee spews.
Utterly agreed on the last paragraph. They are also possibly behind the eastern European and Russian propaganda: I read an article 'way back when, wondering why the US National Rifle Ass'n would be visiting Russia.
I'm not convinced that his activities haven't been highly contrary to the interests of Canada.
And I was having such a relaxing morning (attending a webinar on electricity demand-side flexibility) until I encountered this "kitchen sink" article! I say "kitchen sink" because, I think, one really has to approach our predicament "in the whole" (360-degree... choose your metaphor) and this article, to my mind, suggests the author may be of similar mind.
This isn't a comprehensive response -- though the article is certainly deserving of a considered response from everyone -- because I haven't yet digested the entire article, but I did want to say "bravo" while offering one criticism.
The author doesn't mention that federal governments, just like a container of tasty yogurt at the supermarket, apparently have an empirically natural, best before date. Doesn't matter if the yogurt is blueberry, strawberry, peach, or mmm... green smoothie, "sunny ways" or "muddy waters", there is a natural lifespan. Trudeau père; Mulroney; Chrétien; Harper, now Trudeau fils. I have no idea if Trudeau actuel would be in better shape even if he hadn't renegued on electoral reform, or had avoided the Wilson-Raybould/ Philpott affair, hadn't bought and rebuilt the absurd TMX pipeline or, indeed, had shown plus sage, sartorial sense on his visit to India; history suggests it may not have mattered (thought it is important to mention that Trudeau père accomplished his constitutional/ charter work only after his resurrection, which extended his b.b. date).
Oh, and I also appreciate the link to the available-at-no-cost book, "Regime of Obstruction:
How Corporate Power Blocks Energy Democracy". But, I do note that obstruction, manipulation and capture of politicians, civil servants and public policy by commercial (or more abstractly: monied) interests is an enormous problem in many governments, today; apart from the total fossil capture of Alberta and Saskatchewan governments, witness DFO corruption vis-a-vis open-net fish farms; Ontario and BC policy support for fossil gas; federal gov't corruption vis-a-vis the entire chemical industry, as exemplified with pesticide regulation.
I hope I have the time to provide a more thorough response, if only to show that I've thought through the many realities presented by Prof. Adkin in this meaty piece.
Save your tears. The Liberal Party has long served the interests of Bay St and corporate Canada.
John Manley, former deputy prime minister of Canada, served a decade as president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada, then known as the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. He is currently the chairman of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC).
Jean Chretien and Anne McClellan (solicitor general, minister of health, and Attorney General and minister of justice of Canada) were instrumental in the expansion of Alberta's oilsands. Post politics, McClellan sat on the boards of Nexen, Agrium, and Cameco Corp..
Martha Hall Findlay, another Liberal MP and oilsands cheerleader, served as the president and CEO of the Canada West Foundation, a Calgary-based think tank, and as senior vice-president and Chief Sustainability Officer with Suncor.
The Liberals are a party of right-wing corporatists, not leftists, centrists, or progressives. Virtually indistinguishable from the now-defunct Progressive Conservatives.
In that same tradition, Justin Trudeau served the interests of corporate Canada and Bay St, Big Oil, and the Big Banks that back them.
The Trudeau Liberals and Notley's Alberta NDP spent far more time, effort, and political capital promoting pipelines and fossil-fuel expansion — pandering to voters and regions who will never vote for them while alienating their own base. A recipe for defeat if ever there was one.
The hypocrisy, duplicity, and cynicism of the Liberals with regard to democratic reform, climate change, and indigenous rights and welfare make them impossible to cheer for.
Save your tears.
Hard to blame the right for outstrategizing, outhustling, outorganizing, outmanoeuvering, outmessaging, and outspending the Liberals. That's politics.
The right wing attacked the Liberals incessantly — and the Liberals failed to rise to the challenge.
The Liberals' failure to defend carbon pricing was egregious. If you want to win on the battlefield, you have to show up.
Likewise, the Liberals' failure to defend international law and human rights in Palestine was simply shameful.
"Fuelling Genocide: Trudeau’s Bloody Record On Gaza" (The Maple)
https://www.readthemaple.com/fuelling-genocide-trudeaus-bloody-record-o…
The centre-left must accept responsibility for its own failures.
What fraction of Canadians can explain the greenhouse effect, carbon rebates, and Canada's equalization program? 0.01 percent?
A gross failure on the part of our education systems.
Democracy depends on having an informed citizenry. The fact that so many Canadians fall for Poilievre's shtick is an indictment of our institutions. Our political and economic elites fail the basic tests of decency.
Why does Canada fail on so many fronts? Because it is weak. Not because of right-wing attacks, but because of its inability and unwillingness to defend itself against those attacks.
Where did pandering get Neville Chamberlain?
The centre-left, to which the Liberal establishment does not belong, should stop crying about a "right-wing coup d’etat" and start organizing. The game is politics, and the centre-left needs to up its game. Finding somewhere else to put our faith, our dollars, and our votes would be a good start. The corporatist Liberals never have been and never will be a progressive, centre-left party.
The pendulum has swung right against the incumbent party. Poilievre will soon wear out his welcome. A few years of Conservative misgovernment and vulgarity, and Canadians will return to their senses. But Canada's fundamental problems will remain unresolved.
These are good points. You know that I think you should have a regular column in one of the country's newspapers! I take issue, however, with this statement: "Hard to blame the right for outstrategizing, outhustling, outorganizing, outmanoeuvering, outmessaging, and outspending the Liberals. That's politics." Unfortunately, it is not so simple. One of the reasons that the right is dominating social media is that these actors are quite prepared to use dishonest and manipulative means to sway public opinion -- such as financing bot farms, paying people to spread misinformation, and foment personal attacks that create a toxic (dangerous) environment for political debate. The left has, for the most part, refrained from using such methods--to their credit. So can progressive actors counter the communications oligopoly and financial might of the radical right? This has become the central question for democratic politics (not only the left) in many parts of the world. Governments do have means at their disposal to defend the pillars of democracy, but they are not using them. I do not mean merely electoral reform (in the Canadian case), but much else. Perhaps another column is called for . . .
This is timely. It was just shared with me today:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19401612241311886
When Do Parties Lie? Misinformation and Radical-Right Populism Across 26 Countries
by Petter Tornberg and Juliana Chueri
The spread of misinformation has emerged as a global concern. Academic attention has recently shifted to emphasize the role of political elites as drivers of misinformation. Yet, little is known of the relationship between party politics and the spread of misinformation—in part due to a dearth of cross-national empirical data needed for comparative study. This article examines which parties are more likely to spread misinformation, by drawing on a comprehensive database of 32M tweets from parliamentarians in 26 countries, spanning 6 years and several election periods. The dataset is combined with external databases such as Parlgov and V-Dem, linking the spread of misinformation to detailed information about political parties and cabinets, thus enabling a comparative politics approach to misinformation. Using multilevel analysis with random country intercepts, we find that radical-right populism is the strongest determinant for the propensity to spread misinformation. Populism, left-wing populism, and right-wing politics are not linked to the spread of misinformation. These results suggest that political misinformation should be understood as part and parcel of the current wave of radical right populism, and its opposition to liberal democratic institutions.
Politics has been described as a "contact sport" — even a "blood sport".
When did the bullies ever play fair?
When did money not try to buy elections?
When did industrialists not try to shape politics?
When has industry not tried to capture politicians, governments, and regulators?
When did newspaper publishers not try to sway the vote?
When has power not tried to game the system?
Yellow journalism and the yellow press.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst#Political_engagem…
Industry has waged disinformation and cover-up campaigns for decades. Big Oil followed Big Tobacco's playbook.
Climate change denial has been in vogue since the 1970s at least.
"Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago" (InsideClimate News, 2015)
"Exxon Mobil accurately predicted global warming since 1970s, study finds" (AP, 2023)
"Over 1,700 coal, oil and gas lobbyists granted access to Cop29, says report" (The Guardian, 2024)
"Fossil fuel-linked lobbyists outnumber delegations of almost every country at climate talks in Baku, analysis finds
… "Cop29 kicked off with the revelation that fossil fuel deals were on the agenda, laying bare the ways that industry’s constant presence has delayed and weakened progress for years."
… "The fossil fuel industry has long manipulated climate negotiations to protect its interests while our planet burns."
Right-wing malfeasance is a constant. A given.
Our success or failure depends on how we respond.
"these actors are quite prepared to use dishonest and manipulative means to sway public opinion"
Twas ever thus.
When were politicians not dishonest and manipulative?
U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy. President Richard Nixon. Vice president Dick Cheney, chief architect of the war on Iraq, and the lies that led up to it.
Going back to ancient Athens, demagogues used rhetoric to mislead and incite the democratic assembly, often to disastrous and violent ends (v. Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War).
When were propaganda, indoctrination, and violence not a feature of political life?
Ku Klux Klan. Goebbels. Manufactured Consent. Zionism.
When were coups, overthrows, rigged elections, gerrymandering, vote suppression, assassinations, scheming, conspiracy, and violent revolution absent from history?
The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Macbeth. Hamlet. Othello.
The other side is always trying to fix the race. The rules be damned.
But when your side fails to show up, defeat is guaranteed.
On carbon pricing, the Liberals have largely been MIA, while the NDP run away with their tails tucked between their legs.
Both Trudeau and Notley pandered to constituencies who would never vote for them, but merely alienated their own supporters. A prescription for political failure.
No matter how good your policy is, if you fail to sell it to voters, if you fail to defend it from attack, legitimate or otherwise — or worse, if you undermine it yourself, thereby confirming the opposition's argument — it fails. The Conservatives will take the credit, but it was the Liberals who killed carbon pricing in Canada.
Hey Geoffrey,
I had hoped it would be clear that I was not writing an apologia for the Liberals. I want to draw attention to what is happening on the terrain of civil society, and the implications of right-wing domination of the means of shaping public opinion. Obviously, there are many more angles to this story. (One that has not received much attention is ideological divisions within the Liberal cabinet, caucus, and party hierarchy which appear to have played a large role in forcing Trudeau's resignation.) At the end of the day, the situation is that Poilievre's far-right CPC is chomping at the bit to form a government, backed by the country's corporate and media powerhouses. I see no historical evidence to support an attitude of "le pire tant mieux."
LA wrote: "I had hoped it would be clear that I was not writing an apologia for the Liberals."
I did not take it as such. But the Liberals bear responsibility for their own failings. The Liberals are their own worst enemy. Poilievre's Conservatives will trip themselves up soon enough.
I do not blame the opposition for attacking the government, by fair means or foul. That's politics. A dirty game. But I do blame nominal progressive parties for failing to anticipate those challenges. For failing to mount a vigorous defence. For failing to pre-empt attacks. The best defence is a good offence.
I blame provincial NDP parties, in particular, for chasing conservative parties to the right. Out-conservativing the conservatives was always a losing strategy. If your main issue is pipelines, why not just vote for the real O&G party?
I was getting hot and bothered reading your earlier comments on this subject which sound like a defense of the pp brigade. But you remind me of the discussion at my local store( I live in the country in Nova Scotia). "Time for a change" they sagely opine as if it weren t potentially the end of democracy as we know it and at the very least more destruction of our programs and policies and records and trust built from since before Confederation. I remember pp and his role in the dreadful harper government, busily dismantling the hard won progress when I worked for the feds in the last century. I m not sure how much the Libs even reversed, some sure.
Have to confess I quite agree with your last comments above. They blew it themselves. Sunny ways. Ignore the monsters and they ll go away philosophy. And they let the lies and liars proliferate so of course people fall back on the old bromides. what else have we got?
LA please do write another, there cannot be enough given the magnitude of false witness over the years. I print them and pin them on the wall for comfort. Perhaps you could tell us about the protections created back in my day to ensure support and freedom of Canadian press. Are they still in place? Did the Liberal government actually keep on financing post media and other con outlets?
@ NS: For any ambiguity in my comments, I apologize, but I do not support or defend the PP brigade in the slightest.
But instead of simply deflecting to the bad guys, our side needs to do some serious self-reflection. Introspective analysis.
Apart from incessant Conservative attacks, which come with the territory, where and why do the Liberals, and progressives in general, fail of their own accord?
More broadly, why do we have such an uninformed electorate? Why are so many Canadians scientifically, politically, and financially illiterate? Why is democratic participation so low (and not just on election day)? Why such voter apathy? Why are low-information voters so vulnerable to right-wing sloganeering?
Our democratic malaise goes a lot deeper than the bad guys on the other side of the aisle.
Very good questions. It sickens me that harper and pp got so far. I was raised in a Diefenbaker conservative family( so much for Iggy s silly epistle in the NYT about returning to your roots) and while the Alberta branch of the family still tries to support the cons there, everyone else these days is progressive in practice and behaviour which is perfectly consistent with how my family behaved. It meant something different back then. We were Hatfield Conservatives and he still might be the most progressive premier ever in Canada.
So yes why are we so misinformed now? media of course. misdirection and money. You guys have always had a thing about Trudeau that I dont get but may be part of the package. And yes Liberals have mostly governed right; when I say hard won policy progress, my personal blood was on a whole lot of paper over three decades. changing leadership styles. But also changed electorate, what are kids being taught these days? what do they believe? why? and 20 years ago and 30.
Someone needs to study the psychology behind voting choices, in fact someone surely is and should be found and heard. Pollsters try. No one mentions Ekos but Frank Graves truly tries to understand evolutionary matters and brings a range of knowledge and skills together.
Anyway thank you for paying attention and asking questions and looking for reasons which will lead us to solutions. I only wish there were more like you able to be seen and heard nationally in other fora.
Finally, an accurate analysis of what's been happening, except at the end she surprisingly succumbs to the campaign herself in a way that's reminiscent of the recent focus on Kamala Harris' foreign policy, as was done with Hilary Clinton's e-mails, showing just how LONG this campaign has been going on, AND just how well it's been WORKING.
The author does this by reasonably concluding that NO government, or leader thereof, could counter such an all-encompassing deluge from the preponderance of right wing media, in this case the Conservative Party of Canada, but then goes on to blame their "communication strategy" and the usual, old tribal NDP canard about Trudeau misleading everyone on proportional representation, completely ignoring the context (conservative style), of JUST how divisive that would have been when no one could even agree on WHICH VERSION of it to use, Trudeau's suggestion of "ranked ballot" only serving to trigger and confirm inherent, long-standing NDP resentment against Liberal hegemony as Canada's "natural governing party," a resentment so reliable that the NDP has now wildly irresponsibly and completely succumbed to the hype as well! WTF?
Hence my frequently stated conclusion that the Liberals are truly the only adults in the room left standing.
But in criticizing Liberal's communications, the author of the article ALSO completely ignores CONTEXT, conservative style, despite quite comprehensively documenting the current state of said "communications," i.e. silos abounding in everyone's personal "feeds," trusted implicitly because of being uniquely nestled in their "hot little HANDS."
So at this extremely critical and unprecedented point, far-too-tolerant and conflict averse Canadians need to out EVERY SINGLE conservative supporter, exposing them for being complicit in enabling the "Convoy" Party of Canada to overthrow our ONLY actual hope of maintaining some semblance of peace, order and good government in the face of rampant "Trumpism." It's now incumbent upon EVERYONE at EVERY available opportunity, to start to NAME our common enemy--conservatives. If they're not with us, they're against us has never been more true in the face of climate change but it's an ominous "twofer" because they're also deliberate perpetrators of democracy's destruction.
I heard another new word for "misinformation" on CBC radio yesterday that really got it right--"malinformation," reflecting the actual malevolent INTENT of all these BAD FAITH actors who have virtually and completely taken over the U.S. and are gunning for Canada. Elon Musk now embodies the evil of "social" media, but it's not like Zuckerberg hasn't jumped right on board now that he CAN, citing a "cultural change." Indeed.
We need three things:
a) to get private funding out of politics -- if I'm not mistaken, it used to be funded from general revenue, according to vote share ... in that system, if one's vote didn't result in electing one's representative of choice, at least it gave the party a better crack at it next time around;
b) to change the locks on the revolving doors between industry and its regulators -- as well as instituting a functional time lapse between being in government (political side or bureaucracy) and lobbying; and
c) getting rid of the idea that each section of the bureaucracy needs to "pay for itself."
It would be useful if the PMRA stopped referring to application fees as "application and licensing" fees. No wonder industry thinks that once it's paid the fee, the product should automatically be licensed.
In addition, there seems little reason why PMRA employees should be spending large amounts of time "consulting with" applicants about how to apply. Government doesn't do that for individuals, why should it do it for (largely) foreign corporations.
Thank you for reminding everyone of these VERY important points - we must stop allowing people to buy their way into power and influence. I would also love to see strict limits on the 'revolving door' you so aptly named between government and industry. And point c - any householder/parent knows that they will have to 'borrow from Peter to pay Paul'.
Liberals are neither centrist nor progressive. Almost everything progressive Liberals have done has been as a minority government, with the NDP nipping at their ankles in exchange for supporting their money bills. Remember Tommy Douglas?
Neither is the Conservative party actually "conservative," any more than Trump is "conservative." They are better described as right-wing extremists.
Here's a handy Venn diagram of misinformation, malinformation, and disinformation:
https://library.csi.cuny.edu/misinformation/mis-dis-mal
I appreciate Laurie Adkin following up on my comment to Max Fawcett's article which I reproduce here to provide context:
It borders on negligence to write about "How Justin Trudeau lost Canada" without even mentioning how the Right won it. At the tip of the iceberg is the 10's of millions of dollars spent on Conservative Party advertising and flying Pierre Poilievre back and forth across the country spewing his poison. To say that the CPC spends an order of magnitude more than any other party is a significant understatement because the Conservative message is bolstered by a menagerie of amplifying voices.
To start with there's the True North boys with their dancing partners, Rebel News, Canada Free Press and the Post Millennial. Then there's Canada's largest Newspaper chain Post Media, together with media owned by Canadian billionaire families, Global, CTV and the Globe & Mail. Perhaps more insidious are countless right-wing political talk radio shows which bombard commuters trapped sitting in traffic in their cars. This is without getting into the Fraser Institute, Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and the stream of guff emanating from Alberta, Saskatchewan, etc.
It's difficult to measure how much has been spent to demean and destroy this government, but it is certainly a lot. By contrast, the opposing voices are tepid. The Liberal Party has limited resources to counter right-wing propaganda, and what it has it must save for an actual election. The NDP is no help, and media that are not right wing propaganda feel compelled to engage in "both-sides-ing" to project a facade of objectivity, or, as in the case of this article, in naval gazing in support of progressive purity.
It's an understatement to say, as Fawcett says here, that "It’s too early ... for a completely clear-eyed analysis of what [Trudeau's] legacy will be." But any such analysis needs to provide an accurate picture of the overwhelming magnitude of forces targeted against him.
Hello John! I hadn't read your comment until just now, but I like it very much and agree with your points. What is happening here has already happened elsewhere, with the Brexit campaign being highly instructive. The Liberals did what Canadian governments have always done, regarding communications, but the environment has changed radically. The dominance of what I would call radical right propaganda in our media system is familiar to Albertans and Saskatchewanians, but has spread like an infection across the country. Governments must adopt new tools to protect democracy.
I hate to disagree with you but back in the 90s, my wily old Communications DG never gave up her instructions on briefings and public release documents: tell em what you re gonna tell em, tell em, tell em what you told em. You have to let people know what you achieve.
I have not see that in action, well, pretty much since then. We the people have no reliable source of information on what the government has actually done, ready and digested so we can understand and remember. Not newspapers, not tv or radio and while I don t do social media, I d be surprised if they had it when noone else has.My sense is they they think actions speak louder than words and don t get down and dirty with pigs, but in fact people do need to hear stories told and we have not. I try to find out and share positives and people do not believe me because they ve not read or heard it themselves.
PS What provoked me to write this column was in fact the CBC Radio program, Cross-Country-Check-up. They did a call-in on Trudeau's resignation, but chose panellists on a "partisan" basis rather than inviting social scientists who might have asked different--and critical--questions about the forces pressing for Trudeau's resignation. I am a strong critic of Liberal policies, but Trudeau's "unpopularity" was constructed -- turned into an unquestioned fact, if you like -- by media. The CBC producers didn't think to question this.
They ve been doing this at least since harper s day and I stopped listening to them to preserve my blood pressure.
I cannot tell you how refreshing it is to see what I have always thought about this coup d'etat performed in broad daylight in front of all of us. The most astounding part was the silence, which we are not getting used to with world events. The silence of no one with serious credibility calling out the main stream media including the CBC for its obvious partisan bias against the Prime Minister. It was shocking to watch and listen to so much so that I cannot bear to watch or listen to CBC. I remember protesting the cuts by Rabinovitch many years ago because the CBC was so beloved but now it is nothing more than more main stream media competing with itself. Thank you for this article very much. It is very lonely out there when you cannot read your thoughts and ideas without searching for them.
Exactly my feelings too. So we are not completely alone.
With the help of others speaking up maybe more will recognize what s happened as well. I feel optimistic today for the first time in ages.
Simply put, this is a brilliant synopsis. It is also old news, something many of us have been observing since Trudeau took office (recall the awful attacks on his wife, and then the surge of "climate Barbie" jabs at Minister McKenna). I always thought that the Trudeau government should have addressed this head on by revealing what was going on to the public—head it off at the pass, so to speak. But that is part of the government's communications problem. It's comms staff should have been fired—and fired again—long ago.