• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

I suspect the “experts” he was referring to has to do with your own life. You know what you need and how you want to get there. No one else.

The issue is when we try and tell people they are experts when it comes to things they are not nor should not be experts in. Worse, encouraging people to not rely on experts and or distrust them. Measles is making a come back exactly because people think they are experts and have been encouraged to distrust the real experts.

The real experts are always of two or more minds as to the best course of action. The problem arises when "clarity" is forced into a "murky" situation. When simplicity takes over from complexity simply on the grounds that complexity is too hard to explain. At that point the inclination is to go all "authoritative" and declare a course of action with the admonition "Trust me, or else!"

You can't come back from declaring a simple solution only to be proven wrong. At that time you, and your experts, all lose credibility. Let that happen frequently enough and long enough and nobody trusts anybody claiming to have any answers. They all get treated like the experts on talk shows, late night TV and the internet.

And of course the easiest experts to mock are those in food, health, meteorology and economics.

I will personally and cheerfully turn over my finances to an accountant for best advice - accepting their capabilities are greater than mine. I do not share the same trust in the messaging that comes out of a game of Chinese Whispers in a Byzantine Court.

I would like to think that my representative in Parliament shares my healthy skepticism of the Government and acts in my best interests by asking the questions I would like to have asked if I was able.

I cannot accept any man or woman's authority ex cathedra. In any field.
 
J'assume tu ne live pas dans le riding de Papineau...

The odds would be greater that my self-interest and his self-interest would coincide. If only I could find a job to pay for a ticket at his next fundraiser.
 

The "experts" and the left have done it to themselves.

Some thoughts - Not a lot of trust in governments or institutions in evidence















And finally


Much like Trump, PP is a symptom. Not the cause.
 
From the comments

It is so true, that disdain for intellectuals and experts is always easy to whip up with poorly educated. That is why having a robust public education system and a free press are both very important. One will reduce the number of ardent anti-intellectuals. The other will feed the truth. But both are not gaining more ground in Canada under more Right-Wingy governments.

Part of the problem is right there in that highlighted statement, the conflation with intellectuals and experts.

Expert - a person with a high level of knowledge or skill relating to a particular subject or activity:

Intellectual - a person whose life or work centers around the study or use of ideas, such as in teaching or writing

The titles of expert and intellectuals are most effectively applied as honours by others. They are least informative when declared by the individual themselves.

If I am a told that someone is an expert I will listen to what they have to say. If they declare themself to be an expert I am inclined to discount their value.

If I am told that someone is an intellectual then I may be inclined to give them a hearing. They may have acquired some useful information during their reflections and meditations. If they declare themself to be an intellectual it is unlikely that we will find enough common ground for me to find their views relevant to my own.

And don't get me started on the intelligentsia.

It used to be that, for the commoner, experts were to be found among the artisans - they supplied the cabinet makers and joiners, the blacksmiths and tool and die makers, the potters and ceramics engineers. They were experts in doing. In creating. And they supplied the project managers. They learned their trades on the job, with apprenticeships and later with the help of day classes at colleges, at city and guilds college, and by access to public librairies. They also learned through mixing at social clubs.

If someone wanted something done they hired an artisan. The more expert an artisan, the more often they were hired. The artisan had a vested interest in being good at their job so that others would call them experts.

The other end of the scale.

The intellectual. Those that think in terms of Plato and Aristotle. Continuing the tradition of the university and the seminary. Self described thinkers.

The intellectuals are liberal arts grads. The artisans, in the modern world, tend to the STEM community. I don't discount the presence of intellectual artisans nor even of artisanal intellectuals - although my experience suggests that the artisanal intellectual is a poor potter who glories in the imperfections in their pots.

Which brings me to this article turned over during my surfing yesterday. It introduced me to a new concept for me "Elite Overproduction" . As a sociological construct it has been around for a number of years. The basis of the concept is characterized by landowning elites having more kids than the land can support. Dividing up the land equally results in nobody being able to survive and both the elite and the land die.

The concept has been extended to young kids looking to do well and being told their chances were better at university. This was exacerbated by governments striving to get everyone in to a university, to give them a sound intellectual underpinning.

But what happens when everybody goes to university in search of the intellectual life sure that that will improve their chances as they join the elite.

Can everyone be of the elite?



Just because someone has spent years studying Plato and Aristotle, and has been encouraged to feel good about themselves, does not make them any more of an expert outside of their chosen area of study than those farmers and truckers are when operating outside of their fields.

The whole point of a well functioning parliamentary democracy is the people who actually know things are brought together to learn from each other and about each other. And learn whose judgment to trust. Even when they are required to make decisions on behalf of others without being experts in everything.

Parliamentarians should be people first. They should be trusted people second.

Credentials are a poor substitute for that trust.
 
I wish PP would walk back the jack-stay on his accusations. As the leader he should be the voice of calm, let a couple attack dogs from the back bench make the accusations.
 
He used t
I wish PP would walk back the jack-stay on his accusations. As the leader he should be the voice of calm, let a couple attack dogs from the back bench make the accusations.
He used to be that guy. He was a great attack dog, but he’s failed to hand off the baton, and it diminishes how serious some of us perceive him to be in terms of leadership and capability to responsibly govern.

This is a dude whose entire adult life has been in politics. His baseline for what normal people think is skewed by the very vocal and relatively quite small highly engaged partisan minority.
 
He used t

He used to be that guy. He was a great attack dog, but he’s failed to hand off the baton, and it diminishes how serious some of us perceive him to be in terms of leadership and capability to responsibly govern.

This is a dude whose entire adult life has been in politics. His baseline for what normal people think is skewed by the very vocal and relatively quite small highly engaged partisan minority.
Sadly I have to agree with you.
 
Diefenbaker was a prairie populist. As was Tommy Douglas. Both of them were Baptists at a time when that meant something.

Their "congregations" held many of the same views. Cooperatives were high on the agendas of both the United Farmers of Alberta that right wing populists and the left wing populists. All of them were strong believers in church but most of them came from anti-establishment churches. They held their faith close.

In Canada the Establishment Churches were the Church of England of Bishop Strachan and the reintroduced Roman Catholic church of the Oblates.
The Establishment was united in its opposition to two things - dissenters and socialism - both of which sprang from the anti-establishment churches. Manchester was the English hub. Glasgow the Scottish one, Bellfast the Irish one and Wales was almost entirely dissenting. Eventually the Establishment got its own Socialist church - the Fabian Society.

Since then the issue has been how does the Establishment maintain its position over the Dissenters.

Reform was the Prairie Dissenters in the Conservative Party. The CCF was the Prairie Dissenters in the NDP. Both groups of dissenters were what you would currently call social conservatives but economic progressives. It was the Dissenting congregations of Britain that organized internally to help themselves when the Establishment wasn't. They gave rise to Sunday schools to teach people to read for themselves, to public libraries to give them access to new technical trades knowledge, co-operatives to supply alternatives to the factory store, to the Rochdale Pioneers, the Manchester movement, the Chartists and the Guardian. They also gave rise to the Labour Party. In Canada the most prominent names coming from the Dissenting churches were George Brown, presbyterian of the Globe and Mail, Edgerton Ryerson, methodist of Ryerson University and William Lyon MacKenzie of the Upper Canada Rebellion.

The one thing they did not give rise to was the Fabian socialists. Those were johnny-come-lately Establishmentarians running to keep ahead of the crowd.

The other piece of the puzzle is the rise in Ireland of both the Masons and the Orange Order. They are not the same thing.

Ireland was a battleground but it wasn't a Protestant Catholic battleground so much as it was a three way fight that resulted from the Act of Union of 1707. The Act of Union declared that the presbyterian Kirk was the officially Established Church in Scotland. It also continued the episcopal Church of England in England as the Established Church.

Which left Ireland. At that time a sovereign territory that was nominally Catholic but whose Catholicism had followed two traditions. One was the tradition of Patrick and St David of Wales - common in the South and the other was that of Columba and the Culdees common in the North and Scotland. Scotland's Reformation to the Protestant cause looked very different to the English Reformation. The English Reformation continued the top down episcopal order that maintained the Establishment in there accustomed places. The Scottish Reformation became the opportunity for a new Establishment to assert itself in Scotland.

Back to Ireland. Which Church was to dominate in Ireland. Both were Established which meant that both were legally allowed to gather and to preach and to teach. But what to teach. The answer was easy enough. The English answer. If the Scots wanted to get church lands from the state in Ireland, and crown grants for their schools and preachers then they had to become episcopalians and give up their more democratic congregational presbyterianism. Presbyterians were treated exactly the same was as Catholics. They were not permitted to hold public office.

Matters came to a head when George I was brought to England by the Whigs which were strongly associated with Scotland but also with Cromwell's Puritans. The Establishment started organizing riots to Save the Church and their principle targets were presbyterians and their meeting places in England but also caught up the other Dissenters like the Quakers and the Baptists.

This prompted many presbyterians to head for the Americas - where the debate over the role of legally established but minority Scots Irish Presbyterians in a dominantly Establishment English Episcopalian society. New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania were the battlegrounds with the Scots Irish finding relative peace in the Appalachians where they only had to worry about the French and Indians.

The results of the sorting process were:

In England the Church split between what would become the Whiggish Wesleyan Methodists and the established Tory High Church.
In Scotland the Church lost pride of place to the reorganized universities teaching new enlightened curricula.
In Ireland the battle continued - Scots Irish Presbyterians and Anglo Irish Episcopalians with the Irish Catholics wishing a pox on both their houses.

In the three way fight in Ireland some people sought common ground. And thus the rise of Shaftesbury's Masons with their emphasis on getting together across religious divides for convivial conversation and learning how to rub along together. The Masons were open to Establishment Church members of both the English and Scottish types, Dissenters of all types and Roman Catholics.

And thus the Masons were seen as a threat to the Establishment. First out of the gates was actually the Roman Catholics who declared anybody who joined the Masons would be excommunicated. A position held to this day.

In Ireland, England and Scotland the rise of the Masons coincided with a period of rough stability.

The same could not be said in the Americas. The Masons and the Presbyterians were held particularly responsible for the American Revolution. The Belfast presbyterians were out in the streets cheering the news of both the Declaration of Independence AND the later treaty. They were joined in the streets by the Catholics. Both happy to see the Anglo-Irish Establishment discomfited.

Next up was the French Revolution which was spawned by that presbyterian success in America. The French salon types had developed a taste for Scotch Whisky and the new town of Edinburgh with its enlightened Scots discussing radical ideas freely.

In Ireland the presbyterians of the north split themselves into Establishment supporters and Radicals The Radicals, the Masons, were out in the streets again celebrating when the news of the Fall of the Bastille was published. And a chap name of Wolfe Tone - a radical presbyterian with French Huguenot roots - formed the United Irishmen to bring the disenfranchised, Catholics and Presbyterians, together to oppose the Anglo-Irish Church of England Establishment. For his efforts he was shot in prison the day before he was to be hanged.

The triumph of Edmund Burke's Establishment Tories resulted in yet another out migration from Ireland. This time Scots Irish heading to Canada and places like Peterborough and Guelph. There they bumped into Bishop Strachan claiming all the Church land and public offices for proper Establishment Churches and their members.

Back in Ireland the Catholics had started to organize into their own "militias". The Establishment responded by creating their own Church of England militias organized on Masonic lines - The Orange Order was formed as an explicitly pro - Establishment group of Scots-Irish and Anglo-Irish.

In search of a quiet life England finally decided that they had to quieten things down in Ireland. So they gave Relief to the Catholics after the Catholics gave surety that their loyalty was to the Crown and not to the Pope. This caused the Dissenters of all types to go off the rails. They were good protestants but being denied rights that were now being granted to Catholics ..... One of the rights the Catholics got was the right to import Roman Catholic priests to minister to the congregations properly - however these new Catholics were staunch supporters of the Pope and saw the Crown, at very least as an obstacle....

And so the British Religious Mess was brought whole into British North America.

The Northwest Territories, Ruperts Land, became the last best hope for the Dissenters to find a new start - along with their religious fellow travellers - the Mennonites, Hutterites, Mormons, Moravians, Doukhobors, the Lutherans and all the Orthodox Churches - who found common ground with the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists (a particularly prickly set of presbyterians who dissent from each other) the Wesleyans, the Methodists, the Quakers, the Unitarians and Diefenbaker's and Douglas's Baptists.

The United Church of Canada was formed in 1925 by the "Methodist Church; the Congregational Union of Ontario and Quebec; and two-thirds of the Presbyterian Church in Canada".



1925 was in the middle of the populist cooperative movements that gave rise to the United Farmers and the Cooperatve Commonwealth Federation.

After WW2 they were joined by Dutch Reformers from Holland who shared the Scots Presbyterian and Huguenot heritage, and later by their fellow Covenanters from South Africa.


Long way round for a short cut as usual.


Poilievre is preaching to the choir. Literally. He is speaking to a group of people who share a couple of common traits. A faith in something other than government. An inclination to work from the bottom up. A belief in cooperation. And, above all, a strong sense of grievance with The Establishment and a willingness to Dissent. Strongly and Vigorously.

Poilevre is going after the CCF NDPers as well as the Reform Conservatives and the Social Credit Quebecers - some of whom have Huguenot roots. The Beauce region is particularly good hunting grounds.

Trudeau is a Quebec Establishment Brebeuf College Quebecer with Scots and English Establishment supporters and a tail of Irish and Italians as well as the support of the post-Pierre immigrants - who have thinned out the influence of the Disssenters.

Religion, and Cultural Associations - the basis of modern politics.


Even those of you that consider yourself irreligious might want to thank a Dissenter for your freedoms.

From The Church, to the English Church, to the Presbyterian Church, to the Congregationalist Church, to the Non-Subscribers, to the Unitarians, to the Deists, to the Agnostics, to personal spiritualism is a straight line.

Just as the line from the Masons, to co-operation and widows and orphans funds, to socialism, to communism and fascism is just as clear.


All a bunch of way stations on the same road.

(Sorry Dimsum - not sorry - thanks for the opening)

The early role of populism in Canada - and the fight against the elite

Wiki is a good enough source of potted histories these days. In my opinion.

organized Reform activity emerged in the 1830s when Reformers, like Robert Randal, Jesse Ketchum, Peter Perry, Marshall Spring Bidwell, and Dr. William Warren Baldwin, began to emulate the organizational forms of the British Reform Movement and organized Political Unions under the leadership of William Lyon Mackenzie. The British Political Unions had successfully petitioned for the Great Reform Act of 1832 that eliminated much political corruption in the English Parliamentary system. Those who adopted these new forms of public mobilization for democratic reform in Upper Canada were inspired by the more radical Owenite Socialists who led the British Chartist and Mechanics Institute movements.

A loose committee of the "Friends of Religious Liberty" composed of William Lyon Mackenzie, Jesse Ketchum, Egerton Ryerson, Joseph Shepard and nineteen others, chaired by Dr William Warren Baldwin (who was one of only 3 Anglicans) circulated a petition against an "Established Church" in the province. It gained 10,000 signatures by the time it was sent to the British Parliament in March 1831. The petition gained little due to direct intervention by the Church of England.[2]

During the late 1820s, large scale, national petitioning campaigns were organized through a new form of organization, the "Political Union". One of the first and largest was the Birmingham Political Union founded in 1830. Its stated aim was to campaign for electoral reform of the House of Commons, "to be achieved by a general political union of the lower and middle classes of the people". Other more radical Political Unions, like the "Metropolitan Political Union" had their roots in Owenite Socialism.







The Irish Rebellion of 1798 (Irish: Éirí Amach 1798; Ulster-Scots: The Hurries[6]) was a major uprising against British rule in Ireland. The main organising force was the Society of United Irishmen, a republican revolutionary group influenced by the ideas of the American and French revolutions: originally formed by Presbyterian radicals angry at being shut out of power by the Anglican establishment, they were joined by many from the majority Catholic population.

Upper Canada, Trinity and Brebeuf Colleges vs The Mechanics Institute.
 
And a bit more context - with particular emphasis on the perspective of Edmund Burke with respect to property


The common Atlantic theme breaks down to some extent from reading the works of Edmund Burke. Burke firstly supported the American colonists in 1774 in "On American Taxation", and took the view that their property and other rights were being infringed by the crown without their consent. In apparent contrast, Burke distinguished and deplored the process of the French revolution in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), as in this case property, customary and religious rights were being removed summarily by the revolutionaries and not by the crown. In both cases he was following Montesquieu's theory that the right to own property is an essential element of personal freedom.

Money does not guarantee happiness but it supplies the freedom of action to pursue happiness and not be subservient to others.

Personal wealth is the opposite of government largesse.

 
He used t

He used to be that guy. He was a great attack dog, but he’s failed to hand off the baton, and it diminishes how serious some of us perceive him to be in terms of leadership and capability to responsibly govern.

This is a dude whose entire adult life has been in politics. His baseline for what normal people think is skewed by the very vocal and relatively quite small highly engaged partisan minority.
Trudeau's drama background gives him the ability to "play a part" and appear like he really gives a dam about average Canadians of any political stripe. He doesn't, IMO. But he acts like he does, and as mastered using emotion to his advantage. Trudeau has acted convincingly enough to win three elections.

Polievere just appears perpetually angry. That is one reason why, in my mind, he is unelectable as PM.
 
Trudeau's drama background gives him the ability to "play a part" and appear like he really gives a dam about average Canadians of any political stripe. He doesn't, IMO. But he acts like he does, and as mastered using emotion to his advantage. Trudeau has acted convincingly enough to win three elections.

Polievere just appears perpetually angry. That is one reason why, in my mind, he is unelectable as PM.

Trudeau and PP are the same people just on opposite ends of the spectrum. They are both symptoms of a broken system.
 
He used to be that guy. He was a great attack dog, but he’s failed to hand off the baton, and it diminishes how serious some of us perceive him to be in terms of leadership and capability to responsibly govern.
That is exactly the thought I had when he became the leader. What happens if his party wins and he can't be angry at "the govt" anymore because his party formed govt?

The really sad part is if he tries to pivot and own his policies, a non-zero portion of his base will say he "sold out" and hate him for it.
 
That is exactly the thought I had when he became the leader. What happens if his party wins and he can't be angry at "the govt" anymore because his party formed govt?

The really sad part is if he tries to pivot and own his policies, a non-zero portion of his base will say he "sold out" and hate him for it.
They can hate him all they want, there is no alternative for them that stands a chance of accomplishing anything.
 
That is exactly the thought I had when he became the leader. What happens if his party wins and he can't be angry at "the govt" anymore because his party formed govt?

The really sad part is if he tries to pivot and own his policies, a non-zero portion of his base will say he "sold out" and hate him for it.

Winston Churchill had a quote about that... Something about being easier to blow up bridges than build them.
 
Despite decades of evidence, some still have trouble grasping that: politicians run close to their base during party selection events, closer to the middle during general elections, and even closer to the middle when actually faced with the job of running government.

People don't elect new governments so much as throw old ones out. The longer a government is in office, the uglier it becomes. The uglier it becomes, the less choosy the swing voters become and the angrier the committed opposition voters become. The angrier the committed opposition voters become, the more likely they are to put up less desirable candidates. Eventually we get the perfect storm: ugly government, sub-optimal alternate choice, and swing voters determined to have a change.

Poilievre now, or someone else a few years down the road who is maybe better, maybe not, facing off against an even more scandal-plagued LPC.
 
Back
Top