It seems to me that the relevant divide in our society is in terms of class: rich versus poor, comfortable office jobs versus getting one's hands dirty, security versus scrambling to earn a living. Issues of discrimination are important. But identity politics have elevated turned our attention almost excludively to race, gender, sexual orientation, and other such issues -- thus drowning out class problems. I think that some of this is deliberate: after all, it is much less costly and more comfortable to focus on identity issue than to tackle the real problems of inequality.
Mr. Singh is merely relying on the new playbook Members of the working class, who are not fools, have noticed.
“I think that some of this is deliberate: after all, it is much less costly and more comfortable to focus on identity issue than to tackle the real problems of inequality.”
I think it’s also the result of a few generations of activist natural selection. Budding activists care about a number of issues, all of which are very real. Civil rights issues, environmental issues, economic issues. When they focus on civil rights issues, they not only make progress but often enjoy broad societal support, at least as long as they don’t stray into areas where civil rights interact with economic issues. When they focus on environmental issues there’s far more organized and funded opposition, but also a large amount of support and room for success.
But when they tackle economic issues, it’s like running into a brick wall studded with glass, where the opposition is very well funded, ruthless, and enjoys the full support and power of broader society.
After a few generations of that you get a large and effective community of people with experience and drive focused on (some) civil rights issues. A moderate and somewhat successful community fighting environmental issues. And anyone who focused on economic issues either drifted into the other two, or is living in a basement with nothing to show for it except possibly a police file
"activist natural selection" is a new nonsense term and it's certainly effective as a means to dismiss real concerns and the people who have those concerns. It's the kind of dismissive and insulting language wingnuts use to insult and dismiss other people.
You're the same people who came up with "cancel culture", who are literally cancelling women's rights in the United States and banning books in schools. Where did you learn to speak like an asshole? The Jordan Peterson Academy?
Um, I think you might have completely misread my comment. I’m certainly not against any of the various branches of progressive advocacy. I was speculating on why some areas of progressive policy has managed to develop into robust organizations with strong pipelines for mentoring new activists, while others have basically atrophied
Geez, when an asshole like George who says with no embarrassment that racism and misogyny are not class issues and are merely frivolous in his narrow view of the world, you know you've hit a wall.
News flash. The working class includes whites as well as Blacks and Indigenous and Asians; it includes men as well as women; it includes heterosexuals as well as LGBTQ+. Meanwhile the rich and the elites include Blacks and Indigenous as well as whites; it includes women as well as men; and includes LGBTQ+ as well as heterosexuals.
Non-whites, women and LGBTQ+ certainly have important issues of discrimination and bias, and I am not denying these. But economic issues, as they affect the poor and the working class have slowly been erased. Some say that this is due to fatigue, others that society has become bored with class issues (and often denies that social classes even exist). A hypothesis is that this is not merely accidental, but serves the purpose of those in power (including those who are Black, Indigenous, women, LGBTQ_, etc.
I guess that some progressives feel threatened when attention is drawn to economic issues. I understand their desire to change the conversation. But I would submit that insults and name-calling are not the best way to advance anyone's cause.
Singh is an unserious person, surrounded by unserious advisors. I don’t think he is particularly intelligent. An intelligent politician would have a response ready for the railway labour impasse that would go beyond the reflex of condemning any action by the government to resolve the situation.
A smart NDP leader would force the government to enact safety laws that would make the railway companies implement the workers’ demands. And this smart leader would take credit not only for protecting workers, but also for making the railways safer.
Agreed. He seems to act as if anything good the government does is because of him and anything bad they do has nothing to do with him. He can't have it both ways. Worst NDP leader that I have a memory of.
It is so incredibly upsetting and joyuous to read these columns of your, you are so tortured by the ongoing performance of all of the so called left leaning leaders and that is the problem for all of us, liberal and conservative. There isn't an individual who has the gut and mascochistic tendencies to lead either from the left or the right. To quote Aaron Sorkin, we have serious problems and we need serious issues and none are to be found, we are really screwed.
I think a lot of it has to do with the success of the provincial NDP parties the last few years. Everyone capable of spearheading an alternative is busy closer to home. Given the choice, would you want to be fighting a federal party civil war, or would you rather be a senior adviser shaping policy for Eby or Wab Kinew?
Except the provincial NDP parties are nothing like the federal one. In BC, the NDP has majority power and hasn't done a fraction of what Jagmeet claims his party will do for people. It is LESS generous than the federal Liberal party and indeed, carries on policies of the previous BC United Party (they called themselves Liberals but that was a rebranding and entirely misleading. BC United has always been a conservative party albeit one that doesn't demonize gay and trans people like some others do.)
No one wants to go down in history as being the political figure to lead a coup against the first racialized minority leader of a major federal political party.
Who mentioned any political figure leading a coup?
He hasn't advanced his party in seat numbers nor budged his party from the third spot. I'm referring to the membership of the party and grumblings under the surface. I don't know if these exist but I keep seeing people urging the NDP to get new leadership if it wants to succeed.
Sure, but a membership revolt still needs leadership in order to happen, even if that leadership is informal, and I suspect that the optics are bad for whoever would step up to the plate.
That aside, the NDP membership have a history of being patient with their leaders. The only federal NDP Leader who was ever forced out was Tom Mulcair. (Ironically, the party would probably be stronger under Mulcair right now, but he did seem to do worse than Singh solely on the metric of keeping expectations in line.)
Don't knock dental, pharma and child care; they're real, progressive and structural changes that are going to be hard to remove, so look at what they do, not what they say. When done under the cover of the innocuous "supply and confidence agreement," the braying cons are divided and conquered and since it's THEIR usual stock in trade, it's probably quite satisfying for both Singh and Trudeau. They got together after the shock of the convoy to come up with this clever, back door ruse that enables the stupid cons to continue imagining that it isn't mainly the narcissism of small differences that keeps the NDP and Liberals apart, and that these two progressive parties aren't ACTUALLY the majority in Canada, when they in fact ARE.
Singh is indeed annoying but part of the deal between him and Trudeau seems to be to let him spew anti-Liberal crap to keep the tribal, holier-than-thou contingent happy, those purists who insist there's little difference between Liberals and Conservatives because Trudeau deliberately deceived them about FPTP being scrapped, even though we would probably STILL be bickering about WHICH fucking version of PR passed muster if he'd done that.
So give Jagmeet a break. He's a placeholder of sorts, but an essential and powerful one while the truly dangerous right wing insanity warps politics like never before.
Jagmeet's contempt for the Freedom Convoy Truckers was emblematic of his contempt for working people. You are right he has participated in the demise of Canada as a serious country. He is dense, insensitive and blind to the damage he is doing .
Many of the lawless downtown Ottawa occupiers were not truckers, and many of them disgraced themselves by creating a lawless zone of harassment that caused millions of dollars in economic damage to the city.
Oh gad Evan, is there nothing else to write about? Everyone knows your thoughts on Jagmeet and whether we agree or disagree with you is no longer relevant. I couldn’t even finish reading your post and that’s a first for me.
It seems to me that the relevant divide in our society is in terms of class: rich versus poor, comfortable office jobs versus getting one's hands dirty, security versus scrambling to earn a living. Issues of discrimination are important. But identity politics have elevated turned our attention almost excludively to race, gender, sexual orientation, and other such issues -- thus drowning out class problems. I think that some of this is deliberate: after all, it is much less costly and more comfortable to focus on identity issue than to tackle the real problems of inequality.
Mr. Singh is merely relying on the new playbook Members of the working class, who are not fools, have noticed.
“I think that some of this is deliberate: after all, it is much less costly and more comfortable to focus on identity issue than to tackle the real problems of inequality.”
I think it’s also the result of a few generations of activist natural selection. Budding activists care about a number of issues, all of which are very real. Civil rights issues, environmental issues, economic issues. When they focus on civil rights issues, they not only make progress but often enjoy broad societal support, at least as long as they don’t stray into areas where civil rights interact with economic issues. When they focus on environmental issues there’s far more organized and funded opposition, but also a large amount of support and room for success.
But when they tackle economic issues, it’s like running into a brick wall studded with glass, where the opposition is very well funded, ruthless, and enjoys the full support and power of broader society.
After a few generations of that you get a large and effective community of people with experience and drive focused on (some) civil rights issues. A moderate and somewhat successful community fighting environmental issues. And anyone who focused on economic issues either drifted into the other two, or is living in a basement with nothing to show for it except possibly a police file
"activist natural selection" is a new nonsense term and it's certainly effective as a means to dismiss real concerns and the people who have those concerns. It's the kind of dismissive and insulting language wingnuts use to insult and dismiss other people.
You're the same people who came up with "cancel culture", who are literally cancelling women's rights in the United States and banning books in schools. Where did you learn to speak like an asshole? The Jordan Peterson Academy?
Don't bother replying.
Um, I think you might have completely misread my comment. I’m certainly not against any of the various branches of progressive advocacy. I was speculating on why some areas of progressive policy has managed to develop into robust organizations with strong pipelines for mentoring new activists, while others have basically atrophied
Very well said.
Geez, when an asshole like George who says with no embarrassment that racism and misogyny are not class issues and are merely frivolous in his narrow view of the world, you know you've hit a wall.
News flash. The working class includes whites as well as Blacks and Indigenous and Asians; it includes men as well as women; it includes heterosexuals as well as LGBTQ+. Meanwhile the rich and the elites include Blacks and Indigenous as well as whites; it includes women as well as men; and includes LGBTQ+ as well as heterosexuals.
Non-whites, women and LGBTQ+ certainly have important issues of discrimination and bias, and I am not denying these. But economic issues, as they affect the poor and the working class have slowly been erased. Some say that this is due to fatigue, others that society has become bored with class issues (and often denies that social classes even exist). A hypothesis is that this is not merely accidental, but serves the purpose of those in power (including those who are Black, Indigenous, women, LGBTQ_, etc.
I guess that some progressives feel threatened when attention is drawn to economic issues. I understand their desire to change the conversation. But I would submit that insults and name-calling are not the best way to advance anyone's cause.
MAGAts are stupid and George is a perfect example.
Why do you hate the working class?
I loathe right wing trolls of the Trump variety.
Singh is an unserious person, surrounded by unserious advisors. I don’t think he is particularly intelligent. An intelligent politician would have a response ready for the railway labour impasse that would go beyond the reflex of condemning any action by the government to resolve the situation.
A smart NDP leader would force the government to enact safety laws that would make the railway companies implement the workers’ demands. And this smart leader would take credit not only for protecting workers, but also for making the railways safer.
Agreed. He seems to act as if anything good the government does is because of him and anything bad they do has nothing to do with him. He can't have it both ways. Worst NDP leader that I have a memory of.
.. complete & utter failure - Jagmeet Singh - ‘a leader via ‘Retail Party Membership Sales .. as much a narcissist parasite as Pierre4Poilievre 🦎🏴☠️
It is so incredibly upsetting and joyuous to read these columns of your, you are so tortured by the ongoing performance of all of the so called left leaning leaders and that is the problem for all of us, liberal and conservative. There isn't an individual who has the gut and mascochistic tendencies to lead either from the left or the right. To quote Aaron Sorkin, we have serious problems and we need serious issues and none are to be found, we are really screwed.
What compels the NDP to keep him? I don't get it.
I think a lot of it has to do with the success of the provincial NDP parties the last few years. Everyone capable of spearheading an alternative is busy closer to home. Given the choice, would you want to be fighting a federal party civil war, or would you rather be a senior adviser shaping policy for Eby or Wab Kinew?
Except the provincial NDP parties are nothing like the federal one. In BC, the NDP has majority power and hasn't done a fraction of what Jagmeet claims his party will do for people. It is LESS generous than the federal Liberal party and indeed, carries on policies of the previous BC United Party (they called themselves Liberals but that was a rebranding and entirely misleading. BC United has always been a conservative party albeit one that doesn't demonize gay and trans people like some others do.)
No one wants to go down in history as being the political figure to lead a coup against the first racialized minority leader of a major federal political party.
Who mentioned any political figure leading a coup?
He hasn't advanced his party in seat numbers nor budged his party from the third spot. I'm referring to the membership of the party and grumblings under the surface. I don't know if these exist but I keep seeing people urging the NDP to get new leadership if it wants to succeed.
Sure, but a membership revolt still needs leadership in order to happen, even if that leadership is informal, and I suspect that the optics are bad for whoever would step up to the plate.
That aside, the NDP membership have a history of being patient with their leaders. The only federal NDP Leader who was ever forced out was Tom Mulcair. (Ironically, the party would probably be stronger under Mulcair right now, but he did seem to do worse than Singh solely on the metric of keeping expectations in line.)
Don't knock dental, pharma and child care; they're real, progressive and structural changes that are going to be hard to remove, so look at what they do, not what they say. When done under the cover of the innocuous "supply and confidence agreement," the braying cons are divided and conquered and since it's THEIR usual stock in trade, it's probably quite satisfying for both Singh and Trudeau. They got together after the shock of the convoy to come up with this clever, back door ruse that enables the stupid cons to continue imagining that it isn't mainly the narcissism of small differences that keeps the NDP and Liberals apart, and that these two progressive parties aren't ACTUALLY the majority in Canada, when they in fact ARE.
Singh is indeed annoying but part of the deal between him and Trudeau seems to be to let him spew anti-Liberal crap to keep the tribal, holier-than-thou contingent happy, those purists who insist there's little difference between Liberals and Conservatives because Trudeau deliberately deceived them about FPTP being scrapped, even though we would probably STILL be bickering about WHICH fucking version of PR passed muster if he'd done that.
So give Jagmeet a break. He's a placeholder of sorts, but an essential and powerful one while the truly dangerous right wing insanity warps politics like never before.
Jagmeet's contempt for the Freedom Convoy Truckers was emblematic of his contempt for working people. You are right he has participated in the demise of Canada as a serious country. He is dense, insensitive and blind to the damage he is doing .
Many of the lawless downtown Ottawa occupiers were not truckers, and many of them disgraced themselves by creating a lawless zone of harassment that caused millions of dollars in economic damage to the city.
Oh gad Evan, is there nothing else to write about? Everyone knows your thoughts on Jagmeet and whether we agree or disagree with you is no longer relevant. I couldn’t even finish reading your post and that’s a first for me.