You’re wrong, JT is not divisive himself, nor does he cause divisiveness. It’s the far right that polarizes everything. It is fair for him to refute and push back.
Yes, yes, yes! Finally someone says what needs to be said. We didn't and couldn't beat Harper until we defined the policies that were bad for the country. Same is true now. Trudeau won't be defeated by vague characterizations of divisiveness.
There is nothing bad for the country in the policies that the Trudeau government is enacting. If the Conservatives want to say out loud that supporting people during the pandemic was divisive then let them. The whole country breathed a sigh of relief when people got funds quickly and could pay the rent in May 2020. We were all surprised this new program happened quickly enough to be truly useful. Let the Conservatives define that as divisive. The rest of us were happy and we know we'll have to pony up to pay it back over time.
This is the most one sided research that I have read in a while. True the point is total division from your statements. Through all the scandals and to to try that type of journalism. Give the readers a good two sided choice story. Shake my head.
I just shorthand most of this divisive talk as copying what the tea party and right-wing media did under Obama.
Why wont Obama so divisive? Why can't Obama work with Mitch McConnell and Boehner and lead to a compromise to fix the budget. It's reflexive high Broderism by establishment media that can't say that a major party has gone over the gorge Thelma and Louise style.
Wanting the Leafs to win instead of the Habs is divisive.
So, no, divisiveness is not a bad thing. It is natural in many areas of life.
However, the use of the word "divisive" has become divisive, many times intended to provoke extreme reactions.
When we think of division without numerator or denominator, we automatically think of half and half.
In most cases we may be better to use "polarising" to remove that even-split thinking. Of course, those with desire for bigreactions may not choose to temper their choice of words
So... everything you say is true with a few provisos. To start, yes, politics and the polices that come with it are inherently divisive—otherwise we would only have one party. What's different these days that the conservatives are trying to weaponize this longstanding reality as if it's some kind of new and aggressive treatment of the hoi polloi by the gov't. It's not. And that is classic conservative gaslighting given that the HarperCons ran the most demonstrable intentionally divisive government in history. Sowing division was not just subtext to almost everything they did, but perhaps Job 1—they even bragged about it.
Trudeau and his party are not, on the whole, purposefully divisive—it's simply an emergent property of the times + certain policies (e.g., the vax travel mandate; BTW, this same policy was global so it's ridiculous to see it "hung" on Trudeau). The reality is that while the conservatives were in gov't, and accelerating since they've been in opposition, they have been as divisive as possible—and much more purposefully—since their strategists clearly see this as the only way to win. Instead of the "polite divisions" of policy debated around Canada in the halcyon days of the former federal Progressive Conservatives, the current deep chasm in Canadian society that now exists was created—and is being relentlessly widened—by the CPC, UCP, SP, and PCO. Conservative politicians are positively gleeful when the Trudeau gov't is forced to do something that only makes sense but will clearly have blowback because they know they can sell it as divisive and then stick a crowbar in that chasm and pry away.
I totally agree with this article and would like to add that not only have the Right used divisiveness, which can be turned around into a strength but have more so inflamed anti-Trudeau personal hatred and that will not be turned around. For the sake of Canada and a Liberal agenda going forward , I would suggest Mr. Trudeau step aside and leave Christina Freeland take the reigns. Justin's coming on the scene saved the Liberal Party, now his exit might save it again...
Of course differences in policy can be divisive. The real issue is the tone with which these policies are delivered. I found the Harper gov't to be divisive because the tone they were delivered in was contemptuous of anyone who held a different opinion. With the Trudeau gov't the tone is one of moral superiority - they look down on anyone who doesn't hold the exact same opinion.
Great piece. In short, because we (CPC) win when people argue mindlessly over division, instead of arguing over the actual choices. So many key words, but in that last sentence, the most critical key word is "actual".
Honestly, I don’t know who you are or who pays you but this is gibberish, utter nonsense.
You willfully wear blinders, ignore recent political history and actively promote the the exact CPC narrative.
And it’s so sad. Canada is screaming for actual journalism, commentators interested in sincere objectivity and responsible reporting no matter the position taken. That’s not you.
THANK YOU!
Flip it back on them. Say that "divisive" is Tory language for "protecting Canadians" and force them to say out loud that protecting Canadians is bad.
You’re wrong, JT is not divisive himself, nor does he cause divisiveness. It’s the far right that polarizes everything. It is fair for him to refute and push back.
Yes, yes, yes! Finally someone says what needs to be said. We didn't and couldn't beat Harper until we defined the policies that were bad for the country. Same is true now. Trudeau won't be defeated by vague characterizations of divisiveness.
There is nothing bad for the country in the policies that the Trudeau government is enacting. If the Conservatives want to say out loud that supporting people during the pandemic was divisive then let them. The whole country breathed a sigh of relief when people got funds quickly and could pay the rent in May 2020. We were all surprised this new program happened quickly enough to be truly useful. Let the Conservatives define that as divisive. The rest of us were happy and we know we'll have to pony up to pay it back over time.
This is the most one sided research that I have read in a while. True the point is total division from your statements. Through all the scandals and to to try that type of journalism. Give the readers a good two sided choice story. Shake my head.
I just shorthand most of this divisive talk as copying what the tea party and right-wing media did under Obama.
Why wont Obama so divisive? Why can't Obama work with Mitch McConnell and Boehner and lead to a compromise to fix the budget. It's reflexive high Broderism by establishment media that can't say that a major party has gone over the gorge Thelma and Louise style.
At this moment I believe you are right about what the liberals need to do to continue to govern.
I also believe that any man who hands with a man who would like to rape his wife needs his head examined.
Respectively
Butch French
Wanting the Leafs to win instead of the Habs is divisive.
So, no, divisiveness is not a bad thing. It is natural in many areas of life.
However, the use of the word "divisive" has become divisive, many times intended to provoke extreme reactions.
When we think of division without numerator or denominator, we automatically think of half and half.
In most cases we may be better to use "polarising" to remove that even-split thinking. Of course, those with desire for bigreactions may not choose to temper their choice of words
So... everything you say is true with a few provisos. To start, yes, politics and the polices that come with it are inherently divisive—otherwise we would only have one party. What's different these days that the conservatives are trying to weaponize this longstanding reality as if it's some kind of new and aggressive treatment of the hoi polloi by the gov't. It's not. And that is classic conservative gaslighting given that the HarperCons ran the most demonstrable intentionally divisive government in history. Sowing division was not just subtext to almost everything they did, but perhaps Job 1—they even bragged about it.
Trudeau and his party are not, on the whole, purposefully divisive—it's simply an emergent property of the times + certain policies (e.g., the vax travel mandate; BTW, this same policy was global so it's ridiculous to see it "hung" on Trudeau). The reality is that while the conservatives were in gov't, and accelerating since they've been in opposition, they have been as divisive as possible—and much more purposefully—since their strategists clearly see this as the only way to win. Instead of the "polite divisions" of policy debated around Canada in the halcyon days of the former federal Progressive Conservatives, the current deep chasm in Canadian society that now exists was created—and is being relentlessly widened—by the CPC, UCP, SP, and PCO. Conservative politicians are positively gleeful when the Trudeau gov't is forced to do something that only makes sense but will clearly have blowback because they know they can sell it as divisive and then stick a crowbar in that chasm and pry away.
I totally agree with this article and would like to add that not only have the Right used divisiveness, which can be turned around into a strength but have more so inflamed anti-Trudeau personal hatred and that will not be turned around. For the sake of Canada and a Liberal agenda going forward , I would suggest Mr. Trudeau step aside and leave Christina Freeland take the reigns. Justin's coming on the scene saved the Liberal Party, now his exit might save it again...
Of course differences in policy can be divisive. The real issue is the tone with which these policies are delivered. I found the Harper gov't to be divisive because the tone they were delivered in was contemptuous of anyone who held a different opinion. With the Trudeau gov't the tone is one of moral superiority - they look down on anyone who doesn't hold the exact same opinion.
Great piece. In short, because we (CPC) win when people argue mindlessly over division, instead of arguing over the actual choices. So many key words, but in that last sentence, the most critical key word is "actual".
Honestly, I don’t know who you are or who pays you but this is gibberish, utter nonsense.
You willfully wear blinders, ignore recent political history and actively promote the the exact CPC narrative.
And it’s so sad. Canada is screaming for actual journalism, commentators interested in sincere objectivity and responsible reporting no matter the position taken. That’s not you.
And sincerely, I wish it was.