And so, when a narrative emerged from corporate media and analysts that Trudeau had to go because he had moved too far to the left, I did a spit take: What in the universe are they talking about?
The members of Parliament (MPs) who made this claim mostly spoke under a cloak of anonymity. Global News’ David Akin reported, “Almost all of the MPs Global News spoke to believe Trudeau has moved the party too far to the left and that shift has played a key role in the decline of the Liberals.” Akin didn’t say who or explain how these MPs were defining “the left.”
How can it be that a prime minister whose tenure saw record-breaking corporate performance paired with widening social inequality is also “too far to the left”? What kind of left-wing doctrine supports extreme income inequality and a tax structure that has failed to redistribute profits?
No one could reasonably believe that Trudeau’s economic policy was too far to the left. What they’re really saying is that Trudeau’s vibes were too far to the left.
The left went too far with identity pol tics, this is the natural result.
Name the identity politics that any “left” political party has actually engaged in.
Meanwhile, the right has been slinging IDPol for decades now, and people lap it up. White Christian Nationalism is all IDPol. The rural/urban conflict is all IDPol. Men’s Rights is IDPol.
“Let’s treat people who are not white Christian men as if they’re people” is a) not a core campaign plank for any party, and b) not IDPol.
I think you’re insane if you think it’s just the liberals (calling them “left” is a joke) playing identity politics. The only platform the CPC has had for the last 9 years has been identity politics fed by easily verifiable lies. The entire “fuck Trudeau” movement has been sold to Canadians like a sports team.
Not to say the Liberals have been better in that regard, but it’s some real classic hypocrisy at best, and genuine idiocy at worst, to support the CPC based on that stance.
