Justin Trudeau is out of touch, and he doesn’t seem to care
Recently, I stumbled upon a quiz created by the controversial author of books such as The Bell Curve and Curmudgeon’s Guide to Getting Ahead, Charles Murray.
In his book Coming Apart, Murray describes what he sees as the economic divide and moral split of white Americans that has occurred since 1960.
Murray focuses on white Americans to state that the decline he describes was not being experienced solely by minorities, whom he brings into his argument in the last few chapters of the book.
The book essentially argues that America as a society is “coming apart” at the seams. He argues that the super wealthy, well-educated members of the upper-echelon are essentially living an entirely different existence, and don’t experience American culture as a whole.
Murray argues that those people live in a bubble, and although this book specifically focused on American issues, our proximity and allegiance with one of the world’s superpowers means there’s going to be a major cultural crossover.
After reading several chapters of the book, it’s undeniable that despite its American focus, there are very similar concepts that apply to the Great White North, as well.
Accompanied with the book is the aforementioned quiz that assesses how thick one’s own bubble is. Murray’s quiz, made up of 25 questions, takes seemingly innocuous or unimportant details, and explains to you why these questions exist.
Examples of the questions in the quiz range from “Have you ever had a job that caused something to hurt at the end of the day?” to “During the last month, have you voluntarily hung out with people who were smoking cigarettes?” You can take the full quiz here, just replace “American” with “Canadian” and you should be set. (Though there will be one or two questions that are a bit awkward.)
I started to wonder how our elected leaders would fare on such a quiz. Specifically, I wondered just how thick Justin Trudeau’s bubble is. Surely, the circles he surrounds themselves in are those of academia, politics, and comfort rather than ones of blue-collar know-how and an honest day’s work. Phrases like “honest day’s work” probably don’t even cross Justin Trudeau’s mind. The Canadian un-elite are so out of sight, that they may as well be out of mind. And that’s a problem.
Has Justin Trudeau lived in a neighbourhood where most of his neighbours are uneducated? Was he ever raised in a family where the chief breadwinner worked a blue collar job? The answer to these questions and ones of similar sentiment are surely a resounding “no.”
Canada’s rural population is estimated to be at 18.9 percent, nearly a fifth of the population, and while it has been well documented that small town Canada is slowly withering away, it’s impossible to ignore that a sizable chunk of the population’s lives are completely different than those in cities.
This type of polarization inside of a country is unhealthy. How can one side sympathize with another side, if they don’t even understand their backgrounds? Anecdotally, I frequently hear those I surround myself with speaking very disparagingly of small-town Canadians as “dumb hicks” or “hosers,” essentially yokel-izing them, undermining their status and legitimacy, and dismissing their point of view as incorrect or ignorant.
All of this is accentuated when the political powers-that-be also display resentment towards the Canadian un-elite. Their flippancy and eagerness to label opposing views as either racist, bigoted, or uninformed, (as Trudeau has shown he’s not afraid to do) shows more than anything that they are deeply out of touch.
But how could they not be?
Is it reasonable to expect someone like Justin Trudeau, who was born into Canadian political royalty, who went to the best University in Canada and lived a life of self-discovery and leisure to be able to relate to someone from bucolic Provincia?
How many times in Justin Trudeau’s life did he eat at Applebee’s or a Boston Pizza? Do you think Justin Trudeau ever had to work until his hands hurt, besides some sort of “enriching” volunteer experience?
How is a gap like this bridged? It takes listening and understand, which the current Prime Minister is unwilling to do.
When Canadians show legitimate concern about immigration policy, Trudeau is quick to call them racist. This directly contradicts his message of Canada being a “free and open society” with many voices that “need to be heard,” a retort he frequently uses at town halls upon being heckled.
If Justin Trudeau isn’t willing to listen to all Canadians, then perhaps it’s time to vote for someone who will.
The Liberal Party has managed to crash their aircraft, as Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will be forced to take numerous different planes for his travels.
The 30-year-old aircraft was moved by contracted maintenance personnel at a military airbase in Trenton, Ontario, when it “suffered significant structural damage to the nose and right engine cowling,” said air force spokesman Lt.-Col Steve Neta to the CBC.
The aircraft then rolled into the back wall of a hangar.
“On 18 October 2019 a CC150 Polaris was towed from the North ramp to 10 hangar,” a post from the government’s official site reads. “This space is not normally used by the CC150, and the D-14 tow tractor normally used is too large for the limited space available inside 10 hangar. Before entering the hangar, the ground crew were required to stop and swap the tow tractor from the bigger D-14 to the smaller D-12.
“Once the aircraft reached a position in front of 10 hangar, the tow crew stopped the aircraft, set the chocks and the parking brake. During the tow tractor change, while no tractor was attached, the aircraft started moving forward and over the chocks. Attempts to stop the aircraft by the tow crew were unsuccessful. The right engine struck the D-12 tow tractor parked inside the hangar, before the nose contacted the hangar far wall structure, finally stopping the aircraft.The aircraft sustained very serious damage.”
An investigation is currently underway, focusing mainly on human error and mechanical malfunction.
“We do not have sufficient detail about potential costs, or the attribution of those costs, to provide any detail at this time,” said Neta to CBC.
The Liberals are no stranger to fender benders with multi-million dollar aircraft.
Three months ago, the Liberals crashed their campaign plane in Victoria, British Columbia.
Photographs and videos posted on social media showed a scraped or dented wing of the plane Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was supposedly riding on at that time.
CBC reporter David Cochrane said the crash happened as the bus was leaving to drive towards the hotel.
The Liberal government has won a minority under Justin Trudeau, returning to the House of Commons as the party in power.
While the government has celebrated victory in what can only be described as a disastrous campaign after it became public the Prime Minister had worn blackface more times than he could remember, the nation should be wary about the rather large number of broken promises coming back with the Trudeau Liberals.
According to the Trudeau Metre, the Liberals broke 67 promises throughout their first term, accounting for 29 percent of all promises made.
These broken promises include massive campaign planks such as electoral reform, failing to properly restore the veteran’s pension system, and the continuation of massive deficit which put a balanced budget potentially decades into the future rather than 2019.
With the minority governments in Canada rarely lasting more than two years, it will be interesting to see what the government attempts to do in order to keep both previous promises made and new ones brought forth during the campaign. The Liberals must make compromises with other parties.
With both the NDP and Greens cash-strapped but needing wins, and the Conservatives facing an inner-party revolt against the current leader, we will likely see a relative calm as parties adjust followed by a truly harsh period as weakened parties attempt to regain ground lost in 2015.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Senate point men have tendered their resignations. Senator Peter Harder, the Government’s Representative in the upper chamber, and Government Liaison Senator Grant Mitchell made the announcement Friday.
“The start of a new Parliament is the best time to welcome a new face in the role of Government Representative,” Harder said in a statement.
“With the Senate now well advanced on the path to becoming more independent and less partisan… it simply made sense for me to pick this moment: a new cabinet has been sworn in, new Senate groups are emerging along non-partisan lines.”
According to Harder, his term as the Senate’s government rep will expire on Dec. 31, 2019 while Senator Mitchell said he would remain in his liaison role, previously called Government Whip, until Trudeau finds a replacement for Harder.
“Serving in this role has truly been a highlight of my career. It has been a privilege to have been so directly involved with Prime Minister Trudeau’s initiative to create a more independent Senate,” said Mitchell.
For nearly 150 years, senators were appointed by the sitting prime minister, and for the most part showed unbroken partisan loyalty to their caucuses. But that all changed in April 2014 when Trudeau cut existing Liberal appointees in the Upper Chamber from the national caucus.
The decision has factionalized the Senate with both Senate Conservatives and Liberal castaways coalescing in various groups, including the Independent Senators Group and a pair of nascent upstarts; the Canadian Senators Group and Progressive Senators Group.
Harder, who is a “non-affiliated” senator entered the upper chamber in April 2016, as the first “independent” appointed senator under a purportedly, non-partisan selection process. Mitchell was appointed to the Senate in 2005 by Prime Minister Paul Martin.
Known as the “chamber of sober second thought”, the Senate is intended to provide regional oversight for government bills as well as the power to introduce laws unrelated to spending.
Pierre Poilievre is a six-term Member of Parliament, former Minister of Employment and the current Conservative Shadow Minister of Finance.
Lots of advice is pouring in for Conservatives these days.
Much of it from people who have never or will never vote for the party. They have concluded that the Conservative Party, which won the most votes in the election, is so unpopular that it must abandon its entire platform and the 6.1 million people who voted for it. The Globe and Mail, for example, has called for the party to drop its weird obsession with fiscal responsibility and low taxes.
Likewise, this headline recently blazed the pages of the Toronto Star: “Conservatives will pay for Andrew Scheer’s anti-tax stance.” Low taxes are not compatible with “a big-tent party in 2019 Canada, and we know from the past few weeks of federal election campaigning that voters are not won over by the concept,” wrote the paper’s federal finance columnist Heather Scoffield. “It’s an anti-tax, small-government dogma that hearkens back to Stephen Harper and channels Jason Kenney and Doug Ford,” she wrote, referring to three leaders who won majorities on tax-fighting platforms.
Premiers Kenney and Ford won victories in the last 18 months, with many seats in urban centres. But never mind, we’re told that their low-tax messages are unelectable or out-of-date. As for Mr. Harper, the Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated that he “reduced federal tax revenue by $30 billion, or 12 per cent. These changes have been progressive, overall. Low and middle income earners have benefited more, in relative terms, than higher income earners.” The policy helped win Harper three elections (including a majority) and become the longest-serving Conservative Prime Minister since John A. MacDonald. (We wouldn’t want to repeat that track record, would we?)
Canada already has four parties—the New Democrats, Liberals, Greens and Bloc—clamoring for bigger and more powerful government. The media believes Conservatives should become the fifth. It would not be without precedent. Past “conservative” leaders have embraced higher taxes. How did that work out for them?
When Prime Minister Joe Clark’s budget hiked gas taxes, he lost a confidence vote and an election after only nine months in office. When President, George Herbert Walker Bush, broke his “read my lips: no new taxes” pledge, he lost to Bill Clinton. Alberta Premier, Ed Stelmach, raised taxes on the energy sector by jacking up royalty rates and was gone as Premier within ten months. Ernie Eves raised taxes soon after becoming Ontario Premier and promptly lost an election, reversing the back-to-back majorities of taxfighter, Mike Harris. In the early 1990s, the federal Progressive Conservative government introduced the GST and went from a majority government to merely two seats. New Brunswick Premier David Alward’s 2013/14 budget raised taxes by $200 million and in the following year’s election he lost his government and half his caucus. Alberta’s Progressive Conservative government announced hikes to income, gas and alcohol taxes in the 2015 budget and two months later lost to the NDP, finished third place and ended their 44-year dynasty, the longest of any party in Canada’s history.
It is true that there are many factors that lead to parties or leaders losing office. But is it just an extraordinary coincidence that voters have promptly driven out of office every federal or provincial conservative leader who raised taxes in the last three decades?
No. It is no coincidence. When conservative parties support tax increases, they get crushed.
The reasons are clear.
First, how can a conservative candidate who supports tax hikes criticize the socialist parties for doing the same? If all parties are going to cost taxpayers more, the election becomes a bidding war where parties compete to offer the most generous government-funded goodies—a bidding war left-wing parties with no fiscal responsibility will win every time.
What we can believably offer is a chance for hardworking and ambitious people to build better lives for themselves, by keeping more of their earnings.
That is who we are. Without our best product (low taxes), we lose our customers. We become a baker without bread or a logger without lumber.
“How boring,” groans the left. Ms. Scoffield, for example, laments that low taxes leave no “room for big thinking on how to confront the next economic downturn, or how to take care of an aging society, or how to alleviate the shortage of affordable housing unless the private sector takes front and centre.” Confront the next downturn through tax hikes? Care for an aging society by raising taxes on retirement savings? Make housing more affordable by taxing the business that builds homes, or the worker saving to buy one? These ideas fulfil the socialist fantasy of making people helplessly dependent on government, but betray people’s desire to fulfil their own potential and chart their own destinies.
Low taxes are not a “gimmick”, like 30 cents off paper towels. Rather, they allow free workers and entrepreneurs to choose what to do with the fruits of their labour and enterprise. Costing people less is just the means. Empowering them to do more is the end.
A dollar can only be in one place at a time. Who decides where it goes?
The person who earned it or the politician who taxed it; the entrepreneur whose investments produced it or the politician who faces no real consequence for squandering it?
Whose dreams are fulfilled in the end, the family saving to start a business, buy a home or afford to make lasting memories taking the kids somewhere special; or the politician who dreams of buying himself a legacy with that family’s money?
Conservatives must be the party of human aspiration and free choice. That means ignoring the big-government cabal and always standing with the hardworking taxpayer.