In his scrupulous concern not to stray too far in either direction, Peterson simultaneously complains that "[t]he Liberals have moved to the woke left and embraced the divisive practice of identity politics" while boasting that the Centre Icers support "diversity, equality, and inclusion standards in business and all walks of life" (my emphasis). I assume that if you oppose and favor a program, you've covered the vast majority of Canadians' perspectives on the matter, but it's not centrism; it's confusion.This is chimerical centrism. It is a "centrism" that is so widely and ambiguously defined that it means nothing more than "the sorts of things decent people like us believe." Jack Mintz, who spoke at the conference, described Pierre Poilievre as haunting the gathering in the same way that Banquo haunted Macbeth's table. I am not surprised. The organizers seek policies that are popular without being populist. It is a narrow line, generally visible only to the beholder, but one you must continuously insist on lest someone misinterpret your thoughts for what others believe. Freud referred to this as the "narcissism of small differences."According to Mintz, "[i]deas expressed by panelists included tax reform to broaden tax bases and lower rates, regulations and infrastructure enabling investment in both traditional and clean energy, balancing the budget and providing opportunities for skilled immigrants to achieve accreditation more quickly." In terms of international relations, speakers complained about "Canada's loss of its middle power status as it has been shut out of security discussions amongst its allies" and concurred that "our own defense needs loom larger as a priority instead of leaving our security solely to the United States."
But are any of those ideas really differen.
from what we know about Poilievre's policy beliefs, whether voiced during the leadership race, in opposition, or as a member of Harper's cabinet? Some Centre Icers describe the present CPC leadership election as a Manichean war for the party's soul, but it appears to be more of a struggle for its style. Or perhaps for its social media stream.Mintz goes over it again: "The most profound reaction of many conference participants seemed to be against the manner, style, and rhetoric of their opponents." One speaker complained of "rage-filled diatribes." Rage? Really? One can't help but believe that, for at least some of the participants, the main gripe is not that Poilievre is driving the CPC agenda, but that they aren't. If they paid closer attention, they would see that his message is not very different from theirs, but rather more effective.The Centre Ice Conservative convention organizers have frequently stated that they are not interested in forming a separate political party, even if Poilievre wins the CPC leadership. It's probably for the best. What would they give that is so unique? Tone-policing? An air of humiliation regarding their potential voters? There's not much to build on.I believe that if Poilievre wins, the majority of Centre Icers—and many of their policies—will return to the party fold. Though possibly not in the center.This week marks the 100th episode of The Hub's podcast, Hub Dialogues. (This does not include more than sixty transcribed interviews we published last year with George Will, Benjamin Friedman, John Ikenberry, Marie Henein, and Lisa Feldman Barrett.)
Of the 100 audio episodes to far.
14 have been our exclusive bi-weekly interviews with David Frum, while the remaining 25 are the weekly Hub Roundtable with executive director Rudyard Griffiths, editor in chief Stuart Thomson, and myself. This leaves slightly over 60 episodes with a varied range of economists, corporate leaders, medical experts, legal scholars, scientists, writers, and even politicians.It has been a real honour and pleasure to speak with such an interesting bunch of thinkers and doers. If you had told me 20 years ago that I would one day be paid to interview global thought leaders, including some of my favorite philosophers and writers, I would not have believed you. What a privilege.The great pleasure is that the Hub Dialogues audience continues to increase dramatically. Monthly downloads have surged by 380 percent since our introduction in mid-January. We are really appreciative to the Hub community for their interest, engagement, and input.We're looking forward to the next hundred episodes of Hub Dialogues, which will have new and varied guests, more diverse topics, better recording equipment, and hopefully slow but steady growth from the presenter.In the interim, I thought I'd look through our catalogue and highlight some of the most intriguing thoughts and insights we've received thus far. The list isn't meant to be exhaustive — regular listeners will undoubtedly have more (which we'd love to hear) but rather highlights some of my favorite moments from the first 100 episodes of Hub Dialogues.
Of course, we romanticized the west.
However, nothing is permanent. Now, 20 years later, both free speech and freedom of assembly have gone from the list of ideals. Police have a monopoly on violence, and policing itself is being questioned. In Canada, the concept of one set of laws for all is being challenged intellectually, practically, and politically. All of these things have chipped away at Canada's free democracy, and Canadians appear to be fine with it." "I believe that the axis of politics in the West is increasingly focused on culture rather than economy. It revolves on the split between what I refer to as "cultural socialism" on the one hand, and cultural liberalism and conservatism on the other, both of which believe in the Enlightenment and national tradition. And, as a result of the Left's success in controlling elite institutions, there was virtually an inherent need for conservatism to struggle against existing institutions.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment