Toronto Girlfriends
Toronto Escorts

Will Canada Elect a Tin-Pot Northern Trump. (NY TIMES)

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/opinion/doug-ford-populism-canada-trump.html

Will Canada Elect a Tin-Pot Northern Trump?

Toronto — Tell me if you’ve heard this before: The spoiled son of a sprawling business dynasty positions himself as an anti-elite populist. During a pivotal campaign, he brushes off a history of crude remarks as political incorrectness to the delight of his base. Then, running against the establishment of his own party and an evidently more qualified female candidate, he loses the popular vote but manages, by way of an arcane voting system, to take power.

No, I’m not rehashing the victory of President Trump. I’m describing the rise of Canadian politician Doug Ford, who this month was elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, the right-of-center opposition in the country’s most populous province. With his party leading in the polls ahead of a June 7 election, Mr. Ford has a strong chance of becoming premier.

Trumpism, it seems, has migrated north.

Several years before the 2016 United States presidential campaign, Mr. Ford’s brother, the deceased former mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, more or less invented the politics of boorish, divisive populism the American president has since mastered. Rob Ford figured out as early as 2010 that riding out scandal, while blaming the media and other unspecified “elites,” was a winning political strategy.

Torontonians forgave flaws in his character, appreciated them, even embraced them as signs of authenticity. It didn’t matter to his base that he smoked crack cocaine while in office. The Rob Ford era demonstrated that someone as shameless as Mr. Trump had a shot as a political figure.

Doug Ford is a more serious and self-disciplined version of his bumbling younger brother. He has resisted comparisons between himself and the president, but has also spoken fondly about The Donald. “Absolutely he respects women,” he said of the Republican presidential candidate in 2016. “There’s millions of women that have voted for him. So all those millions of women are dumb? I don’t think so.”


Mr. Ford, while much less addled than his brother was, has also been connected to Toronto’s underbelly, where Rob Ford spent so much of his time as mayor. The Globe and Mail newspaper reported in 2013 that Mr. Ford sold drugs throughout the better part of the 1980s. (He has never been charged and denies the allegations.) Thirty years later, if elected his government would be responsible for implementing Ontario’s new, legal recreational cannabis stores.

Overnight, the election of Mr. Ford crushed the smugness Canadians have been feeling since their prime minister, Justin Trudeau, appointed a cabinet of 50 percent women and became the envy of enlightened progressives the world over. The deep-seated cultural and political alienation at the root of Trump and Brexit is in full force in Canada as well.

Mr. Ford is already a front-runner. One poll has the Progressive Conservatives at 47 percent support and the incumbent Ontario Liberal Party at 26 percent. The latter, having ruled since 2003, has nearly 15 years’ worth of scandal to show for it. Rising inequality across the province, distaste for progressive rhetoric and the sense of a generalized corruption of politics as a whole is fueling, as elsewhere, a populism as inchoate as it is powerful.

And from Italy to the Philippines to Canada, this cannibalizing populism is swallowing traditional Conservatism whole. Mr. Ford snuck through to the leadership on a voting system that ranked ballots. He won neither the popular vote nor the greatest number of constituencies. But the Progressive Conservative machine is behind him already. It operates on inherited loyalties, antipathy against scandal-plagued opponents, time-for-a-change sentiments and basic self-interest.

Ideas were probably always somewhat irrelevant, so it hardly matters that the so-called Conservative parties aren’t conservative anymore. Or rather, Conservatism itself has changed. The Conservatism of law and order, of common decency and of fiscal responsibility has been rendered null and void. After the last provincial election, which the Liberals won handily, Mr. Ford, then a Toronto city councilor, prescribed “an enema from top to bottom” for the caucus he just inherited. The effluent is now lapping at his feet.

They may hope to change him. They won’t. Already, Mr. Ford, who has never held a seat in the Legislature, is boasting about a historically large victory in the offing. His bragging has an all-too familiar ring stateside. To stand with Mr. Ford is to express rage — and this rage will take its customary atavistic forms.

The current premier, Kathleen Wynne, the first lesbian elected to the post, introduced a modernized sex-education curriculum to the province’s public school systems. Just days after his election, Mr. Ford pledged to remove it, a policy that has support among some new immigrant communities, who tend to be more socially conservative.

He’s also running the standard Ford playbook. Elites are people who sip “Champagne with their pinkies in the air.” (His family’s label and packaging company is said to make tens of millions in annual sales.)

His infamous brother, when you get right down to it, was only the mayor of Toronto, which is not a very powerful position. Toronto’s “weak mayor” system ensures that its leader only gets one vote on the city council. In Canada, it’s actually the premier of a province who matters. His or her government regulates the schools and the public health care system. Do the people of Ontario really want a tin-pot northern Trump in charge of things that affect their daily lives? Canada’s Constitution calls for “peace, order and good government”; it is hard to imagine anyone who could fulfill that mandate less.

Mr. Ford’s sweep in as quiet and stable a place as Ontario points to a broader global crisis from which apparently there is no escape. Conservatism is no longer a political ideology in the recognized sense, but a repository of loathing and despair. It’s where people thrust their hatred of modernity — of globalism and multiculturalism and technocratic expertise, but also of the democracy that fostered those systems in the first place. By giving high office to buffoons, by choosing thugs as their representatives and by reveling in nastiness for its own sake, the Conservative brand now is principally a marker of contempt for political order itself.

Conservatism has meant many things to many people around the world. Now, just about everywhere, it looks a lot like a raised middle finger; Ford and friends are the latest to salute.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
ROFLMAO!!!! They, at the NYT, think that this is because of populism or conservatism??? Doug would not have a prayer if it wasn't for the mess the Liberals made out of this province.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
47,061
8,141
113
Toronto
Gee that isn't nice of The New York Times to say such nasty things about their publisher Arthur G. Sulzberger, the scion of the Ochs-Sulzberger family.
Typical idiotic justification of a populist mindset. Why bother discussing the content when you can just be dismissive for the sake of it.

It was an excellent article.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
70,800
69,955
113
Typical idiotic justification of a populist mindset. Why bother discussing the content when you can just be dismissive for the sake of it.

It was an excellent article.
Aardie's having a bad day. Don't even get him started on the stock market collapse caused by the current Republican administration.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
47,061
8,141
113
Toronto
Aardie's having a bad day. Don't even get him started on the stock market collapse caused by the current Republican administration.
You are wrong. When the market goes down it has nothing to do with trump.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Typical idiotic justification of a populist mindset. Why bother discussing the content when you can just be dismissive for the sake of it.

It was an excellent article.
I'm glad you enjoyed the article, but what "content" are you talking about? A bunch of thin comparisons between Trump and Ford, and even thinner theories on the demise of traditional conservatism (as if the NYT ever cared for those principles), and thinner still theories of how globalism, multiculturalism, technocratic expertise are "modernism" and that revisiting any of these concepts is by definition regressive?

These are just bar stool opinions, not actual content you can debate.

The surprising thing is that the NYT even cared enough about Ontario politics to publish an article.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
47,061
8,141
113
Toronto
I'm glad you enjoyed the article, but what "content" are you talking about? .
Put it this way, there was way more content in there than any of trumptards constantly trying to prove that there was no collusion by saying, if there was collusion he would have been charged already.

That's what happens when you set a bar so low that it's almost level with the ground as a precedent.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
23,939
3,701
113
The NYT article devoted 2 sentences to giving context as to the abject failure that the liberals have become.

I truly wanted Elliot to win. I can't believe that we as a province are in this situation where we have a primate, a communist, and an idiot to chose from. We truly do get the government we deserve.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,404
2,289
113
The NYT article devoted 2 sentences to giving context as to the abject failure that the liberals have become.

I truly wanted Elliot to win. I can't believe that we as a province are in this situation where we have a primate, a communist, and an idiot to chose from. We truly do get the government we deserve.
Which one is which?
is D ford the primate or the idiot ?
Wynn could be the communist or the idiot ?
I am guessing Andrea would be the commie, however they are idiots by definition. ???

A sad situation, however it may be best to select the one you think will do the least long term damage
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
The NYT article devoted 2 sentences to giving context as to the abject failure that the liberals have become.
Exactly. The writer was apparently unaware of the fact the Liberals were headed for a major defeat long before Doug Ford became leader of the PCs.
 

Polaris

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2007
3,076
58
48
hornyville
The NYT article devoted 2 sentences to giving context as to the abject failure that the liberals have become.

I truly wanted Elliot to win. I can't believe that we as a province are in this situation where we have a primate, a communist, and an idiot to chose from. We truly do get the government we deserve.
Nuttin' stopping John Tory to run again for leader of the world's finest indebted province.

:ambivalence:
 

Insidious Von

My head is my home
Sep 12, 2007
38,281
6,534
113
The economy of the rest of Ontario is stagnant but Toronto's and the GTA is in good health. Of the last two Premieres, I rate Wynne slightly better than McGuinty. McGuinty was an arrogant two faced liar.

Let's not feel smug. If Doug Ford gets elected Premiere that means Ontarians are just as stupid as Americans. Doug The Useless Thug has never been successful at anything except drug dealing.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
Exactly. The writer was apparently unaware of the fact the Liberals were headed for a major defeat long before Doug Ford became leader of the PCs.
Yeah, but that would put the election in its proper context and that doesn't sell many papers. The Russians are coming!! Or Barbarians are at the gates!! Or The climate will kill us all!! adds spice and drama to otherwise pedestrian subject. It's also great for reinforcing the preconceived notions.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
Typical idiotic justification of a populist mindset. Why bother discussing the content when you can just be dismissive for the sake of it.

It was an excellent article.
It was far from an excellent article. It fails to discuss in any depth what they believe is wrong with with the PC Party in Ontario or with Mr. Ford. The article is merely Mr. Ford is a buffoon and we don't like him. Further, it is a tad hypocritical to start out the article with a statement about "the spoiled son of a sprawling business dynasty" when the same can be said about the New York Times Company, and the newspaper's publisher A.G. Sulzberger. Given the amount of money the corporation has lost on such ventures as The Boston Globe, it can't be said that the Sulzberger's are business geniuses.

About the only true thing the article said is that there is a problem with "The Conservatism of law and order, of common decency and of fiscal responsibility [being] rendered null and void - [swallowed by a cannibalizing populism]." However, as has already been mentioned The New York Times and its sister publications have never been supporters of Conservatism so although the problem is real, there is great irony in the NYT embracing it.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
It was far from an excellent article. It fails to discuss in any depth what they believe is wrong with with the PC Party in Ontario or with Mr. Ford. The article is merely Mr. Ford is a buffoon and we don't like him. Further, it is a tad hypocritical to start out the article with a statement about "the spoiled son of a sprawling business dynasty" when the same can be said about the New York Times Company, and the newspaper's publisher A.G. Sulzberger. Given the amount of money the corporation has lost on such ventures as The Boston Globe, it can't be said that the Sulzberger's are business geniuses.

About the only true thing the article said is that there is a problem with "The Conservatism of law and order, of common decency and of fiscal responsibility [being] rendered null and void - [swallowed by a cannibalizing populism]." However, as has already been mentioned The New York Times and its sister publications have never been supporters of Conservatism so although the problem is real, there is great irony in the NYT embracing it.
It was far from an excellent article. It attributed a voting trend that has existed for almost two years now and credited it to a leadership outcome that was only determined two weeks ago.

The previous leader, Patrick Brown, wasn't much of a populist -- polling consistently showed most people had no idea who he was or what he stood for. Yet the PCs still led in the polls as Premier Kathleen Wynne's popularity plummeted to such depths that she became one of the most unpopular political leaders in all of North America.

To put this in some context, when Richard Nixon resigned at the height of the Watergate scandal, he was still more popular than Kathleen Wynne is today.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
It was far from an excellent article. It attributed a voting trend that has existed for almost two years now and credited it to a leadership outcome that was only determined two weeks ago.

The previous leader, Patrick Brown, wasn't much of a populist -- polling consistently showed most people had no idea who he was or what he stood for. Yet the PCs still led in the polls as Premier Kathleen Wynne's popularity plummeted to such depths that she became one of the most unpopular political leaders in all of North America.

To put this in some context, when Richard Nixon resigned at the height of the Watergate scandal, he was still more popular than Kathleen Wynne is today.
The President who gave the US Nixonomics, wage and price controls and a devalued dollar? A lying crook who suborned the CIA and FBI for his own political advantage and had to resign in disgrace? More popular than a Premier who consistently and responsibly reduced the inherited deficit, kept promises, and gave the voters the facts? Geez can't a poor lesbian Grandma get any sort of break from you guys?
 
Toronto Escorts