Instead of talking about economics and class, members of the right are going all-in on demonizing sexual, social, and cultural groups. Nothing good can come of it.
I like this piece as well, especially the end....."If the right cared about freedom..." just about sums it up. The phrase 'culture wars' exists alongside a slew of other related terms like 'woke', 'parental rights', 'groomer', “political correctness,” “cancel culture”: These all work together in service of the larger issues of power, status and who gets or deserves privilege. They are the opposite of any reasonable definition of freedom. The CPC joins other RW parties in the West in advancing reactionary political projects because it is no longer interested in helping all people. It’s economic ideas, if we can call them that, have largely failed, and in that vacuum socially conservative anti-democratic forces have filled the void. It knows it can no longer claim a majority of support. So it pursues a scorched earth policy (literally). You can’t, IMO, understand the term ‘culture war’ without seeing its role alongside the other moral panics they have created and how together, they form the frontline of their crusade against multiracial pluralism.
Thank you for this precise analysis of the current Conservative strategy of using non-economic values to appeal to voters and their donations. I would just explain further that the investors behind all this cover want certain goals: a conservative govt that lowers corporate taxes, that supports fossil fuels, that spends less on social supports, etc. So the culture wars work as a very effective cover for the powerful's underlying economic goal to retain their privilege. Canadians need to see this game exposed more bluntly. Keep it going, David!
Well, sad to say, it seems to be working judging by the discourse. Economics and policy are certainly tougher to talk about and certainly stir less emotion - usually. Its more a competition of loudness than critical thinking.
The right-wing, in fact, does not care about freedom. However, they are very good at putting forth that the oppression of non-white, non-heterosexual, non-male, non-Christian people means freedom for white, heterosexual, male Christians. Their goal, as has been clearly demonstrated by Poilievre in his rants against Trudeau and about the economy, is an authoritarian central government that controls every aspects of most people's lives while letting the few wealthy have their way. In other words, fascism.
The origins in the culture war are not difficult to trace as to why the right wing political parties pander and promote these causes. It's quite simple. It's a recipe for political success among a significant part of the population who are susceptible to fear and prone towards authoritarian views. Combined with the challenges faced by the average workers and major companies who can no longer are willing to pay living wages, there are more people willing to align with the intolerant, authoritarian politicians like Pollievre.
A second reason is that right side parties in Canada and the USA have a bankrupt economic strategy that worked well in the days when lower taxes for the rich led to jobs for others and when small government and balanced budgets got along just fine. Today lower taxes for the rich don't create jobs as the wealthy "make money off paper" as Bill Clinton has been quoted as saying. Small government is not able to handle complex problems and investment in necessary infrastructure.
> If the right cared about freedom and not just fanning the flames of their prejudice, they would focus first and foremost on class and economic power; they would see themselves as allies of the groups they seek to marginalize or even eliminate
My advice: never, ever take the bait. Never discuss human-rights issues. I'm serious.
"My opponent wants me to follow him down the conspiracy rabbit hole by attacking human rights, the right of a small group that need champions against bigotry. He'd like to change the conversation to a settled issue. Canadians, be they gay, Black, or trans, have no need of more human rights. They already have human rights, because this is Canada. They can fight for their human rights in court, and win every time, because this is Canada. My opponent is trying to change the topic, to the rights of half a percent of the country, when half the country is not making a decent wage. Why do you never talk about a decent wage?"
etc.
Yes, it seems rotten to not defend the attacked group, but they're being used like that sniper in "Heavy Metal Jacket": wound somebody, get him screaming, then pick off the guys who come to the rescue.
Have a little faith: by attacking them, the attackers are looking bad, ensuring their loss in the longer run. Do people remember who stood up to Bull Connor's dogs on the bridge at Selma? No, they remember those awful dogs.
Parents are responsible for their kids until the age of majority. Allowing the interjection of outsiders--in the absence of parential irresponsibility--is an abrogation of the family unit.
Generally, teachers as a group have proven their absence of judgement in such situations. Their interests are elsewhere.
Please get out of kids lives and let the family deal with family matters. Concurrently, do not let bad parenting off the hook by suggesting that there's a suitable substitute.
I find it ironic that both sides of this « culture war » both want to « Save the Children ». The right want to « save the children « by not exposing them to education about accepting people who are different than them (which is all that happens at school)
The left want to save children as in the poor trans kids who are thrown back to dysfunctional and abusive households at the end of the day that will beat them into suppression - when school is their only safe place to practice freedom of expression for at least 8 hours of the day. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not just for adults .
My friends who are teachers in NB will NOT be outing their <1% of their students under ANY circumstance - they will have to jail every one of them.
I have no objection to "children learning about others who are different than them". But it is reprehensible to do so without majority age or, in its absence, parental supervision. That is why we judge youth differently than adults.
School as a "safe" place? Wave that flag in the next couple of weeks as, yet again, the teachers strike, classes are again cancelled and teachers again display their real commitment. Schools? Safe? A joke of mysterious proportions.
Parents, and only parents, will do whatever"saving" is required of the children. They can--and are about to--regain the influence for which they are accountable. Do not invoke the Charter to justify subcontracting the raising of sons and daughters.
Should parents also be evaluating what teachers are teaching before « majority » of age about health ? Math? Social Studies ? My nephew is in Grade 5 learning about scientific methods of research - you mean they can’t know how the human body is different across all the genders ?
It is basic biology that humans have different chromosomes and body parts. They ask about body parts by the time they are three years old. Why wait until they are 16 to reveal to them that was a lie ? Ridiculous .
What does a teachers strike have to do with a student feeling accepted by their peers again ? I’m missing something here
Only parents you say ? I think not - this is why Child protective services are overwhelmed with cases and put kids in hotels because the system is overrun from crappy parents. Protect those kids too. They are no lesser a child than yours .
An interesting rant...but a rant nonetheless. It is steeped in generalities, presumptions and stereotypes. Your objections to the rights of parents are unfair to your own parents.
Sadly, David, I beleive such rants damage the respect of those who seek balanced change.
If you are trying to ignite some sort of left-wing-style protest by non-Liberals, you have failed. I am a paying subscriber and will continue to pay your fee simply as an attempt to understand thinking like this.
Any queer child who grew up to be a queer adult can tell you that being open with their parents about who they are was one of the hardest things they ever did. For some of those kids, school was a safe place, where a certain teacher may have listened to them in a way that they couldn’t yet figure out how to ask for from their parents. Because when you’re a kid, you don’t know how your parents will react to some things. The kids will tell their parents when they’re ready and when they hopefully trust they’ll be accepted. But in the meantime, they need safe places to receive the love they don’t know that they’ll find at home. And it is no one’s right other than their own to have that conversation with their parents. Forcing anyone to have those conversations before they’re ready, regardless of which side of it they’re on, does not have positive results.
"it is no one’s right other than their own". Yes it is Meaghan, it the sole right of parents to be party to this...at least first. Again, save majority and/or "at risk" parenting...just as it is a parent's responsibility to create the environment for such discussions.
No external person has automatic "first call" to interject into such familial discussions. A child may well first confide in outsiders but the next stop for such confidents is the parents themselves--not to conspire in secret against the family.
I have been party to such discussions. But no amount of soft thinking justifies keeping such knowledge from the parents.
The obligation is to the family. That you think there is an alternative, you are simply incorrect.
I’ve been that kid. Based on everything you’ve said here, I can tell you were not that kid, nor have you been that teacher or parent. It is not your place to say what is best and safest for those kids, only they can. You’ve also said that you’re here reading these pieces in order to learn, and yet all you’ve done in these comments is refuse to accept that opinions and facts expressed here that you don’t share may actually have more validity in this case than your own. So no, you have no interest in learning.
You are correct, Meaghan, I am not here to learn--I am here to try and understand. I understand that you and I share a profound difference of opinion--family prominence vs societal prominence. On this topic, I advocate for family and I am at least as qualified as you to comment on that. No amount of disparagement will change that.
“Now, take a big breath and relax” - it’s also possible to disagree without being misogynistic and attempting to belittle. Which again shows you don’t actually have any interest in understanding or learning, otherwise you’d be capable of civil debate here, which you’ve proven you are not. Have the day you deserve ✌🏻
As a centrist I often see both sides of an issue. I do not like the far right, but I also do not like the far left. One is trying to keep us in the dark ages and interfering with human rights issues. The other is taking us to the brink with giving children the right to decide whether or not they should take dangerous drugs and have radical surgery - when they are not even the age of consent. I don’t know a parent today that would harm their children over this purposefully. This is where social services and family therapy comes into play. I don’t happen to believe in the gender theory introduced in the 50’s by John Money, who turned out to be a disturbed person who abused his position of authority. However, I am sympathetic to those who struggle with gender identity issues and want them to be free, as adults, to live the way they want and respect their rights to full inclusion in society. However, that comes with limits when it comes to women and girls safe spaces and some Women’s sports. There are ways to solve these issues but if we could stop demonizing people on both sides of the issue, and have civilized conversations rather than name calling and cancelling people with different views, our culture wars would not exist. When one side pushes too far, the other will want to slam on the brakes. This is the push and pull between progressive and conservative views. They both exist to keep us from going over the edge. My whole life I’ve voted liberal except for one PC vote, but if the cons had voted in Jean Charest, I would have seriously consider changing. There are far more people in Canada with the same views like me than the far right/left realize. It’s time to swing back to the centre.
Let's all be clear about what the Conservatives are doing here: stoking fear and anxiety over children in order to gain political power. It's one of the oldest and most effective playbooks used throughout history, because what is more emotionally compelling than insecurity about our children?
The fact is, there is no epidemic of trans people or kids, yet the right is oddly obsessed with gender diversity.
Canada has a long list of challenges to solve. Conservative politicians making sexuality such a priority is ridiculous and terribly sad, both for the kids affected and for our political discourse.
My hope is that most Canadians recognize this as a cheap, manipulative, ignoble tactic.
Ah! The name-calling Meaghan appears. "Misogynistic", "belittle", "not capable of civil debate". As I said, we have a profound difference of opinion. But that's all. Accept that. Ditch the vilification.
I like this piece as well, especially the end....."If the right cared about freedom..." just about sums it up. The phrase 'culture wars' exists alongside a slew of other related terms like 'woke', 'parental rights', 'groomer', “political correctness,” “cancel culture”: These all work together in service of the larger issues of power, status and who gets or deserves privilege. They are the opposite of any reasonable definition of freedom. The CPC joins other RW parties in the West in advancing reactionary political projects because it is no longer interested in helping all people. It’s economic ideas, if we can call them that, have largely failed, and in that vacuum socially conservative anti-democratic forces have filled the void. It knows it can no longer claim a majority of support. So it pursues a scorched earth policy (literally). You can’t, IMO, understand the term ‘culture war’ without seeing its role alongside the other moral panics they have created and how together, they form the frontline of their crusade against multiracial pluralism.
Thank you for this precise analysis of the current Conservative strategy of using non-economic values to appeal to voters and their donations. I would just explain further that the investors behind all this cover want certain goals: a conservative govt that lowers corporate taxes, that supports fossil fuels, that spends less on social supports, etc. So the culture wars work as a very effective cover for the powerful's underlying economic goal to retain their privilege. Canadians need to see this game exposed more bluntly. Keep it going, David!
Well, sad to say, it seems to be working judging by the discourse. Economics and policy are certainly tougher to talk about and certainly stir less emotion - usually. Its more a competition of loudness than critical thinking.
The right-wing, in fact, does not care about freedom. However, they are very good at putting forth that the oppression of non-white, non-heterosexual, non-male, non-Christian people means freedom for white, heterosexual, male Christians. Their goal, as has been clearly demonstrated by Poilievre in his rants against Trudeau and about the economy, is an authoritarian central government that controls every aspects of most people's lives while letting the few wealthy have their way. In other words, fascism.
The origins in the culture war are not difficult to trace as to why the right wing political parties pander and promote these causes. It's quite simple. It's a recipe for political success among a significant part of the population who are susceptible to fear and prone towards authoritarian views. Combined with the challenges faced by the average workers and major companies who can no longer are willing to pay living wages, there are more people willing to align with the intolerant, authoritarian politicians like Pollievre.
A second reason is that right side parties in Canada and the USA have a bankrupt economic strategy that worked well in the days when lower taxes for the rich led to jobs for others and when small government and balanced budgets got along just fine. Today lower taxes for the rich don't create jobs as the wealthy "make money off paper" as Bill Clinton has been quoted as saying. Small government is not able to handle complex problems and investment in necessary infrastructure.
> If the right cared about freedom and not just fanning the flames of their prejudice, they would focus first and foremost on class and economic power; they would see themselves as allies of the groups they seek to marginalize or even eliminate
Then they'd be the left
My advice: never, ever take the bait. Never discuss human-rights issues. I'm serious.
"My opponent wants me to follow him down the conspiracy rabbit hole by attacking human rights, the right of a small group that need champions against bigotry. He'd like to change the conversation to a settled issue. Canadians, be they gay, Black, or trans, have no need of more human rights. They already have human rights, because this is Canada. They can fight for their human rights in court, and win every time, because this is Canada. My opponent is trying to change the topic, to the rights of half a percent of the country, when half the country is not making a decent wage. Why do you never talk about a decent wage?"
etc.
Yes, it seems rotten to not defend the attacked group, but they're being used like that sniper in "Heavy Metal Jacket": wound somebody, get him screaming, then pick off the guys who come to the rescue.
Have a little faith: by attacking them, the attackers are looking bad, ensuring their loss in the longer run. Do people remember who stood up to Bull Connor's dogs on the bridge at Selma? No, they remember those awful dogs.
Parents are responsible for their kids until the age of majority. Allowing the interjection of outsiders--in the absence of parential irresponsibility--is an abrogation of the family unit.
Generally, teachers as a group have proven their absence of judgement in such situations. Their interests are elsewhere.
Please get out of kids lives and let the family deal with family matters. Concurrently, do not let bad parenting off the hook by suggesting that there's a suitable substitute.
I find it ironic that both sides of this « culture war » both want to « Save the Children ». The right want to « save the children « by not exposing them to education about accepting people who are different than them (which is all that happens at school)
The left want to save children as in the poor trans kids who are thrown back to dysfunctional and abusive households at the end of the day that will beat them into suppression - when school is their only safe place to practice freedom of expression for at least 8 hours of the day. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not just for adults .
My friends who are teachers in NB will NOT be outing their <1% of their students under ANY circumstance - they will have to jail every one of them.
I have no objection to "children learning about others who are different than them". But it is reprehensible to do so without majority age or, in its absence, parental supervision. That is why we judge youth differently than adults.
School as a "safe" place? Wave that flag in the next couple of weeks as, yet again, the teachers strike, classes are again cancelled and teachers again display their real commitment. Schools? Safe? A joke of mysterious proportions.
Parents, and only parents, will do whatever"saving" is required of the children. They can--and are about to--regain the influence for which they are accountable. Do not invoke the Charter to justify subcontracting the raising of sons and daughters.
Should parents also be evaluating what teachers are teaching before « majority » of age about health ? Math? Social Studies ? My nephew is in Grade 5 learning about scientific methods of research - you mean they can’t know how the human body is different across all the genders ?
It is basic biology that humans have different chromosomes and body parts. They ask about body parts by the time they are three years old. Why wait until they are 16 to reveal to them that was a lie ? Ridiculous .
What does a teachers strike have to do with a student feeling accepted by their peers again ? I’m missing something here
Only parents you say ? I think not - this is why Child protective services are overwhelmed with cases and put kids in hotels because the system is overrun from crappy parents. Protect those kids too. They are no lesser a child than yours .
An interesting rant...but a rant nonetheless. It is steeped in generalities, presumptions and stereotypes. Your objections to the rights of parents are unfair to your own parents.
Sadly, David, I beleive such rants damage the respect of those who seek balanced change.
If you are trying to ignite some sort of left-wing-style protest by non-Liberals, you have failed. I am a paying subscriber and will continue to pay your fee simply as an attempt to understand thinking like this.
Any queer child who grew up to be a queer adult can tell you that being open with their parents about who they are was one of the hardest things they ever did. For some of those kids, school was a safe place, where a certain teacher may have listened to them in a way that they couldn’t yet figure out how to ask for from their parents. Because when you’re a kid, you don’t know how your parents will react to some things. The kids will tell their parents when they’re ready and when they hopefully trust they’ll be accepted. But in the meantime, they need safe places to receive the love they don’t know that they’ll find at home. And it is no one’s right other than their own to have that conversation with their parents. Forcing anyone to have those conversations before they’re ready, regardless of which side of it they’re on, does not have positive results.
"it is no one’s right other than their own". Yes it is Meaghan, it the sole right of parents to be party to this...at least first. Again, save majority and/or "at risk" parenting...just as it is a parent's responsibility to create the environment for such discussions.
No external person has automatic "first call" to interject into such familial discussions. A child may well first confide in outsiders but the next stop for such confidents is the parents themselves--not to conspire in secret against the family.
I have been party to such discussions. But no amount of soft thinking justifies keeping such knowledge from the parents.
The obligation is to the family. That you think there is an alternative, you are simply incorrect.
I’ve been that kid. Based on everything you’ve said here, I can tell you were not that kid, nor have you been that teacher or parent. It is not your place to say what is best and safest for those kids, only they can. You’ve also said that you’re here reading these pieces in order to learn, and yet all you’ve done in these comments is refuse to accept that opinions and facts expressed here that you don’t share may actually have more validity in this case than your own. So no, you have no interest in learning.
You are correct, Meaghan, I am not here to learn--I am here to try and understand. I understand that you and I share a profound difference of opinion--family prominence vs societal prominence. On this topic, I advocate for family and I am at least as qualified as you to comment on that. No amount of disparagement will change that.
We disagree. Now, take a big breath and relax.
“Now, take a big breath and relax” - it’s also possible to disagree without being misogynistic and attempting to belittle. Which again shows you don’t actually have any interest in understanding or learning, otherwise you’d be capable of civil debate here, which you’ve proven you are not. Have the day you deserve ✌🏻
You explained this so much better than I did .
I can’t seem the find the section of the chatter about « parental rights « either .
“Balanced change". Mmkay.
Luv the rainbow,Aviva. Perhaps you're one of the potentially "balanced" changers. If not...see ya.
As a centrist I often see both sides of an issue. I do not like the far right, but I also do not like the far left. One is trying to keep us in the dark ages and interfering with human rights issues. The other is taking us to the brink with giving children the right to decide whether or not they should take dangerous drugs and have radical surgery - when they are not even the age of consent. I don’t know a parent today that would harm their children over this purposefully. This is where social services and family therapy comes into play. I don’t happen to believe in the gender theory introduced in the 50’s by John Money, who turned out to be a disturbed person who abused his position of authority. However, I am sympathetic to those who struggle with gender identity issues and want them to be free, as adults, to live the way they want and respect their rights to full inclusion in society. However, that comes with limits when it comes to women and girls safe spaces and some Women’s sports. There are ways to solve these issues but if we could stop demonizing people on both sides of the issue, and have civilized conversations rather than name calling and cancelling people with different views, our culture wars would not exist. When one side pushes too far, the other will want to slam on the brakes. This is the push and pull between progressive and conservative views. They both exist to keep us from going over the edge. My whole life I’ve voted liberal except for one PC vote, but if the cons had voted in Jean Charest, I would have seriously consider changing. There are far more people in Canada with the same views like me than the far right/left realize. It’s time to swing back to the centre.
Let's all be clear about what the Conservatives are doing here: stoking fear and anxiety over children in order to gain political power. It's one of the oldest and most effective playbooks used throughout history, because what is more emotionally compelling than insecurity about our children?
The fact is, there is no epidemic of trans people or kids, yet the right is oddly obsessed with gender diversity.
Canada has a long list of challenges to solve. Conservative politicians making sexuality such a priority is ridiculous and terribly sad, both for the kids affected and for our political discourse.
My hope is that most Canadians recognize this as a cheap, manipulative, ignoble tactic.
Ah! The name-calling Meaghan appears. "Misogynistic", "belittle", "not capable of civil debate". As I said, we have a profound difference of opinion. But that's all. Accept that. Ditch the vilification.
Thanks to David for generating a spirited discussion!
Your position is clear. Thanks for sharing. However, you are on the wrong side of this debate.
Huh? Vivian, to whom are you prepared to surrender your kids?