Both leaders, facing waning support, are ignoring voters’ hunger for change
ALMOST EVERY DAY, I hear someone talk about how terrible things are right now. Whether it’s the crushing cost of housing, the escalating climate crisis, misinformation and rabid disinformation, the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, or the humanitarian crisis in Gaza—the list is endless. Older family members on both sides of the Canada–US border shake their heads and make comments about how terrifying and screwed up their country is. My ninety-two-year-old great aunt has said she’s glad she won’t be around much longer, while others in their seventies have put it more bluntly: it’s a good time to die. These are off-the-cuff statements, but they always leave me with a sinking feeling.
These days, what’s considered terrible is often a point of contention. What I think is terrible about our current situation isn’t necessarily what others think, nor do we agree on who or what can rectify it. And yet, across the political spectrum, across demographics and borders, there’s a palpable sense that things are broken and we need real change—fast. It’s as if critical aspects of the world we thought we lived in have finally started to crumble. Chronic instability is at the heart of it, the recognition that we’re living through a turbulent time in history.
This desire for change is one reason why calls for US president Joe Biden and Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to not seek re-election feel so similar, though there are major differences between the two. Biden’s biggest liability is his age. At eighty-one, he’s part of the so-called Silent Generation, while Trudeau is quintessentially Gen X. Biden’s only been president since 2021, but he was vice president from 2009 to 2017, under Barack Obama. Trudeau’s been leading this country since 2015.
But both Biden and Trudeau embody an ethos and vision that are in stark contrast to the reality we’re facing. Both display a breathtaking confidence in their political prospects that borders on entitlement, as well as an inability to meaningfully address the severity of our current polycrisis. In Biden’s interview with ABC News on July 5, an interview that was supposed to calm nerves after his catastrophic appearance in the first presidential debate, Biden rejected any claims of pessimism. The New York Times called it “an exercise not just in damage control but in reality control.” Trudeau and his inner circle have similarly dismissed the storm brewing, especially after the recent by-election loss to the Conservatives in Toronto-St. Paul’s, previously a safe Liberal riding. As investigative journalist Justin Ling put it in an article for this publication, “if this government hopes to heal itself, Trudeau himself will need to appreciate—not explain away, or deflect, or tamp down—the anger that people are feeling.”
My ninety-two-year-old great aunt has said she’s glad she won’t be around much longer, while others in their seventies have put it more bluntly: it’s a good time to die.
My grandfather said the same thing in the 1990s. Plus ça change.
Maybe because the '90s weren’t that far from the 70’s when Wall St was far more regulated, almost nobody needed two jobs just to eat, housing was affordable on one wage in a family, businesses actually seemed to care for their employees (with training and good wages) and union membership was strong.
20 years later was shit, after Reagan and Thatcher fucked the worker and deregulated everything … because we remembered how it was before.
an inability to meaningfully address the severity of our current polycrisis
That’s it, right there. People fear our quality of life is declining. Trudeau (I don’t know about Biden) has failed to acknowledge the fear, and has failed to popularize policies to improve our quality of life.
His opponents don’t even need to provide solutions - they just need to admit there’s a problem.
The right has done a great job at speaking to people’s economic anxieties. And by “great” I mean horribly exploitative, disingenuous and not a little bit fascist. Similarly, the erstwhile-left (and, given the shellacking the left took in Europe, this is a global thing) have done a terrible job at it, largely substituting identity issues for class ones, and loving themselves some neoliberalism because, well, it paid really well.
The political left has had it’s lunch eaten by right-wing populists who’ve been selling fascism as a cure for their supporters’ economic anxiety. It’s bullshit, of course, and the right-wing knows it’s bullshit, but it works, and the left is letting it work because they rather liked the Blair/Clinton third-way era and the money and power they got as a result. They liked getting invited to the cool kids’ parties. They don’t want to go back to being called “socialists” and having to grub for donations from little people.
The left is waking up, waaaaaaay too late in the game, to the idea that they’re about to become lines in Niemoller’s poem.
Is it tho? In a Canadian context, I only see mobilization around Culture War wedge issues that are framed by the right.
Left leaning talking heads show up in current affairs shows, decry neoliberal policies, but that’s about it. There’s no mobilization around cost of living concerns, underemployment, or corporate gouging.
ALMOST EVERY DAY, I hear someone talk about how terrible things are right now. Whether it’s the crushing cost of housing
How short people’s memories are. Who was in charge of the USA when housing prices exploded? Who cut taxes for corporations and investors, and refused to raise interest rates despite out of control appreciation? Who is really responsible? Fucking wake up, people!
Your 92 year old aunt voted for the policies that led to this. She got all the benefits and now gets to check just as the bill needs to be paid.
Theres a massive cohort of baby boomers trying to vote for policies to benefit them until they die. That continue screwing over the youth in the meantime. They simply don’t care because the long term effects won’t hurt them.
Except melinials are the largest voting block. So Boomers don’t have the power people like to place on them. Fact is some people don’t care and don’t vote others are going to vote against what you think is the right one.
That doesn’t mean the boomers aren’t a massive voting block pushing for specific policies. Also, the millenial cohort is very recent. Between being too young and poor voter turnout they were not significant until this decade.
Blaming one cohort for what is happening is myopic at best.
The fact is this dystopian outlook is what got Trump elected in 2016 … because politicians failed to see that people were fed up with the status quo and wanted change. Now 8 years later it is still the driving reason.
Without hope the people perish. Without hope of a better future, people give up. Without hope of affordable housing and food people waste away.
There is change, though. It is not swift, nor is it all encompassing, but it still exists.
The problem is, it’s not enough for people who want everything, and want it now. So they go to someone who promises the sky before burying in the dirt. Because they care more about what they want instead of what their respective countries need.
More than hope, we need pragmatism. Hope will only get us so far, and then leave us hanging in the air like an ill-fated coyote.
People voted a guy in on electoral reform and nearly a decade later, he hasn’t delivered on that promise. I don’t think thats an issue with people “wanting everything”. A lot of us just want what was promised and to be able to afford to live without financial stress again.
seeing the down votes on this and other posts on quality content makes me think that the lemmy.word-er liberal infestation is spreading to the rest of the lemmyverse.
see for yourself, use any instance that doesn’t wholesale de-federate with any other instances. you’ll see that any post that has a pejorative tilt on liberal leaders or causes (especially biden and gaza) will have majority downvotes; resulting in little to no engagement; while similar posts anywhere else on the lemmyverse have active discussions and mixed voting.
Historian Elizabeth Shermer argued that the term gained popularity largely among left-leaning academics in the 1970s to “describe and decry a late twentieth-century effort by policymakers, think-tank experts, and industrialists to condemn social-democratic reforms and unapologetically implement free-market policies”
To me “neoliberal” implies something more strongly and consciously right-leaning than “liberal”, which includes all the wishy-washy centrists who think a little bit of tinkering around the edges and an appeal to decency and fairness can fix the problems of capitalism, without ever recognizing them as basic features of capitalism itself. So there’s a purpose to using the term “liberal”: it’s broader, and includes ideological neoliberals as well as those who think they’re leftish but actually cooperate with and facilitate all the exploitation around us.
“neoliberal” implies something more strongly and consciously right-leaning than “liberal”
the contradict yourself with …
So there’s a purpose to using the term “liberal”: it’s broader, and includes ideological neoliberals as well as those who think they’re leftish but actually cooperate with and facilitate all the exploitation around us.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
My grandfather said the same thing in the 1990s. Plus ça change.
Maybe because the '90s weren’t that far from the 70’s when Wall St was far more regulated, almost nobody needed two jobs just to eat, housing was affordable on one wage in a family, businesses actually seemed to care for their employees (with training and good wages) and union membership was strong.
20 years later was shit, after Reagan and Thatcher fucked the worker and deregulated everything … because we remembered how it was before.
That’s it, right there. People fear our quality of life is declining. Trudeau (I don’t know about Biden) has failed to acknowledge the fear, and has failed to popularize policies to improve our quality of life.
His opponents don’t even need to provide solutions - they just need to admit there’s a problem.
Inability or unwillingness?
This. ^^
The right has done a great job at speaking to people’s economic anxieties. And by “great” I mean horribly exploitative, disingenuous and not a little bit fascist. Similarly, the erstwhile-left (and, given the shellacking the left took in Europe, this is a global thing) have done a terrible job at it, largely substituting identity issues for class ones, and loving themselves some neoliberalism because, well, it paid really well.
The political left has had it’s lunch eaten by right-wing populists who’ve been selling fascism as a cure for their supporters’ economic anxiety. It’s bullshit, of course, and the right-wing knows it’s bullshit, but it works, and the left is letting it work because they rather liked the Blair/Clinton third-way era and the money and power they got as a result. They liked getting invited to the cool kids’ parties. They don’t want to go back to being called “socialists” and having to grub for donations from little people.
The left is waking up, waaaaaaay too late in the game, to the idea that they’re about to become lines in Niemoller’s poem.
Is it tho? In a Canadian context, I only see mobilization around Culture War wedge issues that are framed by the right.
Left leaning talking heads show up in current affairs shows, decry neoliberal policies, but that’s about it. There’s no mobilization around cost of living concerns, underemployment, or corporate gouging.
How short people’s memories are. Who was in charge of the USA when housing prices exploded? Who cut taxes for corporations and investors, and refused to raise interest rates despite out of control appreciation? Who is really responsible? Fucking wake up, people!
Canada doesn’t have that excuse though and housing is even more fucked here.
Cries in Vancouver
At least we get an awesome selection of Ramen - but I feel you.
That’s… kind of not the issue here.
Your 92 year old aunt voted for the policies that led to this. She got all the benefits and now gets to check just as the bill needs to be paid.
Theres a massive cohort of baby boomers trying to vote for policies to benefit them until they die. That continue screwing over the youth in the meantime. They simply don’t care because the long term effects won’t hurt them.
Except melinials are the largest voting block. So Boomers don’t have the power people like to place on them. Fact is some people don’t care and don’t vote others are going to vote against what you think is the right one.
That doesn’t mean the boomers aren’t a massive voting block pushing for specific policies. Also, the millenial cohort is very recent. Between being too young and poor voter turnout they were not significant until this decade.
Blaming one cohort for what is happening is myopic at best.
The fact is this dystopian outlook is what got Trump elected in 2016 … because politicians failed to see that people were fed up with the status quo and wanted change. Now 8 years later it is still the driving reason.
Without hope the people perish. Without hope of a better future, people give up. Without hope of affordable housing and food people waste away.
Without hope …
There is change, though. It is not swift, nor is it all encompassing, but it still exists.
The problem is, it’s not enough for people who want everything, and want it now. So they go to someone who promises the sky before burying in the dirt. Because they care more about what they want instead of what their respective countries need.
More than hope, we need pragmatism. Hope will only get us so far, and then leave us hanging in the air like an ill-fated coyote.
People voted a guy in on electoral reform and nearly a decade later, he hasn’t delivered on that promise. I don’t think thats an issue with people “wanting everything”. A lot of us just want what was promised and to be able to afford to live without financial stress again.
The next few decades ahead are going to be shit
seeing the down votes on this and other posts on quality content makes me think that the lemmy.word-er liberal infestation is spreading to the rest of the lemmyverse.
I’d agree with you except for the “liberal infestation” bs.
see for yourself, use any instance that doesn’t wholesale de-federate with any other instances. you’ll see that any post that has a pejorative tilt on liberal leaders or causes (especially biden and gaza) will have majority downvotes; resulting in little to no engagement; while similar posts anywhere else on the lemmyverse have active discussions and mixed voting.
lemmy.world is the best example of this.
Ok. Please describe what you believe “liberal” means in this context.
it’s shorthand for neoliberalism and here’s a wiki article on it.
tldr:
Thank you.
Please use neo-liberal in future comments instead of the vague “liberal”.
To me “neoliberal” implies something more strongly and consciously right-leaning than “liberal”, which includes all the wishy-washy centrists who think a little bit of tinkering around the edges and an appeal to decency and fairness can fix the problems of capitalism, without ever recognizing them as basic features of capitalism itself. So there’s a purpose to using the term “liberal”: it’s broader, and includes ideological neoliberals as well as those who think they’re leftish but actually cooperate with and facilitate all the exploitation around us.
How can you say …
the contradict yourself with …
???
Are you saying lemmy.world loves Biden, especially his active participation in providing the bombs used to blow up kids in Gaza?
But do they understand why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?