Michael Moriarity wrote:I hate the way the debate sponsors framed this whole thing. The resolution is "The future of Western politics is populist not liberal." Arguing for populism is a neo-nazi racist. And for liberalism, we have a neo-conservative war monger and all around right wing tool. For a real debate about this resolution, you might pit Bernie Sanders for the populists against Bill Clinton for the liberals. Or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez against David Brooks. Instead, the Munks chose to put a nazi up against a fairly hard conservative. What bullshit.
I'll go a step further and argue that of the two absolutely revolting monsters who were in this debate, when we look at what they've actually done rather than just what they've said, that David Frum is still responsible for way, way worse crap.
Quite right.
Next up. Munk debate:
Alien vs Preditor!
- because as charitable mediators of civilization, we present two sides to every issue! Progressives, select your champion.
Sure -- there is no fundamental disagreement here in my opinion but one of tactics and the best response.
..your correct it is to try. no one is presuming it is the only option, it is the coalition's option. do you see something else being organized?
No and this is what I urge as the better response. I think the attempt is a waste of resources since it is uncertain and even if it worked would be used to benefit Bannon.
A large protest against him cannot be used by him in any way and is virtually certain to be successful -- it is just a quesiton of statisatics as to how much so. I am mystified as to why the energy is not going to that.
The energy of that protest would also be empowering and very useful for building the general movement. It would also be an opportunity to bring people together who will also protest Ford -- and that is another opportunity not to miss.
..i'm sorry you see my posts as pressuring. i have no intent to do that. my intent is to only make arguments and of course to make my position clear.
I hate the way the debate sponsors framed this whole thing. The resolution is "The future of Western politics is populist not liberal." Arguing for populism is a neo-nazi racist. And for liberalism, we have a neo-conservative war monger and all around right wing tool. For a real debate about this resolution, you might pit Bernie Sanders for the populists against Bill Clinton for the liberals. Or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez against David Brooks. Instead, the Munks chose to put a nazi up against a fairly hard conservative. What bullshit.
Fascinating thread. One of Canada's leading imperial oligarchs is hosting their annual debate. They understand the value of shifting the debate to the right. A debate between a neoconservative fascist and a overtly white supremacist fascist. The source of the problem is obviously the Munk's and their undo influence over the parameters of our public discourse. However that is what you can afford to do when your companies engage in some of the worst environmental practices all over the planet.
Happened to be chatting with a colleague yesterday about this. Seems his wife is a PR person for the venue. He said it was turning into a bit of a shitshow for them. (my characterisation)
Moreso than pairing Frye and Peterson? There's gotta be a story there. Hope your friend doesn't get in trouble for telling tales out of school.
Of course it isn't those who make the decisions who have to shovel that shit.
An Evening With The Clintons, Tuesday, Nov 27, 2018
https://www.scotiabankarena.com/events/detail/an-evening-with-the-clintons
No problem with these warcriminal monsters?
This was my problem with the debate.
That's good news. I support freedom of speech 100% but that doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
This is not a free speech issue. The Munk's use a charity facade to shape the narrative of our political discourse. They have bought and paid for this privilege. It is in effect a semi-annual advertisement for fascism lite where TO's elite get to use their businesses to buy tickets that are used as expenses against taxes.
So, then the solution is to remove the Munks' charity status? Not saying that would be a bad idea, in fact, it's likely the ONLY idea to get them to stop doing what they're doing. Because as long as they are enjoying charity status, they are not likely to care what their opponents think about how they use it.
All Out Today! Shut Down Hatred! Protest Bannon & Frum
Friday, November 2, 2018 at 5 PM – 9 PM
Roy Thomson Hall
60 Simcoe Street, Toronto
Interesting to note how our government plays fast and loose with charitable status - no ideological or political activity for the lefties and not so much for the right. The Munks are definitely right wing lobbyists who are using their charitable status to foist their particular ideology on us through these debates. And in so many other ways.
Further to that, it was ideologically driven under Harper - progressive groups targetted, while anti-feminist and other groups were given status. And it has only partially been undone since then.
Arrests were made at the debate protest last night and they were violent. A colleague of mine and her friend were arrested and her friend, who was standing beside her, was punched in the face by a cop. Others were injured as well. Once again our paramilitary friends defended fascists at the expense of legitimate protest.
Very weird. The poll numbers at the end of the debate were somehow completely wrong:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/technical-error-blamed-for-wrong-results-a...
It actually didn't seem to make any sense, because Bannon was not well received by the audience. His points were regularly greeted with grumbling and laughing from the audience. And he at one point was cornered on a question on connecting right-wing violence to populist rhetoric. On the whole they did not buy his message.
The Munk Debate on Populism
https://vimeo.com/298416084
Bannon v Frum @ 44:00
This board is the most tone deaf thing I've ever seen. You want to know why Banon's populism is winning? Look in the bloody mirror. Canada has the exact same elite problem as the States. You want to know why the entire country hates "the elites"? Look at that article about how cleaning up the oil sands will cost an absurb $260 Billion. Or the delay on getting any new pipeline built for prairie oil. You know who hates that? The prairie elite! Out here the elite is all scientists and engineers who get shit done. The populace is all socially liberal, so all those battles you imagine..already won. But they are still Albertans, so that fiscal conservative battle is a real thing. _Signed, that weird Albertan conservative who posts here sometimes...
I'll go a step further and argue that of the two absolutely revolting monsters who were in this debate, when we look at what they've actually done rather than just what they've said, that David Frum is still responsible for way, way worse crap.
Actually, contrary to the notion that Albertans were neo-liberal avant la lettre, the province has not historically been that fiscally conservative, at least not until that became the dominant ideology everywhere. If you click on the chart at the bottom of this article, it's difficult to find a bigger provincial deficit anywhere than the one that the Tories ran in 86, and even then, there wasn't any sort of pro-austerity backlash until '93.
https://tinyurl.com/y8wbr48y
I agree that Alberta in 2018 is not excessively SoCon, at least in relation to other provinces(see the link below to find out which province, as of 2017, still required a doctor's referral to book an appointment for an abortion, and the impact this has had on women in that province). Which is why Kenney is now going out of his way to make it appear like his party is bozo-free.
https://tinyurl.com/y8jd5xc2
So, I haven't been following this issue. Who won the debate?
what debate?
Frum did. And given his own politics I am surprised at some of the points he raised, from linking Trump's economic policies to Peron's Argentina, to non-white voter suppression, to the role of police agitators in violence. And pointing out that populism is based on nothing but division and hatred, and doesn't help those it claims to.
But then it wasn't a debate about right-left politics so much as established order, at least in theory. Even Bannon pointed out that it was a choice between nationalist populism and "socialist" populism - a point he didn't follow up on, and which was likely a bit of redbaiting.
I know the line about not debating "Nazis" and there was a lot about the event that was cloyingly hypocritical - like praising freespeech and clapping for the protester as they removed her from the hall (though left the banner). But given that he was talking in front of a crowd of wealthy patrons, I think it is good that Frum said the things he did. If it wasn't a lesson about conservative crimes at least it was indictment of libertarian ones.
And at one point the moderator pinned down Bannon on the connection between his rhetoric and violence. After repeatedly sidestepping he gave a very thin denial.
Syphilis vs Gonorrhea. A pillow fight between political bedfellows.
Smith wrote:
Frum did. And given his own politics I am surprised at some of the points he raised, from linking Trump's economic policies to Peron's Argentina, to non-white voter suppression, to the role of police agitators in violence. And pointing out that populism is based on nothing but division and hatred, and doesn't help those it claims to.
Well, there are a few things about Peron's Argentina which conservatives of Frum's ilk would probably dislike: Mrs. Peron herself was the immediate target of the 1976 coup, and left-wing Peronists were well represented among those persecuted during the Dirty War.
Of course it was a debate between two people on the right, but I don't know. I'm sure Frum was pretending to use a pillow when he pointed out the discrepancy between Bannon's military record and de facto treason, but I think it was more a case of damning with praise.
Sure a lot of people are going to say it is an irrelevant distinction, but my guess is it had some effect for the people in that room.
I think there is a certain bit of what the psychologists call "out-group homogeneity" at play when people assume that intra-tendency debates don't matter, because "those guys all believe the same thing anyway". I've heard a few right-wingers say stuff like "Ah, you really believe there's any big fight between Notley and Horgan? Those NDPers are all just a buncha tree-huggers who want everyone to ride bikes to work in 40 below weather." I don't think most people on babble would agree that the fight between the BC and Alberta governments is as trivial as all that.
And, even regardless of how real the ideological differences are, if people within the movement view the differences as real, that can have serious electoral consequences for everyone. If "Frumites" in a given conservative party are unhappy with the state of the party under the "Bannonites", that can lead to the formation of splinter party, which in turn leads to vote splitting, and so on and so forth.
From Press Progress:
Full article here:
https://pressprogress.ca/the-group-behind-steve-bannons-toronto-event-al...
More from Linda McQuaig on Rabble:
Think-tanks and the right-wing quest to shape public debate September 18, 2014
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2014/09/think-tanks-and-right-wing-quest-to-...