The culture war being waged in the United States is destroying that nation from within. Aaron Wherry writes that Erin O' Tolle has embraced the idea of a culture war. The idea goes back to British writer Goodhart's book, The Road To Somewhere:
In short, Goodhart posits that the traditional politics of left and right, liberal and conservative, are now overlaid by a "larger and looser" distinction "between the people who see the world from Anywhere and the people who see it from Somewhere."
According to Goodhart, the typical Anywhere is a well-educated professional living in a large city away from where they grew up. They generally vote for left-of-centre parties. They are mobile, embrace change and take "egalitarian and meritocratic attitudes on race, sexuality and gender and think that we need to push on further."
They do not entirely accept the idea of a borderless world but are individualist and internationalist in disposition and "are not strongly attached to larger group identities, including national ones." In Goodhart's words, "they value autonomy and self-realisation before stability, community and tradition."
The average Somewhere, he says, is less well-educated, earns a lower income, comes from a small town or a suburb and is more grounded in a specific place. "They do not generally welcome change and older Somewheres are nostalgic for a lost Britain," Goodhart writes. "They place a high value on security and familiarity and have strong group attachments, local and national." They tend to vote for conservative parties.
These Somewheres, Goodhart adds, "accept the equality revolution but still value traditional family forms and are suspicious of 'anything goes' attitudes." They are not authoritarians, he writes, but they "regret the passing of a more structured and tradition bound world."
Attitudes toward immigration, Goodhart says, "have probably become the single biggest litmus test of Anywhere/Somewhere difference and over time have come to stand for more general attitudes toward social change and whether people feel comfortable with and feel they benefit from it, or not." (Canada, he notes, is a "partial exception" to the rule that "large scale immigration" is universally unpopular.)
The Anywheres, Goodhart argues, have been dominant in culture and society and must now be more conscious of how their fellow citizens from Somewhere are feeling.
Stephen Harper picked up Goodhart's idea and passed it on to O'Toole. O'Toole is positioning himself as a spokesman for the Somewheres and he accuses Justin Trudeau of being a tool of the Anywheres:
"While this prime minister seems to think that every Canadian can simply work on their laptop from the local café," O'Toole said Monday, "that is not reality, nor is it what Canadians want. Conservatives are here to fight for those who build things in Canada, those who get their hands dirty and take pride in doing a job well before they come home for the night."
To burnish his credentials among those who "get their hands dirty," O'Toole said that his first job in high school was dishwasher and short-order cook. He did not mention that he went on to become a corporate lawyer in Toronto and in-house counsel to a major multinational corporation (Procter & Gamble).
Asked in September whether he saw himself as a populist, O'Toole said he was simply "trying to address the hopes, aspirations and concerns of Canadians." But nearly every politician in the history of civilization would say they were doing more or less the same thing.
Populism is more usefully defined as an ideology that suggests society can be divided between the 'pure' public and the 'corrupt' elite. It is based in conflict. And O'Toole seems willing to embrace the idea of a fundamental clash between middle-class Canadians and the elites, between the Somewheres and the Anywheres — or at least to accuse the Liberal government of working to make sure there are a lot more Anywheres everywhere.
The Liberals claim they represent the same people. So who are you going to believe?
Image: arpacanada.ca
12 comments:
Owen, the maxim "Liberals giveth, Conservatives taketh away" has always guided me when addressing which side of the political spectrum I'm on.
That's an interesting maxim, Percival. I might amend it somewhat: The Liberals giveth. The Conservatives giveth tax cuts.
I thought that I'd recognized the "somewhere's" and "anywhere's" terminology from harper's stupid book.
I've been thinking about the consequences of the different brain-wiring of conservatives and non-conservatives lately. About how self-described conservatives tend to have stronger "fight or flight" instincts and they seem to fixate more on threats (or possible threats) than other people.
It doesn't mean that a conservative is incapable of being kind or generous. But you have to get over their inherent sense of being under attack. But, obviously, you can't take this too far. You can't block all immigration and forever uphold traditional values regardless of their hypocrisy or unreality.
To an extent, stephen harper himself might be a fearful, distrustful mental wreak. But all of these Conservative Party politicians are elites and they obey more powerful elites and their whole shtick is cynical, pandering, hypocritical garbage.
The Liberal elites are, themselves, tools of the oligarchy, or (like Morneau) oligarchs themselves. Their rhetoric of inclusivity and caring for marginalized groups and people of colour is just the internationalist, liberal gloss on the same oligarchic agenda.
And whatever one or the other does, they do with your money. They do represent the same people, the business community in its various Bay Street, Oil Patch, Big Pharma, Big Ag, et. guises, but neither thee nor me.
When you have nothing else to offer from your quiver, you fall back on your "creator", Stephen Harper to guide you. Apparently the ReformaCons are still under the leadership, mentorship and guidance of the one and only "St. Stephen" and so, they clearly do not understand that his train has left the station.
Divide and conquer is definitely not the answer to the complex problems facing all Canadians in to-day's world. While this current pandemic has already demonstrated it has many twists and turns, one only has to look at the province that is suffering the most, and it is not being led by a "liberal".
Harper had the same idea, seeing himself as the champion of the Somewheres, aka the "Tim Hortons Canadians." This despite the fact that Harper grew up as the son of an oil company executive in Toronto, and went on to get a master's degree. O'Toole has a similar past as the son of a GM senior executive who went on to become an officer and a lawyer. Like Trump and BoJo, neither of these guys belongs to the group they purport to champion - the middle class and below. They are, however, very much authoritarians (contrary to what Goodhart claims) and that is their appeal to a large segment of the public.
Instead of Somewheres/Anywheres or Tim Hortons/Starbucks Canadians, I see a different dichotomy. There's one group of people who go through or imagine hardship and trauma and wish that others would be spared that experience. These people tend to be liberal in outlook. Another group of people experiences hardship and trauma and wish that experience on everyone else, often rationalizing it as "character building." These people tend to be unable to imagine others' hardship and are conservative in outlook.
There is a growing body of social science research that shows that those who grow up wealthy are less empathetic than others. These people haven't experienced hardship and are unable to imagine it. They make good leaders for the people who want everyone to suffer like they did.
Cap
This stuff isn't new. Prohibition was pretty much a rural versus urban issue. Farmers and small town folk thought city people were going to Hell in an hand-basket. It should be noted that in the time of Prohibition farmers outnumbered city people. Now it's reversed. The only way the rural folk can have political power is through gerrymandering and we have lots of it.
What annoys me so much is the constant attack by O'Toole and other so called conservatives. The constant nastiness is so unproductive.
There are common elements to both the Liberal and Conservative agendas, thwap. But, for me, the Conservatives have always wanted to turn back the clock -- which is simply an exercise in absurdity.
Both parties have deep roots on Bay Street, Danneau. So the choice always comes down to the lesser evil.
Alberta should provide us with a cautionary tale, Lulymay. We would be foolish to install a similar regime in Ottawa.
That's an interesting way of looking at it, Cap. Some wealthy people can feel genuine empathy. I think about Franklin Roosevelt. He grew up in wealth but understood the common man. Perhaps polio had something to do with that.
O'Toole's primary weapon is envy, Toby. Weaponizing envy will simply result in self-destruction.
Post a Comment