He has often made questionable and irresponsible statements that call into question his fitness for the post of Prime Minister.
Here are two examples:
1) his unwavering support for the "Freedom Convoy" despite its organisation by some rather unsavory people;
2) his perpetually alarmist economic rhetoric about Canada being broken.
I watched both Jordan Peterson interviews, his performance at the CPC leadership debates, along with some interviews he did for what I believe is now renamed Juno News. I have a sourced and cited post on my Substack page about point #2.
For what it's worth, I absolutely believe he's sincere in his convictions and I think he's been a good opposition leader in bringing some important issues to light, but I do worry that he is naive about the dangers of polarization and populism.
Hmmm... "Matriarchal older women who have their act together"? Seems like a back-handed way of appearing to praise women's authority while simultaneously framing it in a way that undermines its legitimacy. But I'm sure you meant it in the most complimentary way. đŸ™„
Regardless, maybe give these women some credit for the fact that their opinions are not easily swayed by misinformation and are likely grounded in their own critical evaluation of the candidate’s observable actions and associations, such as Poilievre's divisive campaign rhetoric and YEARS of annoying attack ads, support for the Freedom Convoy (whose stated mission was to overthrow the seated government), and decisions to associate with polarizing figures like Jordan Peterson and far right populists like Candice Malcom.
Maybe women's opinions of Poilievre are influenced by his bait-and-switch attempt to cloak his nationalistic behaviour in patriotism as soon as it was clear people were on to him and sick of his negative, angry rhetoric. Perhaps these women's opinions are grounded in the fact-checked errors and dog-whistle language in the Peterson interview, and that Poilievre just gives off "creep" vibes every time they see him talk, (and as women age, they learn to pay attention to those kinds of cues).
Perhaps women can see through the rhetoric and the posturing, and the danger of targeting of white males who perceive themselves as victims, and it has instilled a mistrust of his stated "values and principles". Maybe women care more about inclusiveness, the environment (their children's future), sovereignty, and preserving our social programs than they do about slogans. Maybe they have seen how unregulated "free market" behaviour has decimated the housing market (Hello AirBnB and rampant corporate/foreign ownership), and they are wary of anyone promising to get rid of essential oversights and cut public services. Maybe they know that trickle-down economics don't work - have never worked - and yet Poilievre is STILL trying to sell them. And most importantly, maybe they see what right-wing populism has wrought in the US, and their answer for Canada is, "Oh Hell NO."
You're right to raise the question—and I’m grateful you did, because it gives me a chance to clarify something close to the core of who I am.
If my phrasing gave the impression I was being glib or patronizing, that’s on me, and I take it seriously. What I meant—and what I now realize is nearly impossible to fully convey in a sentence or two—is that my reverence for wise, grounded, life-tested matriarchal women is total. Life-defining. Creed-deep. It’s the foundation of how I see the world.
If it came off sideways, it's probably because I just take it that everyone knows where I stand on all this through my actions and lived life. Everything I am, everything I value, and every good instinct I’ve got was carved into me by matriarchs who knew how to keep the lights on—spiritually, emotionally, and practically.
My worldview, my work, my sense of purpose—they all come from growing up under the influence of women whose power was total. Women who defined the mission and the rules, carried the load, read the room, held the line, and always found a way. That’s what I mean when I talk about matriarchs with their act together. It’s the highest compliment in my vocabulary.
And as for the rest of what you wrote—I read it all. Carefully. Respectfully. It’s clear you're coming from a place of considered thought, and while we may interpret things differently at times, I understand the lens through which you see the world. It’s precisely those kinds of grounded, discerning perspectives that I believe should have more influence in public discourse, not less.
So thank you—for engaging, for questioning, and for holding the line in your own way. That’s exactly the energy the world needs more of.
To be fair, elections have brought out mudslingers, of various types, on all sides, both for and against for centuries now, if you think of elections generally worldwide. I guess it's just a feature of the process. The main difference today is not to let social media curtail or suspend rational thought. In at least a few ways social media makes the decision that much more personal than it used to be, voting for a more distant and more dignified individual. The loss of privacy and the loss of social space has necessitated the use of ultra private or ultra packaged individuals and a commensurate loss of trust in both the process and the candidates because it's hard to trust things that are inherently inauthentic. Social media and our digital world are inherently edited and constructed. People can tell the difference. Well, I guess we'll see how long that lasts.
Exactly! It's a new dope. Like advertising once was, I suppose. We'll get used to it. And a generation from now they'll kind of laugh at what rubes and jays we all were, clutching our pearls because we saw a meme. See also: dubes, suckers, patsies, marks, greenhorns, mugs, pigeons, softtough, chumps, and dewdrops. We wouldn't have so many words to describe this if it wasn't once a thing.
I'm pretty sure this is right:
He has often made questionable and irresponsible statements that call into question his fitness for the post of Prime Minister.
Here are two examples:
1) his unwavering support for the "Freedom Convoy" despite its organisation by some rather unsavory people;
2) his perpetually alarmist economic rhetoric about Canada being broken.
I watched both Jordan Peterson interviews, his performance at the CPC leadership debates, along with some interviews he did for what I believe is now renamed Juno News. I have a sourced and cited post on my Substack page about point #2.
For what it's worth, I absolutely believe he's sincere in his convictions and I think he's been a good opposition leader in bringing some important issues to light, but I do worry that he is naive about the dangers of polarization and populism.
Thanks alex!
seems to me the Conservative leader threw the first over-the-top punches, now hoisted by his own petard, methinks.
looks from the stats like elderly wealthy educated women are carrying the ball for the Liberals.
taking mud seriously is akin to wrestling with pigs, you get dirty and they like it.
Matriarchal older women who have their act together have always been the heart of the Liberal Party's ground forces. It's their thing.
Hmmm... "Matriarchal older women who have their act together"? Seems like a back-handed way of appearing to praise women's authority while simultaneously framing it in a way that undermines its legitimacy. But I'm sure you meant it in the most complimentary way. đŸ™„
Regardless, maybe give these women some credit for the fact that their opinions are not easily swayed by misinformation and are likely grounded in their own critical evaluation of the candidate’s observable actions and associations, such as Poilievre's divisive campaign rhetoric and YEARS of annoying attack ads, support for the Freedom Convoy (whose stated mission was to overthrow the seated government), and decisions to associate with polarizing figures like Jordan Peterson and far right populists like Candice Malcom.
Maybe women's opinions of Poilievre are influenced by his bait-and-switch attempt to cloak his nationalistic behaviour in patriotism as soon as it was clear people were on to him and sick of his negative, angry rhetoric. Perhaps these women's opinions are grounded in the fact-checked errors and dog-whistle language in the Peterson interview, and that Poilievre just gives off "creep" vibes every time they see him talk, (and as women age, they learn to pay attention to those kinds of cues).
Perhaps women can see through the rhetoric and the posturing, and the danger of targeting of white males who perceive themselves as victims, and it has instilled a mistrust of his stated "values and principles". Maybe women care more about inclusiveness, the environment (their children's future), sovereignty, and preserving our social programs than they do about slogans. Maybe they have seen how unregulated "free market" behaviour has decimated the housing market (Hello AirBnB and rampant corporate/foreign ownership), and they are wary of anyone promising to get rid of essential oversights and cut public services. Maybe they know that trickle-down economics don't work - have never worked - and yet Poilievre is STILL trying to sell them. And most importantly, maybe they see what right-wing populism has wrought in the US, and their answer for Canada is, "Oh Hell NO."
You're right to raise the question—and I’m grateful you did, because it gives me a chance to clarify something close to the core of who I am.
If my phrasing gave the impression I was being glib or patronizing, that’s on me, and I take it seriously. What I meant—and what I now realize is nearly impossible to fully convey in a sentence or two—is that my reverence for wise, grounded, life-tested matriarchal women is total. Life-defining. Creed-deep. It’s the foundation of how I see the world.
If it came off sideways, it's probably because I just take it that everyone knows where I stand on all this through my actions and lived life. Everything I am, everything I value, and every good instinct I’ve got was carved into me by matriarchs who knew how to keep the lights on—spiritually, emotionally, and practically.
My worldview, my work, my sense of purpose—they all come from growing up under the influence of women whose power was total. Women who defined the mission and the rules, carried the load, read the room, held the line, and always found a way. That’s what I mean when I talk about matriarchs with their act together. It’s the highest compliment in my vocabulary.
And as for the rest of what you wrote—I read it all. Carefully. Respectfully. It’s clear you're coming from a place of considered thought, and while we may interpret things differently at times, I understand the lens through which you see the world. It’s precisely those kinds of grounded, discerning perspectives that I believe should have more influence in public discourse, not less.
So thank you—for engaging, for questioning, and for holding the line in your own way. That’s exactly the energy the world needs more of.
To be fair, elections have brought out mudslingers, of various types, on all sides, both for and against for centuries now, if you think of elections generally worldwide. I guess it's just a feature of the process. The main difference today is not to let social media curtail or suspend rational thought. In at least a few ways social media makes the decision that much more personal than it used to be, voting for a more distant and more dignified individual. The loss of privacy and the loss of social space has necessitated the use of ultra private or ultra packaged individuals and a commensurate loss of trust in both the process and the candidates because it's hard to trust things that are inherently inauthentic. Social media and our digital world are inherently edited and constructed. People can tell the difference. Well, I guess we'll see how long that lasts.
Exactly! It's a new dope. Like advertising once was, I suppose. We'll get used to it. And a generation from now they'll kind of laugh at what rubes and jays we all were, clutching our pearls because we saw a meme. See also: dubes, suckers, patsies, marks, greenhorns, mugs, pigeons, softtough, chumps, and dewdrops. We wouldn't have so many words to describe this if it wasn't once a thing.