Daily Archives: September 4, 2021

Sep 4th 2021

SOMETHING HAS gone very wrong with Western liberalism. At its heart classical liberalism believes human progress is brought about by debate and reform. The best way to navigate disruptive change in a divided world is through a universal commitment to individual dignity, open markets and limited government. Yet a resurgent China sneers at liberalism for being selfish, decadent and unstable. At home, populists on the right and left rage at liberalism for its supposed elitism and privilege.

Your browser does not support the

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Over the past 250 years classical liberalism has helped bring about unparalleled progress. It will not vanish in a puff of smoke. But it is undergoing a severe test, just as it did a century ago when the cancers of Bolshevism and fascism began to eat away at liberal Europe from within. It is time for liberals to understand what they are up against and to fight back.

Nowhere is the fight fiercer than in America, where this week the Supreme Court chose not to strike down a draconian and bizarre anti-abortion law. The most dangerous threat in liberalisms spiritual home comes from the Trumpian right. Populists denigrate liberal edifices such as science and the rule of law as faades for a plot by the deep state against the people. They subordinate facts and reason to tribal emotion. The enduring falsehood that the presidential election in 2020 was stolen points to where such impulses lead. If people cannot settle their differences using debate and trusted institutions, they resort to force.

The attack from the left is harder to grasp, partly because in America liberal has come to include an illiberal left. We describe this week how a new style of politics has recently spread from elite university departments. As young graduates have taken jobs in the upmarket media and in politics, business and education, they have brought with them a horror of feeling unsafe and an agenda obsessed with a narrow vision of obtaining justice for oppressed identity groups. They have also brought along tactics to enforce ideological purity, by no-platforming their enemies and cancelling allies who have transgressedwith echoes of the confessional state that dominated Europe before classical liberalism took root at the end of the 18th century.

Superficially, the illiberal left and classical liberals like The Economist want many of the same things. Both believe that people should be able to flourish whatever their sexuality or race. They share a suspicion of authority and entrenched interests. They believe in the desirability of change.

However, classical liberals and illiberal progressives could hardly disagree more over how to bring these things about. For classical liberals, the precise direction of progress is unknowable. It must be spontaneous and from the bottom upand it depends on the separation of powers, so that nobody nor any group is able to exert lasting control. By contrast the illiberal left put their own power at the centre of things, because they are sure real progress is possible only after they have first seen to it that racial, sexual and other hierarchies are dismantled.

This difference in method has profound implications. Classical liberals believe in setting fair initial conditions and letting events unfold through competitionby, say, eliminating corporate monopolies, opening up guilds, radically reforming taxation and making education accessible with vouchers. Progressives see laissez-faire as a pretence which powerful vested interests use to preserve the status quo. Instead, they believe in imposing equitythe outcomes that they deem just. For example, Ibram X. Kendi, a scholar-activist, asserts that any colour-blind policy, including the standardised testing of children, is racist if it ends up increasing average racial differentials, however enlightened the intentions behind it.

Mr Kendi is right to want an anti-racist policy that works. But his blunderbuss approach risks denying some disadvantaged children the help they need and others the chance to realise their talents. Individuals, not just groups, must be treated fairly for society to flourish. Besides, society has many goals. People worry about economic growth, welfare, crime, the environment and national security, and policies cannot be judged simply on whether they advance a particular group. Classical liberals use debate to hash out priorities and trade-offs in a pluralist society and then use elections to settle on a course. The illiberal left believe that the marketplace of ideas is rigged just like all the others. What masquerades as evidence and argument, they say, is really yet another assertion of raw power by the elite.

Progressives of the old school remain champions of free speech. But illiberal progressives think that equity requires the field to be tilted against those who are privileged and reactionary. That means restricting their freedom of speech, using a caste system of victimhood in which those on top must defer to those with a greater claim to restorative justice. It also involves making an example of supposed reactionaries, by punishing them when they say something that is taken to make someone who is less privileged feel unsafe. The results are calling-out, cancellation and no-platforming.

Milton Friedman once said that the society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. He was right. Illiberal progressives think they have a blueprint for freeing oppressed groups. In reality theirs is a formula for the oppression of individualsand, in that, it is not so very different from the plans of the populist right. In their different ways both extremes put power before process, ends before means and the interests of the group before the freedom of the individual.

Countries run by the strongmen whom populists admire, such as Hungary under Viktor Orban and Russia under Vladimir Putin, show that unchecked power is a bad foundation for good government. Utopias like Cuba and Venezuela show that ends do not justify means. And nowhere at all do individuals willingly conform to state-imposed racial and economic stereotypes.

When populists put partisanship before truth, they sabotage good government. When progressives divide people into competing castes, they turn the nation against itself. Both diminish institutions that resolve social conflict. Hence they often resort to coercion, however much they like to talk about justice.

If classical liberalism is so much better than the alternatives, why is it struggling around the world? One reason is that populists and progressives feed off each other pathologically. The hatred each camp feels for the other inflames its own supportersto the benefit of both. Criticising your own tribes excesses seems like treachery. Under these conditions, liberal debate is starved of oxygen. Just look at Britain, where politics in the past few years was consumed by the rows between uncompromising Tory Brexiteers and the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.

Aspects of liberalism go against the grain of human nature. It requires you to defend your opponents right to speak, even when you know they are wrong. You must be willing to question your deepest beliefs. Businesses must not be sheltered from the gales of creative destruction. Your loved ones must advance on merit alone, even if all your instincts are to bend the rules for them. You must accept the victory of your enemies at the ballot box, even if you think they will bring the country to ruin.

In short, it is hard work to be a genuine liberal. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, when their last ideological challenger seemed to crumble, arrogant elites lost touch with liberalisms humility and self-doubt. They fell into the habit of believing they were always right. They engineered Americas meritocracy to favour people like them. After the financial crisis, they oversaw an economy that grew too slowly for people to feel prosperous. Far from treating white working-class critics with dignity, they sneered at their supposed lack of sophistication.

This complacency has let opponents blame lasting imperfections on liberalismand, because of the treatment of race in America, to insist the whole country was rotten from the start. In the face of persistent inequality and racism, classical liberals can remind people that change takes time. But Washington is broken, China is storming ahead and people are restless.

The ultimate complacency would be for classical liberals to underestimate the threat. Too many right-leaning liberals are inclined to choose a shameless marriage of convenience with populists. Too many left-leaning liberals focus on how they, too, want social justice. They comfort themselves with the thought that the most intolerant illiberalism belongs to a fringe. Dont worry, they say, intolerance is part of the mechanism of change: by focusing on injustice, they shift the centre ground.

Yet it is precisely by countering the forces propelling people to the extremes that classical liberals prevent the extremes from strengthening. By applying liberal principles, they help solve societys many problems without anyone resorting to coercion. Only liberals appreciate diversity in all its forms and understand how to make it a strength. Only they can deal fairly with everything from education to planning and foreign policy so as to release peoples creative energies. Classical liberals must rediscover their fighting spirit. They should take on the bullies and cancellers. Liberalism is still the best engine for equitable progress. Liberals must have the courage to say so.

This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "The threat from the illiberal left"

See original here:

Political thought The threat from the illiberal left - The Economist

Liberal candidate Jesse McCormick is focusing his campaign on the top three issues facing the Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo: climate change, COVID-19 and Indigenous reconciliation.

As a lawyer, McCormick has worked closely with the government, including on Parliament Hill with Catherine McKenna, minister of environment and climate change, and David Lamettei, minister of justice and Canadas attorney general.

I have spent most of my career working to advance Indigenous Reconciliation, environmental protection and finding that appropriate balance with natural resource development, McCormick said. Im very well versed in that intersection between natural resources, environmental law and policy and the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples.

McCormick said the 2021 wildfire season has underscored the importance of addressing climate change, and said he intends to fight for a national solution. On a more local level, McCormick said he would also advocate to ensure the region has enough healthcare workers and recovers economically from the COVID-19 pandemic.

If re-elected, the Liberals plan to invest $3-billion to hire 7,500 doctors, nurse practitioners and nurses over the course of four years and forgive more student debt to attract young practitioners to rural communities, he said. Promoting vaccinations is key to allowing the economy to recover, he added.

READ MORE: Federal election jostling begins

A newcomer to Kamloops his wife works as an ER physician at the Royal Inland Hospital McCormick said he decided to run to improve the lives of everyday people in the riding and be a voice for them in Ottawa. A long-time Liberal, in 2019, he ran for MP in Ontarios Lambton-Kent-Middlesex riding, where he said he came in a glorious second place.

I have a strong belief in the guiding values of the Liberal Party and also the competence of the Liberal Party to actually follow through and implement the policy measures that are being proposed.

These policies include the Liberal Partys climate change policies, the recently announced affordable housing plan and $10 a day child care. McCormick asserts that the Liberal governments records attest to their ability to successfully implement these plans.

McCormick grew up in London, Ont. as a member of the Anishinaabe people. Before becoming a lawyer, he said he learned the value of a hard days work by working as a labourer, dishwasher and Zamboni driver. He pledged to work with constituents on finding solutions.

The best part of the job (is connecting with voters). In the context of the campaign, its knocking on doors, sitting down with businesses, reaching out to mayors and taking the time to understand the issues and challenges being faced by the Kamloops-Thompson Cariboo, McCormick said. Most importantly its the conversations you have every day with community members about what issues theyre facing and what they think are the best solutions.

patrick.davies@100milefreepress.netLike us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

100 Mile HouseElection 2021

Link:

Liberal candidate wants to be voice for the region 100 Mile House Free Press - 100 Mile Free Press

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

By Deb Schulte, Special to Postmedia Network

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The pandemic tragically highlighted serious and long-standing challenges in Canadas long-term care sector. Canadians are rightly concerned about the level of care and protection provided for their loved ones. Now is not the time for half measures; its time for real change.

The Conservative plan for long-term care will squander this opportunity to provide needed help for seniors.

Better care for those living in long-term care starts with improved conditions for workers. Although the Conservatives propose to double the Canada Workers Benefit, it wont help most personal support workers whose incomes are above $32,244, the average for most nurse aides and orderlies. It wont incentivize people to start careers as personal support workers.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

In effect, the Conservative plan fails to address instability in a sector dominated by women, over a third of whom are immigrants.

While the Conservatives say that they want to invite the provinces to work with us to develop a set of best practices for long-term care, this duplicates work already underway by experts at the Health Standards Organization (HSO) and CSA Group.

When Conservative Leader Erin OToole was asked about funding for long-term care, he pointed to his promise to increase the Canada Health Transfer. But the Canada Health Transfer is a general fund that can be used for any health-care initiative, such as clearing backlogs.

The only way for the government of Canada to make permanent changes in this sector is by working cooperatively with provinces and territories, who have the constitutional jurisdiction to regulate long-term care. That requires finding common ground backed by significant, targeted federal investments.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The Liberals have a strong record of working cooperatively with their provincial and territorial partners and have a new $9 billion plan that will deliver better care for Canadians in long-term care.

It starts by improving working conditions and raising wages for personal support workers. They are the heroes on the frontlines taking care of our loved ones.

Too many have precarious jobs in multiple homes and do not earn enough to get by on. This drives turnover and increases infections as workers spread outbreaks between homes.

A re-elected Liberal government will work with provinces and territories to ensure personal support workers receive a wage of at least $25 an hour. To address the workforce shortage, we will invest $500 million to train up to 50,000 new personal support workers.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Over the last 20 months, weve seen how standards without enforcement fail to protect workers and residents. So we will work with our partners to introduce a Safe Long-term Care Act that ensures standards of care are upheld across the country. It will be informed by the work of the HSO and CSA.

During the pandemic, we saw the virus spread through multi-bed rooms and outdated ventilation systems.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

A re-elected Liberal government would invest a further $3 billion to provide major renovations in long-term care homes and improve the quality and number of beds.

All this adds to the almost $5 billion we have invested since the pandemic started for infection prevention and wage increases for low-income essential workers.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Finally, seniors want to stay in their own homes as long as possible as they age. The Canadian Institutes of Health Informationreportsthat as many as one in nine seniors in long-term care could have been cared for at home with the proper supports.

Liberals have a plan to help more seniors age at home.

We will double the Home Accessibility Tax Credit, providing an additional $1,500 for renovations to make seniors homes more accessible. We will create a new Multigenerational Home Renovation tax credit to help families add a secondary suite to their home so a family member can live with them. And the new Age Well at Home initiative will fund practical supports that connect low-income and vulnerable seniors with help for tasks they are no longer able to manage.

In 2022 we are renegotiating homecare agreements with provinces and territories to improve access to homecare and transitions to long-term care or palliative care.

Everyone living in long-term care deserves safe, dignified and quality care. Only the Liberals offer an ambitious, achievable plan to get there.

Deb Schulte is the federal Liberal candidate for King-Vaughan and the Minister of Seniors.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive daily headline news from the Toronto SUN, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of The Toronto Sun Headline News will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

More here:

SCHULTE: Liberal plan hits the target for real change in long-term care - Toronto Sun

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court told George W. Bush that fighting a global war on terrorism did not entitle the president to evade or ignore the requirements of the Constitution. That decision, Boumediene v. Bush, would go down in the books as one of the most significant modern rulings against wartime government power. "We'll abide by the Court's decision," Bush said. "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it."

What if Bush did not abide by the Court's decision? What if Bush said the Court was dead wrong and that his administration would not be bound by its erroneous judgment? What if subsequent presidents followed Bush's lead and ignored the Court whenever their own favored policies happened to lose?

Such what ifs are the driving force behind Justice Stephen Breyer's timely and important new book, The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics (Harvard University Press). The 83-year-old Supreme Court justice is well aware that many modern liberals want President Joe Biden to pack the Court and create a new liberal supermajority. Breyer thinks those liberal court packers are being both dimwitted and shortsighted. "Think long and hard," Breyer warns them, "before embodying those changes in law."

Court packing is a naked power grab and an attack on the independence of the judiciary. It is a tit-for-tat race to the bottom. One party expands the size of the bench for nakedly partisan purposes, so the other party does the same (or worse) as soon as it gets the chance. Breyer understands this. He also understands something else: If the authority of the Supreme Court is trashed and squandered by court packing, then liberalism itself is going to suffer in the long run.

Let history be our guide. President Andrew Jackson flatly ignored the Supreme Court's 1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia, which ruled in favor of Cherokee control over Cherokee territory. Jackson later sent federal troops to forcibly remove the Cherokee people via the infamous Trail of Tears. The rule of law suffers when the political branches ignore the judiciary's judgment.

Breyer worries that today's liberal court packers are going to severely undermine judicial authority and pave the way for the next Andrew Jackson. "Whether particular decisions are right or wrong," Breyer writes, "is not the issue here." The issue "is the general tendency of the public to respect and follow judicial decisions, a habit developed over the course of American history." One of the biggest risks of court packing is that it will reverse that general tendency.

Just imagine what American history would look like without basic political and public support for the Court's decisions, Breyer writes. What "would have happened to all those Americans who espoused unpopular political beliefs, to those who practiced or advocated minority religions, to those who argued for an end to segregation in the South? What would have happened to criminal defendants unable to afford a lawyer, to those whose houses government officials wished to search without probable cause?"

Or take your pick of hot-button modern issues. If the court packers wreck the Court, as Breyer fears that they will, what's to stop an antigay marriage legislature from banning gay marriage, despite the Supreme Court's clear 2015 ruling to the contrary in Obergefell v. Hodges? Is that the future that liberals want?

Breyer's message is clear and convincing: The court packers should be careful what they wish for.

Read the original:

Stephen Breyer Makes the Liberal Case Against Court Packing - Reason

A piece of the Liberals campaign platform aimed directly at addressing the dispute over abortion access in New Brunswick is unlikely to have an impact on reproductive health care in the province, according to a constitutional lawyer.

Its a bit of a nothing burger as far as Im concerned, said Kerri Froc, an associate professor in the faculty of law at the University of New Brunswick.

The campaign plank in question marks the latest attempt by the federal Liberals to address abortion access in the province and promises to require that all Canadians can access reproductive health care no matter where they live. They pledge to enshrine that requirement in regulations under the Canada Health Act, meaning it would only need approval by cabinet. A provinces failure to live up to their obligations would result in an automatic penalty applied against federal health transfers.

But according to Froc, the promise amounts to the Liberals pledging to give the government power it already possesses and has already used.

Story continues below advertisement

The federal government has said that New Brunswick is in violation of the Canada Health Act for failing to provide meaningful access to surgical abortions in the province and deducted $140,216 from its share of health transfers earlier this year. The province refuses to fund surgical abortions performed outside of hospital and there are only three hospitals in the province that provide the procedure: one in Bathurst and two in Moncton.

The province argues it is meeting the need, citing lessening demand for the procedure after the introduction of Mifegymiso, also known as the abortion pill, in 2017.

Froc says the Liberal province in some way harms the fight for better access by suggesting that access to abortion is not already explicit in the Canada Health Act.

Trending Stories

Story continues below advertisement

They seem to imply that theres a question now and theres really not, she said. Theres really no question under the Canada Health Act. It says that if you have medical service provided by a physician then those have to be reasonably accessible, so you cant put direct or indirect barriers in front of them.

Theres no problem with the Canada Health Act.

When asked about the promise on Wednesday Liberal leader Justin Trudeau didnt directly address why the regulation was needed.

I think its clear to the vast majority of Canadians that we need to be a country that stands unequivocally for womens rights, for a womans right to choose. And thats not a theoretical right, its also a very practical right that involves being able to access reproductive health services across the country wherever they are, he said.

According to JP Lewis, an associate professor of political science at UNB, the promise looks to be an attempt to speak directly to progressive voters in key New Brunswick ridings.

The three ridings that weve been watching, Fredericton, Miramichi and Saint JohnRothesay, the Liberals are going to need to take whatever they can get, Lewis said.

Story continues below advertisement

The highlighting of any progressive plank of their platform is addressing that strategic concern.

This isnt the first time Trudeau has waded into the abortion debate in New Brunswick. In 2019, during a Fredericton campaign stop, he promised to ensure that the province funds out-of-hospital abortions.

The move takes on more significance in Fredericton, where Clinic 554, a family practice that also provided abortion services that werent covered by Medicare, has become a flashpoint for reproductive health-care issues in the province. The clinic has all but closed as a family practice, opening two days a week to provide some reproductive health-care services.

The province is also facing legal action from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that claims the province is violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by failing to provide adequate abortion access.

2021 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Go here to read the rest:

Liberal election promise would do nothing to improve N.B. abortion access: expert - Globalnews.ca