Saturday, October 21, 2023

Dueling videos -- Trudeau vs Poilievre

These two clips are being set up as "dueling" videos.
Last spring, Trudeau was talking to a right-wing teenager in Manitoba. This week, Poilievre was talking to a BC reporter while eating an apple.
So here are both videos, to compare and contrast.
Trudeau was, I thought, both gentle and respectful with this teenager, while still questioning his knee-jerk thinking:
Next, we have Poilievre talking to Oliver and Osoyoos Times Chronicle newspaper editor Don Urquhart. The right wing just loved this disrespectful, annoyed, apple chomping tone: As the apple-chomping clip spread on social media, reporters remembered the Trudeau clip too, even though the comparison isn't equivalent: In the Globe and Mail, Shannon Proudfoot wrote a useful analysis - Getting to the Core of Poilievre's biting "apple" interview where she talked about what was really happening during this exchange:
...Sure, Mr. Urquhart’s question was muddled – though show me a journalist who says they’ve never framed a question badly, especially when nervous, overworked or out of their element, and I’ll show you someone with their pants on fire. It’s perfectly clear what he was getting at. Mr. Poilievre is free to reject the premise of the question and deploy all of his considerable rhetorical talents to dispute it, because that’s the way this works.
But kicking a journalist in the shins over and over to throw them off balance so you can run away, then turning the exchange into a social-media flex is telling on yourself.
In order for this scenario to be the delicious come-uppance its fans believe it to be, you have to see Mr. Poilievre – leader of a major political party, a lifelong politician and, if the polls are right, the next prime minister – as the underdog here, not the overworked local reporter just trying to ask a guy from Ottawa a couple of questions in an apple orchard.
Yes, good points.  
And finally, I want to give Mr. Urquhart the last word by sharing some excerpts from the respectful and informative article that he wrote about his Poilievre interview and the rally: Pierre Poilievre was in town Wednesday capping the visit off with a rally in Oliver 
...When asked why Canadians should trust him with their votes given his demonstrable track record of flip-flopping on key issues and what some consider his use of polarizing ideologically-infused rhetoric suggesting he simply takes pages out of the Donald Trump populist playbook, Poilievre became acerbic.
Ultimately the answer was: “Common sense.” We’re going to make common sense common in this country. We don’t have any common sense in the current government,” he said.
The article went on to quote Poilievre's fantasy platform stump speech, concluding with this:
“I’m going to cut spending, cut waste so that we can balance the budget and bring down inflation and interest rates. If you want to be able to pay your mortgage again, if you want to be able to afford rent then you have to vote for Pierre Polly because I’m the only one with a common sense plan that will bring back the buying power of your paycheck,” he said sounding as if an election was just around the corner.
And finally the article also included this useful counterbalancing information:
Richard Cannings NDP Member of Parliament for South Okanagan - West Kootenay issued a statement on Poilievre’s Okanagan visit saying the Conservative Party leader’s talk is simply a performance act.
“Poilievre puts on a good show, but that’s all it is - a performance. He gets up and says all the right things, but then fights to save big bosses a few dollars at the expense of working people.
“Poilievre isn’t who he pretends to be. He doesn’t work for regular people; he works for rich CEOs.”
Cannings cited a number of instances over Poilievre’s 20 year career that highlight the contradictory nature of his claims including his support for a $60 billion tax giveaway to big businesses while cutting services for ordinary Canadians.
“Two times, he voted against having a minimum wage,” Cannings said adding that he’s tried to block dental care for Canadian families, despite having full coverage as an MP for almost 20 years.
“Canadians are struggling to find affordable housing and pay for grocery bills, and they deserve to have someone in Ottawa that has real solutions to their problems. And Poilievre isn’t that person - he’s proven it over a twenty-year political career.
So how do we like them apples now?


Purple library guy said...

One thing I've noticed is that not only alt-right politicians, but people who commit to alt-right ideology, seem to believe very strongly in the virtue and utility of lying.

I mean, you've got Poilievre there challenging the journalist guy by claiming not to believe in left or right, not to be putting forward a strong ideology. And here's the thing--the very people who are cheering for Poilievre shutting down this journalist's questions would be absolutely upset if they thought any of that was true. They want him to be hard right, they want him to have a strong right wing ideology, and they confidently and accurately believe this to be the case. But they are exultant that he lied and claimed otherwise.

They have their reasons. They like it as a tactical measure because alt-right ideology is unpopular. And they like it just because anyone asking that kind of question was clearly not one of them, and anyone not one of them must be a socialist or a libtard and therefore the enemy, and getting under the enemy's skin whether by lying or any other tactic is, for them, by definition a good thing.

But I see it more generally. The alt-right are always eager to embrace any lie that comes their way via social media, as long as that lie and acting on it seem likely to piss off "the libs" or victimize someone "the libs" want protected. They don't really believe them--they adopt them very quickly and very piecemeal; yesterday nurses were respected caregivers, today they're conspiring against us to get us all to inject microchips into our bloodstream or whatever; yesterday the only thing wrong with schools was that they were letting kids read things we don't like, today all the teachers are groomers trying to turn kids trans. Yesterday they didn't give a damn about children's sports, today suddenly the possibility that some kid who identifies wrong might run faster than they're supposed to is the most important thing in the world. As long as it resonates with them emotionally, which is to say seems like something opposed to the broad outlines of philosophical liberalism, and something that might be usable to advance the cause, they will pretend to believe it. Some of them pretend even to themselves, but I think a lot of their rage actually comes from the uneasy suspicion down a couple of layers that they're bullshitting.

So yeah. I think a core feature of the alt-right is the embrace of tactical lying.

Cathie from Canada said...

Very perceptive! Yes, I think you've really done a good analysis here. And the rage-farmers just keep on seeding more anger. They will reap the whirlwind - look at what is happening now in the US house of representatives.
Josh Marshall did a great piece about this the other day:
Marshall is talking about how the far-right GOP in the House don't understand how unpopular their ideas really are, but I think this also applies to our CPC too.
"The congressional party is controlled and run by the hard right minority variously called the Tea Party or Freedom Caucus. But they are a bit too hot for national public consumption. They also rely on the idea that their far right policy agenda has broad public support but is held back by a corrupt/bureaucratic establishment. ...The true believers are thus in a perpetual state of being betrayed by a menagerie of RINOs and other softies who make up the ever-shifting definition of ‘the establishment,’ a fact that keeps the conservative media fundraising water wheel chugging forward.
If the Freedom Caucus took over caucus management directly they would quickly come face to face with not being able to pass their favored bills. If they did they would get shut down in the Senate or by the President. They would face directly that their favored legislation is simply not very popular." Marshall says the problem that Jordan had with trying to be elected Speaker was that the GOP basically did not support his hard-right rigidity. I think Poilievre is going to run into the same problem.

rumleyfips said...

If PP's handlers used this vignette , they must be worried.

There are no apples on these trees. the apple is obviously a prop used to belittle ( chomp ) the ( chomp ) interviewer ( chomp ) . The message is ' I don't care about you little people beneath me.

While the camera set was set up to diminish the reporter , it showed a Pierre growing jowly ; a Diefenbaker fan perhaps, pasty skinned and tubby. Someone needs to tell him . Perhaps ego and temper prevent his aids from helping.

PP has obviously bought into the idea that all he needs is his far right base. Ask junior Bush, Trump, Otoole an Scheer and that lady from Manitoba how that worked out for them.

lungta said...

From the "Everythings Broken" channel eh?
'lil pp just can't help his obtuse instantly adversarial thinking. Friend or foe ...obfuscate, challenge, misdirect, embarrass and offer nothing.