Sunday, January 1, 2017
The Globe and Mail has descended to a level of denial and condescension that is truly without precedent. In a recent editorial (Friday, Dec. 30, 2016) they categorized a litany of leftist memes that are the manifestation of the rule: “accuse your opponents of the very actions you intend to enforce”. The Globe displays contempt for the average citizen who they imply is too incompetent to appreciate the danger of challenging the status quo.
The nameless editors state that “liberal democracy” is under threat in the West simply by the nature of decent that voters have freely selected. Is not the freedom to choose a hallmark of an institution that “perpetuates our way of life”? Not so says The Globe. The irony here is that the threat to our way of life is the driving force that has led average citizens to reject the present class of elites that hold the reins of power.
Somehow the Globe believes that “populists, racists and autocrats” want to destroy our parliaments, our courts and even our civil liberties. This from people who would subjugate our national interests to global agendas that by their very nature would undermine the primacy of our law making institutions. The status quo promotes large scale immigration that would both reduce wages and increase the cost of government. The average citizen cannot be faulted for questioning the profound effect this policy has on their way of life. The status quo promotes “climate taxes” and restrictions that are applied to countries with the cleanest energy use and exempt the real polluters. The average citizen cannot be faulted for questioning a policy that adds considerable costs to their way of life and has no discernible effect upon the stated goal of protecting the climate. The status quo promotes what are called “free trade agreements” which are in reality codified restrictions on how we trade. The average citizen cannot be faulted for questioning why their jobs are leaving the country while special guilds, such as banks, teachers, lawyers, doctors, government employees and cultural cronies are all protected. In a bizarre twist The Globe confidently asserts that those who oppose these programs are after “unfettered power”. It quickly becomes evident that a prerequisite of imposing these policies is centralized, institution disarming, executive action.
The “most obvious” target of The Globe editorial is “the rise of Donald Trump”. The editors accuse him of attacking the “pillars” of his country’s liberal, constitutional democracy. Again the irony is delicious. Trump, who is not even in office yet, has clearly proposed a constitutionally constrained administration that will promote policies that favour American citizens. In the conservative tradition he of course believes that the private sector can benefit more people than an enhanced public sector. His predecessor, whom The Globe loves, enacted thousands of executive orders which bypass the Congress, selectively prosecuted his opponents with government institutions like the IRS and blatantly thwarted attempts to execute the law on immigration or even his own administration.
One has to ask when did leftist doctrine become an unassailable liberal institution of democracy. Donald Trump is condemned simply for stating the obvious in a desperate attempt to use political correctness as a tour de force. They claim that Trump's opinion that a particular judge may be biased, because he was a member of La Raza (a racist Mexican organization), puts him in conflict with the entire judicial system. This ignores a basic tenant of legal history in a system that routinely questions bias in an attempt to blindly prosecute justice. What is the Globe proposing here? Is it racist to question obvious bias? Trump is accused of promoting violence when almost all the beatings and cat calling came from leftist protestors. We all saw DNC operatives, who later were forced to resign, boasting how they could rig an election by busing in voters who would vote multiple times. Yet Trump is accosted for not swallowing the brazen distraction that the Russian’s somehow hacked the DNC without similar proof. The mountain of evidence that the Mainstream Media colluded with the Democrats is ignored by The Globe for obvious reasons. Trump is castigated for pointing this out. The editors don’t what to mention the alternative media which in many cases was far more accurate than they were. Trump is also made to look as though he doesn’t respect peaceful protest, but the Globe doesn’t seem to understand that private property is out of bounds for protest in the constitution.
Perhaps the most inexplicable claim in the editorial is that Donald Trump is responsible for dividing people by race and religion. Under President Obama race has become a badge of victimhood or the mark of an oppressor. The last eight years have produced divisions in society we have not seen since the early part of the 20th century. It has become permissible to call for the death of Donald Trump or for that matter any white people in the current climate of political correctness. An incontrovertible fact is that most terrorism in the world is perpetrated by just one ideology, radical Islam. By denying the importance of this fact it could be reasonably concluded that the open door policies of Mr. Obama have directly contributed to a schism between races and religions. The Globe says it is Trump’s fault because he wants to do something about it.
The Mainstream Press loves to warn us about “fake news” while insinuating untruths themselves. They imply that Trump supports white supremacists, “defines democracy as an election he wins”, "the press is only free if it supports him" and “us” is anyone who cheers for him. Even the editors at the Globe know this is patently untrue - but the insular media echo chamber loves it.
The incomprehensible logic of this editorial continues by conceding that many Americans believe that the system “celebrates the buying and selling of U.S. politicians by special interests”. Instead of outlining what Mr. Trump has proposed to fix the “rot”, the Globe quickly aligns the new administration with political extremes that it claims want to “blow the whole thing up”. Cui Bono?
The left does not trade in introspection and The Globe is no exception. The editorial implies that many people are losing faith in liberal democracy. No one asks why in the piece and yet the elephant is clearly in the room. The subjection of the average citizen’s interests to global priorities has pushed government further away and has made it into an adversary not a benefit. Brexit was not a call for a strong leader to take over and relieve citizens of unpleasant civic duties, but the genuine desire to amputate a parasitical appendage that served the interest of others. The press openly despises individuals who wish to protect their “way of life” and calls them right-wing, anti-immigration, racist and now authoritarian.
Using the totalitarian government of China as a reference, The Globe freely compares Western democracies to the corrupt, unstable societies of Turkey and The Philippines. Never once do the editors even suspect that the electorate in Canada or Britain are using their institutions to correct what has become a bloated abuse of their trust. The Chinese claim that the US political system is powerless to restrain the despicable conduct of incompetent politicians, yet that is exactly what it has done.
It would appear that The Globe thinks that anyone in politics who says they are going to do something and then actually do it are authoritarians. Hence they reserve equal scorn for Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump. In an “Oh well, what are you going to do” moment the editors say that “Canada, like all countries run by imperfect human beings, suffers from politicians who sometimes break promises, mismanage funds, accept donations from lobbyists, and evade and lie”, but they really don’t mean it and are great guys if you would just get to know them. Much better than those authoritarian types like Putin or Trump who might just try to fix things.
The Globe concludes with a warning that these “authoritarian” leaders who were elected according to the rules of a constitutional democracy are a mortal threat to our institutions. Must we be wary of those who propose to act in the best interests of their own citizens? Congratulations Globe and Mail, you have equated Western democracy with endemic corruption (which we must accept) and the onus of self-sacrifice which is our obligation to the world at large.
Thankfully the citizens of many Western democracies completely disagree and will use their proven institutions to improve their lot in life. They will say once again, in the immortal words of Colonel Thomas Pride, to the parasitical interests that feast upon the public purse… You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!