site banner
ulyssessword  6mo ago (text post)   2070 thread views

Canada Federal Election 2025

Today is the day!

Poll aggregator: https://338canada.com/

Live results: https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2025/results/

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Annexing Canada would be a disaster for US politics. We'd get a large influx of left-leaning population who are already culturally desensitized to the right's worst nightmares (no weapons, no free speech, rampant multiculturalism, full DEI, nationalized medicine, etc.), which would essentially make it California-but-Cold and ensure permanent domination of Democrats in both House and Senate, and probably enough to also ensure Presidency goes to Democrats permanently. I don't think getting a dozen or so of heroic truckers and whoever else on the right side that is in Canada is going to change that. So I don't think anybody entertains this as a serious possibility. If we're talking about piecemeal arrangement, it might be less of a disaster but I don't think it's possible to pull it off in 3 years.

At the moment, the Canadian left is pretty united behind Carney, but the NDP will come back. If the NDP manages to rebuild enough before Union happens, they could naturally make common cause with the Bernie Left and cause a rift among the Democrats.

but the NDP will come back

Not with Canada in its current configuration, they won't. Western Leftism (which is what the NDP is) has given way to Westernism, and until that is satisfied there's no future for anything else. The last 3 elections have shown that pretty conclusively.

ensure permanent domination

Not how politics work. It’s never over. The entire political spectrum moves left with the new median voter, maintaining equal winning chances. Show goes on.

It has been over in Europe for a long time, for the right. True, there's AfD in Germany (shut out of "polite society" but still alive) and LePen (here the establishment succeeded to do the same they failed to do to Trump) but there's no movements comparable to MAGA (or even Tea Party) and no powers comparable to Republicans on the right in Europe. I don't see why America must be any different and why, if the circumstances allow, Republicans couldn't be turned into AfD-like permanent opposition, useful for scaring the voters into compliance but powerless otherwise. Of course, there still be politicians competing, just like there are politicians competing in San Francisco or Chicago, but that would be like watching which Politburo member is elected into the Central Committee - whoever it is, it's still a Politburo member. There's no real alternative.

You can define "the right" to exclude mainstream conservative parties like the German CDU, and then say it is all over for the right. But then you are using non-standard definitions of words to do the work, not facts about the world.

The point @Tree is making is that functional political parties adjust their positioning in order to chase votes. Big-tent right-wing parties are torn between their desire to win elections and their desire to push right-wing policies, and end up positioning themselves slightly to the right of the median voter. @Tree is right that no matter how left-wing a country is, there will usually be a right-wing party doing directionally right-wing things, and consisting of recognisably right-wing people. Even in Denmark, which is so left-wing that the main right-wing party is called "Left" and the centrist liberal party is called "Radical Left", you have a right-wing party full of obviously right-wing people (they stick out like a sore thumb at Liberal International conferences) and with obviously right-wing policies like tax cuts and reduced immigration.

@JarJarJedi is of course correct that it is all over for a specific policy agenda if that political agenda becomes sufficiently unpopular. If you define "right" sufficiently strictly, then it was all over for the right in 1945 (and good riddance). And if @JarJarJedi thinks that Meloni and Farage are insufficiently right-wing to count, then for him it probably was.

conservative parties like the German CDU

They present as "conservative" but from their actions it doesn't seem like they actually are. It looks more like what is called the Uniparty in the US context - parties that pretend to provide alternative solutions but once elected fall back into the same set of policies no matter which label is on them currently.

The point @Tree is making is that functional political parties adjust their positioning in order to chase votes.

Sure, I do not disagree with this. And that's exactly my point - if you instantly add a California-worth of leftist voters, the political parties will have to shift left, or go extinct and be replaced by the left-shifted ones. And if your politics is based on principles and not on whether "our team" or "their team" wins, and your political principles happen to be on the right, then it would be a disaster for you, because no political party - however it would be called - would be willing to adhere to your principles and provide any policies according to them.

then it was all over for the right in 1945

If you mean the German National-Socialist party, calling them "the right" was a propaganda trick in 1930s and will remain so in 2030s. Mentioning them in the broader political context as the valid definition of the whole term raises from a trick to a libelous smear. A behavior one would be ashamed of if there were any decency left, but we all know that ship has sailed long time ago.

And if @JarJarJedi thinks that Meloni and Farage are insufficiently right-wing to count, then for him it probably was.

I never mentioned Farage (for the simple reason that his political power right now is microscopic, 4 seats out of 650?). But I would like to hear in plain speak what you mean by this, because it certainly sounds like you're calling me a Nazi. Which would be nothing new - it is basically a propaganda tick of the left since, again, 1930s, but I'd like a clarification this this particular case - what do you mean by this?

If you mean the German National-Socialist party, calling them "the right" was a propaganda trick in 1930s and will remain so in 2030s.

The German right (in particular the DNVP, the Stahlhelm, Papen's right-wing faction of Zentrum and the clique of conservative aristocrats around Hindenburg) were broadly supportive of the NSDAP and actively enabled Hitler's rise to power. The German left (in particular the SDP) opposed it. I'm happy to admit that the relationship between the NSDAP and the KPD was more complex. But I think "the Nazis were right-wing" had a clear meaning in the context of 1930's Germany and that meaning is obviously correct given who was on which side. If you think you understand the politics of the NSDAP better than the German politicians of its time, then you need a better argument than "there is an S in NSDAP."

Mentioning them in the broader political context as the valid definition of the whole term

My position is that the CDU (and CSU in Bavaria) is "the right" in 21st century Germany. You disagree, and argue that "the right" should correctly refer to some other political tradition which rejects the CDU from a further-right perspective. The reason why no such political tradition has existed in Germany since 1945 is that "the right" in your sense discredited itself by being either proud supporters of or useful idiots for Hitler, and thus contributing to the utter ruination of Germany. It wasn't just Nazism that discredited itself in this way - it was the broader illiberal right including the DNVP, the Chamberlain-Halifax wing of the British Conservative party, throne-and-altar conservatives in Catholic Europe, and the militaristic conservatism of Quisling and Petain.

it certainly sounds like you're calling me a Nazi

I'm not calling you a Nazi - just as I wouldn't call Papen and Hugenberg Nazis, because they weren't. But they both did jail time after WW2 for collaborating with Nazis. I think that you are defining "the right" in a way which means anyone who is a reliable ally against Nazis doesn't qualify. I note that you explicitly endorsed the AfD, a group that was kicked out of the right-populist ID group in the European Parliament after its lead candidate defended the role of the SS in WW2, as an example of what you consider "the right". I think the AfD is lousy with Nazis (it isn't a Nazi party per se), and I think that someone who supports the AfD is sufficiently comfortable working with Nazis that they fall into the broad category of "right-wingers whose approach to politics should have been discredited by events leading up to 1945."

I never mentioned Farage (for the simple reason that his political power right now is microscopic, 4 seats out of 650?)

The proposition we were arguing about is "the right is over". Farage doesn't have power right now, but nobody paying attention to British politics thinks that Reform UK is "over". If you say that "the right is over" in the UK, you are implying that Reform UK isn't right-wing enough for you.

I think that you are defining "the right" in a way which means anyone who is a reliable ally against Nazis doesn't qualify

This is quite misleading - since there aren't any proper right-wing movements available in Germany, except maybe AfD, and AfD can not be a "reliable ally" to any other party due to the consistent policy of those parties to reject any cooperation with it, then it may be vacuously true, but that's exactly my point. Your explanation is "the right you're talking about are essentially Nazis and that's why there's no proper right in Germany" (which btw doesn't explain what happens with the rest of Europe?) - but that's completely untrue. It is possible to have a right-wing movement that does not include Nazis (at least not in any political way - an individual Nazi sympathizer of course can join any movement and it's impossible to prevent it in a free country) - it's just that in Europe there's a distinct lack of such movements that have any power or serious influence on the current politics. And this has nothing to do with Nazis or my definition of the right converging to Nazis (it does not). It's just that the population of Europe seems to be fine with the soft-left policies they are getting. They probably wouldn't be fine with full-scale hard-left communism, but the center of mass for the modern Left is not there, it's more around big-government woke welfare open-borders state with heavily regulated economy, still nominally allowing private ownership but within tightly controlled boundaries (and private speech and political participation within tightly controlled boundaries too). Europeans have the full right to like this package, but that's exactly why I am saying "the right is over" - because there are no serious offering outside this package on the political scene. And no, "that's because you want Nazis" is not a good answer to it - there can be a lot of potential offerings outside this package that do not include Nazis. They are just not available on the European political market.

nobody paying attention to British politics thinks that Reform UK is "over"

They are not "over" as the party still exists, but they don't have any power, so it's not "over" because it never was actually "in". Britain is a bit different case because it does have a functioning conservative party that is not in name only, and sometimes can implement policies - even though in many important aspects, again, there's not much departure from the same package there either.

throne-and-altar conservatives in Catholic Europe

What throne and altar conservatives were discredited by(or indeed relevant in) WWII? The Carlists in Spain probably would have picked Hitler over Churchill but they weren’t a relevant factor(indeed they were a minority party of a neutral power). There were clerical fascists in central Europe who collaborated but that is, literally, a different thing.

I think that someone who supports the AfD is sufficiently comfortable working with Nazis that they fall into the broad category of "right-wingers whose approach to politics should have been discredited by events leading up to 1945."

Do you feel the same way about left wingers who are comfortable working with communists?

Are there any left wingers at all that aren't comfortable working with communists? I mean, a while ago, there were real flaming anti-communists, even among prominent democrats. But among modern prominent democrats - are there any anti-communists at all? Are there any that at least are able to give proper recognition to the crimes committed by communist regimes in the last century and not just treat as "it was long time ago, let's not talk about it"?

The US House of Reps just in 2023 passed the resolution Denouncing the Horrors of Socialism with 109 Dems voting for it (86 against). Last year, the same House passed Crucial Communism Teaching Act which "makes optional educational materials available through the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation to help educate high school students about the dangers of communism and totalitarianism and how those systems are contrary to the founding principles of freedom and democracy in the United States" with even more Dem support.

More comments

Yes.

The trouble with the comparison is that communism is dead as a political force. The handful of self-identified communists are sanctimonious LARPers with no aspirations to power, whereas fascist sympathizers keep surfacing in positions of influence inside right-wing populist movements. The right-populists wants to engage in whataboutism so they don't have to talk about their neo-nazi problem, but there just isn't the kind of symmetry they're looking for. There's no equivalent neo-stalinist movement. The closest you get are pro-palestinian activists, who rather famously don't get along with mainstream left-wing politicians.

More comments

Seemingly no. Just trying to see if this is a general principle or a justification for opposing the ‘far right’.

The entire political spectrum moves left with the new median voter, maintaining equal winning chances. Show goes on.

I hate this attitude to politics (as I have written elsewhere on the web many times). It treats it like modern professional sports, where you pick your "team," and all that you care about is how often your team "wins." It treats "[insert party here] wins elections" as a terminal goal, rather than an instrumental goal.

I do not care that the Republican party would "maintaining equal winning chances" if it has to move leftward to do so. Because what I care about is where we are (and which way we are moving) on the political spectrum. I care about "my party winning" as an instrumental goal, as a means to that end.

"The entire political spectrum moving left" is a long-term loss for the right, regardless of whether or not some body called the "Republican party" wins or loses elections.

It was not a value judgment. Those who keep predicting this upcoming 'permanent democratic party domination' are simply wrong, because of the mechanism I described. I did not say it was not a loss for the right. I understand a lot of you people are chronically depressed pessimistic, but let's keep that black-tinted perspective in focus at least.

Not how politics work. It’s never over.

England has not had significant influence over American politics since, depending on one's accounting, either 1776 or 1812. Likewise, the Romanov dynasty ceased all significant contribution to Russian politics in 1918. The Japanese ended native Japanese Christianity in the 1600s, and it stayed ended for about three centuries. The 101st airborne marched into the south and ended segregation at bayonet-point, and at least that form of it did in fact stay ended right down to the present day.

Sometimes the show does not, in fact, go on. If you've noted that all of these examples involved mass-bloodshed, and most of them involved the sort of mass bloodshed we can't really even attempt to put a smiley-face on, well, that'd be why I'm generally a pessimist.

Eh, we did end up developing the Special Relationship. There’s no country on earth with a better track record of influencing American opinion.

My mid-1800s history is a bit rustier, but I understand slave economics were rather entangled with the British market, since textile industrialization was in full swing. The Confederates were certainly hoping for more direct support from their trade partners.

Sure, but if you graph political influence over time, I'm pretty sure by far the biggest change on the graph is 1776, and everything else is inconsequential. And notably, that's the one you can mostly put a smiley-face on.

In my area of the US, once you get past the jingoism and into discussion, people would be happy with integrating Alberta, Sasketchewan, and the non-Vancouver parts of BC. Manitoba is a maybe, and the territories are might as wells, they wouldn’t get treated like states anyways.

Some kind of integration between Alberta and the USA would be the most likely first step, short of a war where the US just takes the parts it wants and leaves the rest as a rump state.

people would be happy with integrating Alberta, Sasketchewan, and the non-Vancouver parts of BC

The Canadians in those areas say the same, and (as you can see from the election map) have voted accordingly.

The thing about Manitoba is that it's always been quasi-Canadian [Canadian as defined by the East] due to being the last stop into the Prairies (also that thing in the late 1800s when the Metis fought it out with the Upper Canadians); it's also sufficiently French for official language to actually be a concern (and Winnipeg is the westernmost city for which that's true). It could go either way with them, honestly- the fact they're also a resource-poor province on average compared to the rest of the West makes for some unique politics (and is part of why, historically, MB and SK are where the NDP come from).

We'd get a large influx of left-leaning population who are already culturally desensitized to the right's worst nightmares

That's why you don't annex the East first; all the problem people are out there (just like in the US, for that matter).

You want to pull the places that actually care, are actually culturally similar to the US midwest (which the productive, Western parts of Canada very much are), and those that are actually willing to negotiate. Trump could force the East to the table with the tariffs (you'll notice that all the people in the affected areas voted Conservative, and that's not an accident) but the West was already getting interested in some level of sovereignty on its own (permanent disenfranchisement in a rich province will do that).

A Western party, for the most part, cannot win in Canada; that much has been known for the last 150 years. If the West wants to preserve its culture it will need to act.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats