06.03.2016 10:46 PM

The Adler-Kinsella Show: when is the personal political public?



1 Comment

  1. Francis says:

    Just some thoughts on some of the stuff discussed in the podcast:

    1) “Donald Trump has got a lock on the racist votes” — well, yeah. That was pretty obvious a year ago when Tea Party supporters who are predominantly white, started coalescing around the one guy who explicitly scapegoated Mexicans right off the bat. There was no coded language from Trump and no pussy footing around his nativism and that made his camp the perfect parking spot for the abundant racists of America. Its also why the most obvious thread of similarity between Trump supporters seem to be an affinity for a man who says whats on his mind, i.e. what they can’t say themselves.

    2) Adler mentioned minorities other than Muslims and Mexicans that hate Trump and he couldn’t be more accurate. Its the thought that “today its them, tomorrow its us” that permeates through many of America’s minority groups. This is something Trump will never overcome no matter how hard he tries. He will have to dance with the crowd that brought him and that means a continuation of the extreme rhetoric on the “M & Ms”.

    3) Regarding Liberal party fees: I too think its a mistake and I know for a fact that this is exactly the sort of thing that causes shit-storms to brew in particular ridings where sabotage had already been prevalent. It opens the door to a lot of sketchy business with nominations within ridings and I hope the Liberal party is prepared for a whole lot of chaos come 2019. Its different when no one wants to run for your party, but now that the Liberals are in government with such popularity they’ll get a larger share of bad apples.

    On the plus side though, I’ve heard that there are going to be changes to the weight given to memberships in order to compensate for the “doors wide open” approach and changes to incumbency nominations to avoid malicious coups. We’ll have to see if they implement them or if they even work or not. Still, big risk IMO.

    4) Regarding Stephane Dion: Unless the Chinese diplomat started hurling profanities, Dion has no business stepping in and protecting any journalist. To that matter, no politician should ever be expected to stand up for a journalist in situations where the journalists are asking questions that are intended to dig deeper than the politician is willing to answer. Journalists are tough people (ex. Earl Cowan) and can take a tongue lashing or two if it means doing their job. The fact that the Chinese diplomat responded in such a manner should have sparked a story about how touchy the Chinese are on human rights — not how Dion should have responded. Defending journalists like this sets a nonsensical precedent; on one hand, the relationship between journalists and politicians is inquisitorial at best and on the other hand politicians are expected to act as their guardians when someone responds to questions from the media. Its a distanced, but respectful relationship. I wouldn’t expect a journalist to defend a politician if a foreign diplomat insulted them during a presser, so the vice versa shouldn’t be expected either.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*