Harper interview on the woke left and china

[Argus]

Harper has been largely silent since leaving office. The other day he did an interview for a vlog. He looks much more comfortable in this interview than back when he was PM. He's much more animated and human in his speech and gestures. He also warns about overspending leading to inflation, and about China's growing totalitarianism. 

In a rare and uniquely candid interview, former prime minister Stephen Harper warned of a “nihilist” modern left bent on “ripping everything down” and seeking to “end the democratic system.”

I don't think the woke left knows exactly what it wants, except perfection, but it's very much a believer that the ends justify any means. So I can see it restricting democracy if it felt that was standing in the way of perfect equity. I mean, too many white men being elected? Can't have that! Have to make new laws and rules for who can run! Maybe even mandate that a certain number of MPs be women and people of various shades of colour.

After witnessing China assume direct control of Hong Kong in 2020, Harper said he now believes there is a risk that Beijing may eventually try to take Taiwan by force. “Ten years ago I would have said the chances of that happening are zero, I no longer think that’s the case,” he said.

I would agree with him on this. I don't think it's in China's interests to attack Taiwan but I don't think they necessarily care.

https://nationalpost.com/news/its-ethics-are-entirely-nihilist-stephen-harper-slams-woke-left-in-rare-interview

 

Edited July 30, 2021 by Argus

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Harper has been largely silent since leaving office. The other day he did an interview for a vlog. He looks much more comfortable in this interview than back when he was PM. He's much more animated and human in his speech and gestures. He also warns about overspending leading to inflation, and about China's growing totalitarianism. 

In a rare and uniquely candid interview, former prime minister Stephen Harper warned of a “nihilist” modern left bent on “ripping everything down” and seeking to “end the democratic system.”

I don't think the woke left knows exactly what it wants, except perfection, but it's very much a believer that the ends justify any means. So I can see it restricting democracy if it felt that was standing in the way of perfect equity. I mean, too many white men being elected? Can't have that! Have to make new laws and rules for who can run! Maybe even mandate that a certain number of MPs be women and people of various shades of colour.

After witnessing China assume direct control of Hong Kong in 2020, Harper said he now believes there is a risk that Beijing may eventually try to take Taiwan by force. “Ten years ago I would have said the chances of that happening are zero, I no longer think that’s the case,” he said.

I would agree with him on this. I don't think it's in China's interests to attack Taiwan but I don't think they necessarily care.

https://nationalpost.com/news/its-ethics-are-entirely-nihilist-stephen-harper-slams-woke-left-in-rare-interview

 

The woke council in Duncan, B.C. just decided to end the job of the town crier because of "historic injustices".  Also recently a landmark cross had been torn down from a hill in the area.

I think former PM Harper said he doesn't follow politics in Canada much because it is too disturbing.  I can see that.

Edited July 31, 2021 by blackbird

[Nefarious Banana]

Chicken-shit council. 

 

[Zeitgeist]

I genuinely worry that modern civilization has peaked because I’m not sure we’ll have it as good again as we had it in Canada and much of the West around the period Harper was PM.   However, I also remember feeling this way about the Bill Clinton years after 9/11.  This hard period, I hope, shall too pass.  I hope that our future isn’t an unrelenting chain of crises like Covid.  I think it’s our duty to ensure that freedom and the prosperous liberal-democratic society that generations fought hard to build isn’t destroyed by radical, ignorant self-proclaimed “activists”.   Harper is right to call out the threat.  Canadians and their governments need to get real about what matters or we really could lose what most humans value.  

[Zeitgeist]

16 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Chicken-shit council. 

 

Talk about “cultural genocide”...

[QuebecOverCanada]

12 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I genuinely worry that modern civilization has peaked because I’m not sure we’ll have it as good again as we had it in Canada and much of the West around the period Harper was PM.   However, I also remember feeling this way about the Bill Clinton years after 9/11.  This hard period, I hope, shall too pass.  I hope that our future isn’t an unrelenting chain of crises like Covid.  I think it’s our duty to ensure that freedom and the prosperous liberal-democratic society that generations fought hard to build isn’t destroyed by radical, ignorant self-proclaimed “activists”.   Harper is right to call out the threat.  Canadians and their governments need to get real about what matters or we really could lose what most humans value.  

Don't worry. The threat is way overblown and we managed through tougher times. Just like 9/11, crises happen not because of exterior threats but because of internal panic. When everything settles down with the virus, things are going to get much clearer. I don't believe in doom at all.

[Shady]

It’s sad that we’ve gone from a true statesman, that other countries respected, to such a laughingstock of man-child as PM.

[Argus]

Other countries don't seem to have the same thought that once a PM loses they're out of politics for good. We've seen former PMs and presidents come back to run and win again. Why not in Canada? I mean, it's O'Toole's to win or lose and I expect him to lose. But after he loses why not replace him with Harper? Who else do they have who is likely to be as capable?

[Nefarious Banana]

1 hour ago, Shady said:

It’s sad that we’ve gone from a true statesman, that other countries respected, to such a laughingstock of man-child as PM.

It's truly embarrassing to be a Canadian at this time.  

[August1991]

It was a wonderful interview/podcast.

Two points:

1. He's not electable. (I'm amazed that he even got his majority in 2011.)

2. His change of opinion on sovereign debt in America: Republicans only care about reducing taxes and Democrats only care about spending more.

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by August1991

[Argus]

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

It was a wonderful interview/podcast.

Two points:

1. He's not electable. (I'm amazed that he even got his majority in 2011.)

What makes you think he's less electable than O'Toole?

[August1991]

On 8/1/2021 at 12:49 PM, Argus said:

What makes you think he's less electable than O'Toole?

Harper doesn't connect.

Sorry Argus, I don't know how else to say it.

=====

I was watching a (bad) documentary of Bourassa recently. Imagine: utterly defeated in 1976, re-elected in 1985.

Never connected.

Mulroney, somehow connected.

=====

Levesque and Trudeau always connected. Trust me, I always enjoyed a Trudeau/Levesque press conference/interview.

As I say, unlike Harper, they connected.

Edited August 4, 2021 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, August1991 said:

Harper doesn't connect.

Sorry Argus, I don't know how else to say it.

That is the one type of political observation that is deeply subjective.  I see pluses and minuses in Harper but I wouldn't care to project my personal impressions of him on the electorate. 

For one thing, the electorate is less homogenous and therefore less knowable than it ever was.  

For another, he won three elections.

[Shady]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That is the one type of political observation that is deeply subjective.  I see pluses and minuses in Harper but I wouldn't care to project my personal impressions of him on the electorate. 

For one thing, the electorate is less homogenous and therefore less knowable than it ever was.  

For another, he won three elections.

I tend to agree.  But I also get some of the Harper doesn’t connect observations too.  He reminds me a little of Mitt Romney.  Harper is a bit of a cold fish.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Shady said:

I tend to agree.  But I also get some of the Harper doesn’t connect observations too.  He reminds me a little of Mitt Romney.  Harper is a bit of a cold fish.

Yes, he was. That's what I found interesting about the interview, because he wasn't there. Maybe because he wasn't on his guard, wary of traps and misquotes.

Edited August 4, 2021 by Argus

[Army Guy]

9 hours ago, Shady said:

I tend to agree.  But I also get some of the Harper doesn’t connect observations too.  He reminds me a little of Mitt Romney.  Harper is a bit of a cold fish.

Nothing left but cold fish...

[August1991]

On 8/4/2021 at 10:22 AM, Shady said:

I tend to agree.  But I also get some of the Harper doesn’t connect observations too.  He reminds me a little of Mitt Romney.  Harper is a bit of a cold fish.

Agree that Harper reminds me of Romney, because they don't connect.

But Harper recently made a good point about the US:

a) The Republicans don't want to raise taxes - but don't care about spending.

b) The Democrats want to increase spending - but don't care about taxes.

As much as I admire the US and the American ability to solve problems, this is not sustainable.

=====

Trudeau Snr connected with Quebecers. Levesque too. It's both good and terrifying.

Nowadays, American kids only have Obama. 

 

[August1991]

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by August1991

[Argus]

On 8/4/2021 at 8:13 PM, Army Guy said:

Nothing left but cold fish...

That seems to be the only thing the media tolerates. Anyone with personality, who might show amusement at the wrong time, or say something insulting of offensive or abrasive or tell a joke which hasn't been cleared through the spin doctors presents an opportunity to express shock and outrage and force them to apologize for their insensitivity. And if the media isn't shocked or outraged well, they can certainly find someone who is.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Argus

[Shady]

11 hours ago, August1991 said:

Agree that Harper reminds me of Romney, because they don't connect.

But Harper recently made a good point about the US:

a) The Republicans don't want to raise taxes - but don't care about spending.

b) The Democrats want to increase spending - but don't care about taxes.

As much as I admire the US and the American ability to solve problems, this is not sustainable.

=====

Trudeau Snr connected with Quebecers. Levesque too. It's both good and terrifying.

Nowadays, American kids only have Obama. 

 

I agree.  There needs to be a president willing to sacrifice the chance at a second term to broker a deal that raises taxes but caps spending.

[Argus]

7 hours ago, Shady said:

I agree.  There needs to be a president willing to sacrifice the chance at a second term to broker a deal that raises taxes but caps spending.

I don't think the Republicans are interested in any deals like that. They are owned by big money lobbyists who mostly just want one thing from them - lower taxes. And with gerrmymandered districts Republican congressmen have little fear of not being re-elected. The re-election rate for congress was 95% last election. If they vote for higher taxes for any reason the money men will sponsor a primary challenger to accuse them of cooperating with the enemy.

 

[Shady]

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

I don't think the Republicans are interested in any deals like that. They are owned by big money lobbyists who mostly just want one thing from them - lower taxes. And with gerrmymandered districts Republican congressmen have little fear of not being re-elected. The re-election rate for congress was 95% last election. If they vote for higher taxes for any reason the money men will sponsor a primary challenger to accuse them of cooperating with the enemy.

 

Partially right, but none of the big money lobbyists on the Democrats side don’t want to see any meaningful spending limits.  And Democrats gerrymander in blue states the same way Republicans do in red states.  The last president that agreed to tax increases in exchange for spending cuts was George H. W. Bush in 1990.  Taxes were raised, but Democrats didn’t give him the promised spending cuts, AND used his tax hike against him in the 1992 presidential election.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, Shady said:

Partially right, but none of the big money lobbyists on the Democrats side don’t want to see any meaningful spending limits.  And Democrats gerrymander in blue states the same way Republicans do in red states.  The last president that agreed to tax increases in exchange for spending cuts was George H. W. Bush in 1990.  Taxes were raised, but Democrats didn’t give him the promised spending cuts, AND used his tax hike against him in the 1992 presidential election.

The nature of these parties draws different kinds of moneymen and lobbyists. Obviously those interested in lower taxes and less government regulation are going to put more money into the Republicans. The Democrat moneymen tend to be more interested in influencing government contracts and regulations, rather than eliminating them. 

The issue of spending cuts is always hampered by the different constituencies of the two parties. The Republicans want money that goes to the cities cut, things like federal aid for subways and airport renovation. They want social welfare programs cut. They are adamant, however, on not cutting money to farm support programs and agricultural subsidies, even the dumber ones, the military (historically) and anything else which primarily affects more rural areas. 

The US can't cut its way out of this. They need to raise taxes. And the Republican mantra last time around was not one more dime in taxes and I don't think that's changed. I doubt most people who vote Republican would care if they raised taxes on the wealthiest, or on corporations which pay little or no tax, but that's not going to happen.

 

[Shady]

20 minutes ago, Argus said:

The nature of these parties draws different kinds of moneymen and lobbyists. Obviously those interested in lower taxes and less government regulation are going to put more money into the Republicans. The Democrat moneymen tend to be more interested in influencing government contracts and regulations, rather than eliminating them. 

The issue of spending cuts is always hampered by the different constituencies of the two parties. The Republicans want money that goes to the cities cut, things like federal aid for subways and airport renovation. They want social welfare programs cut. They are adamant, however, on not cutting money to farm support programs and agricultural subsidies, even the dumber ones, the military (historically) and anything else which primarily affects more rural areas. 

The US can't cut its way out of this. They need to raise taxes. And the Republican mantra last time around was not one more dime in taxes and I don't think that's changed. I doubt most people who vote Republican would care if they raised taxes on the wealthiest, or on corporations which pay little or no tax, but that's not going to happen.

 

That’s not entirely true.  Big business has given more to Democrats than Republicans over the last several years, beginning with Obama, especially Wall Street and the big banks, as well as all of Silicon Valley.  The U.S. doesn’t have to cut to set things on a sustainable path.  Just capping spending at inflation + 5% would work wonders with an increase in revenue.  Also the federal government needs to stop using baseline budgeting as it’s default position.  It just encourages departments to spend more money than they might need to.  And regardless, discretionary spending makes up a tiny percentage of the budget.  The biggest expenditures are non-discretionary spending.  Medicare and Medicaid are #1 and #2, military spending is #3 and continues to drop as a percentage of GDP.  And btw, it’s Biden that has significantly increased the military budget.  Apparently he didn’t think Trumps budgets were high enough.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I doubt Harper would want to lead the party in opposition again. In his last campaign, which he foolishly lengthened, he looked tired up against JT and he’d be over 65 before he’d get a chance to be PM. As a private citizen he can express what he really thinks which is to the right of how he governed. Three terms is enough for anybody,