ALMOST EVERY DAY, I hear someone talk about how terrible things are right now. Whether itās the crushing cost of housing, the escalating climate crisis, misinformation and rabid disinformation, the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, or the humanitarian crisis in Gazaāthe list is endless. Older family members on both sides of the CanadaāUS border shake their heads and make comments about how terrifying and screwed up their country is. My ninety-two-year-old great aunt has said sheās glad she wonāt be around much longer, while others in their seventies have put it more bluntly: itās a good time to die. These are off-the-cuff statements, but they always leave me with a sinking feeling.
These days, whatās considered terrible is often a point of contention. What I think is terrible about our current situation isnāt necessarily what others think, nor do we agree on who or what can rectify it. And yet, across the political spectrum, across demographics and borders, thereās a palpable sense that things are broken and we need real changeāfast. Itās as if critical aspects of the world we thought we lived in have finally started to crumble. Chronic instability is at the heart of it, the recognition that weāre living through a turbulent time in history.
This desire for change is one reason why calls for US president Joe Biden and Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to not seek re-election feel so similar, though there are major differences between the two. Bidenās biggest liability is his age. At eighty-one, heās part of the so-called Silent Generation, while Trudeau is quintessentially Gen X. Bidenās only been president since 2021, but he was vice president from 2009 to 2017, under Barack Obama. Trudeauās been leading this country since 2015.
But both Biden and Trudeau embody an ethos and vision that are in stark contrast to the reality weāre facing. Both display a breathtaking confidence in their political prospects that borders on entitlement, as well as an inability to meaningfully address the severity of our current polycrisis. In Bidenās interview with ABC News on July 5, an interview that was supposed to calm nerves after his catastrophic appearance in the first presidential debate, Biden rejected any claims of pessimism. The New York Times called it āan exercise not just in damage control but in reality control.ā Trudeau and his inner circle have similarly dismissed the storm brewing, especially after the recent by-election loss to the Conservatives in Toronto-St. Paulās, previously a safe Liberal riding. As investigative journalist Justin Ling put it in an article for this publication, āif this government hopes to heal itself, Trudeau himself will need to appreciateānot explain away, or deflect, or tamp downāthe anger that people are feeling.ā
Ok. Please describe what you believe āliberalā means in this context.
itās shorthand for neoliberalism and hereās a wiki article on it.
tldr:
Thank you.
Please use neo-liberal in future comments instead of the vague āliberalā.
To me āneoliberalā implies something more strongly and consciously right-leaning than āliberalā, which includes all the wishy-washy centrists who think a little bit of tinkering around the edges and an appeal to decency and fairness can fix the problems of capitalism, without ever recognizing them as basic features of capitalism itself. So thereās a purpose to using the term āliberalā: itās broader, and includes ideological neoliberals as well as those who think theyāre leftish but actually cooperate with and facilitate all the exploitation around us.
How can you say ā¦
the contradict yourself with ā¦
???