Thread by @sunnshiiny

@SteveRickettsSP Steve. It’s not criticism, but that statement is way too open ended to leave hanging.

Government isn’t an entity unto itself, like a person. The faces, political parties, and most importantly, the ideological basis used to make decisions, changes regularly.

@SteveRickettsSP So it’s impossible to just use the word “government” and leave it undefined.

The belief system behind policy decisions are important to understand. So is the starting point of each new executive branch.

Only then can one begin to assign responsibility for our fiscal reality.

@SteveRickettsSP For example, during a time of crisis or emergency like war or pandemics, deficit spending is required. During WW2 the Canadian government added significantly to its debt load; to pay for weapons, training and the defence of democracy, which was threatened by global fascism.

@SteveRickettsSP That debt was required to ensure 70 years of peace. I don’t think anyone who benefitted from peace in western society has much to complain about the debt that was incurred and carried to this day. As well, many Canadians sacrificed their lives. We all benefitted from sacrifice.

@SteveRickettsSP But since WW2, there has been a battle between several ideologies that have resulted in much increased debt and deficit spending.

The devastation of WW2 spawned modern social democracy. Most western nations embraced a social safety net after 20 years of austerity and war.

@SteveRickettsSP The incredible sacrifice people and nations had made for 20 years was devastating emotionally, physically and economically especially since the Great Depression had also forced many to make necessary sacrifices to survive & merely subsist.

@SteveRickettsSP Europe was in ruins and North American democracies were saddled with huge debts.

Two primary belief systems and a new third belief system existed at the end of WW2 that have been battling it out ever since.

@SteveRickettsSP One belief was that individual citizens were responsible for their own expenses & should not rely on the state for sustenance. The belief supported low taxes, limited federal interference in provincial purview & adherence to social hierarchy that had been established before WW2.

@SteveRickettsSP This belief system supported political power be limited to the top of the hierarchy. To land owners and business elite. Provincial governance was considered paramount to federal regulations and feds just looked after trade and national defence.

That was the conservatives.

@SteveRickettsSP Another party supported liberty over authoritarian control. Fresh out of wartime, Liberals understanding of liberty had shifted. Prior to the war, classic liberalism was a more extreme version of conservatism. Post WW2 shifts in the understanding of personal liberty had changed.

@SteveRickettsSP No longer did liberalism mean rugged individualism and fierce independence. The war and the Great Depression had taught most classic liberals that society was interdependent and all members were required to contribute and care for one another to truly succeed and thrive.

@SteveRickettsSP Needless to say, liberal policies shifted to supporting the interdependence of society to capture the spirit of a nation to focus on rebuilding the economy. Still wedded to capitalism, liberals discovered elite’s prosperity could reach incredible levels with investment in people.

@SteveRickettsSP But a third belief system had emerged in Canada, before the war, which influenced both of the longstanding political belief systems. Socialists had organized and demonstrated that social cohesion and interdependence was beneficial to the whole of society.

@SteveRickettsSP Of course they weren’t successful in convincing the elites, but in provinces with large numbers of subsistence farmers and wage labourers, they had demonstrated great popularity using populist politics. Policies were aimed to share profits amongst those who worked to created it.

@SteveRickettsSP This was revolutionary. A fringe belief prior to WW2 & considered anti-establishment. Marxism was seen as a scourge, authoritarian and the destruction of individual liberty.

But the benefit to productivity was well established by the war. Interdependence was profitable.

@SteveRickettsSP Socialists were the influence on modern democracy that promoted and advanced progressive idealism.

Canada was a conservative nation. Pure socialism never had a chance in Canada at governing post WW2, but socialists had influence. And the war’s social cohesion to build upon.

@SteveRickettsSP So many had sacrificed so much for so long, that social supports seemed plausible, since wartime had demonstrated what working together for everyone’s benefit could do. Socialists across the globe took advantage of that moment in time and the power of a populist narrative.

@SteveRickettsSP Many adopted the beliefs and values, if not the dogmatic principles. Helping one another to survive the war had created much positive consideration for ensuring one’s neighbour’s welfare.

Citizens began to demand supports for vulnerabilities like education, healthcare.

@SteveRickettsSP Pooling resources during the war had created many who saw the value in interdependence. Including liberals who never let an opportunity to profit slide by. Liberals weren’t benevolent defenders of socialism. Rather they harnessed the profitability of investment in the population.

@SteveRickettsSP But that was limited to maintaining the profitability of society from which they most benefitted. Not the population.

Policies were created to take advantage of increased productivity. Not to benevolently share in the profits.

@SteveRickettsSP By investing in public education & healthcare, they built a better workforce for the elites. Increased profits exponentially, even though it created a higher tax burden.

Socialists emotionally appealed to the benefits of social cohesion. Taking advantage of guilt and shame.

@SteveRickettsSP Emotional manipulation is a powerful weapon. Making the suffering of the poor apparent & ever present had increased the appeal of the party and influenced the other 2 parties when in power to develop policies relieving some of the disadvantage of not being a member of the elite.

@SteveRickettsSP There are people who believe their party to be just, courageous and progressive, regardless of the position it holds on the political spectrum. But the ideals that each party is built upon are purely focussed on economics and the level of profits to be made, and who benefits.

@SteveRickettsSP It’s kind of sad how focussed on economics politics really is. Most think it’s about principles, but it isn’t. It’s just about economics.

Beliefs & values we personally assign to political parties are more of a reflection of our own personal beliefs & values, not the party’s.

@SteveRickettsSP But you won’t find any politician letting you know that. Politicians run for a party, but it’s just a banner, not necessarily what the politician personally believes. Your assumptions about what the party stands for is what politicians manipulate to attract votes.

@SteveRickettsSP So while liberals have been come to be known for socially and fiscally balanced policy that attempts to redistribute resources fairly, the policies created are shaped by people with their own personal beliefs that may or may not fit with the party they represent.

@SteveRickettsSP That’s the inconsistency you find in different governments and executive branches. Chrétien and Martin were both more attracted to classic liberal ideals. Profitability for elites with minimal redistribution of wealth to the rest of the population. They did make investments.

@SteveRickettsSP But those investments were to benefit the elite. It is more profitable to have a healthy, well educated workforce. They produce more reliably and effectively. The social supports are meant to sustain the population at a certain level of comfort. But no more.

@SteveRickettsSP Maintaining the balance between need and tax burden of the elite is the focus of blue Liberals or red Tories.

Mulroney was a conservative. Low taxes & support for industry and business elites was his focus. Though his time in office produced a few scandals & exposed corruption.

@SteveRickettsSP Conservatives also recognized the benefits of investing in the population. They became progressive conservatives vs the Tory identity of pre WW2.

That’s why there is so little variance we witnessed between PC’s and Liberals since the mid 1980’s.

@SteveRickettsSP They basically offered the same policies. Variances were due to individual character traits of the leaders and what their preference was for wealth redistribution.

But Pierre & Justin Trudeau are red liberals. They tend to have personal beliefs more aligned with social needs.

@SteveRickettsSP More investment in the population not only brings increased wealth for elites, it also provides more opportunity for social and economic mobility of the population.

But elites don’t like it as much because it means higher taxes for them. Profits are still large, but not huge.

@SteveRickettsSP Red liberals are what most pro liberal supporters believe the party represents. But, Liberals have a big tent. It is large to accommodate the variance of belief in the investment in workers.

@SteveRickettsSP Some lean left to maximize the benefits to the public and individual citizens. Some lean right to minimize taxes and maximize profits for the elite.

Both Trudeau’s lean left. Mulroney, Chretien, Martin lean right.

@SteveRickettsSP That’s the ideological battle that has been waged since WW2. Flipping back and forth between policies that maximize benefits to elites or the rest of Canada’s citizenry. The variance is minimal. NDP influenced red liberals. Hardline conservatives influenced PC’s & blue liberals.

@SteveRickettsSP But that all changed in the mid 1980’s when classic liberals, those unconvinced investing in the public was any benefit to their profits and power started the Reform party. That’s the meaning of reform. The party was created to remove the investments in the Canadian public.

@SteveRickettsSP Because classic liberals (also known as religious far right libertarians) do NOT believe in a social safety net and want to return to pre WW2 classic liberalism where individuals are on their own and the state is not responsible for their welfare. Basically dog eat dog society.

@SteveRickettsSP Jason Kenney and Preston Manning were leaders of the Reform Party of the mid 1980’s. Eventually Reform morphed into the Canadian Reform Alliance Party. They appealed to hardline conservatives, Dominionist Christians & nationalists to expand the base of the Reform movement.

@SteveRickettsSP These were the citizens that were unhappy with many of the society level changes social democracy had created, and felt increasingly encroached upon by politically active, highly educated and healthy citizens who were not part of the elite.

They felt threatened.

@SteveRickettsSP CRAP felt threatened by the social mobility, pluralism and wealth redistribution that social democracy had fostered. Stockwell Day and Steven Harper were leaders of the expanded movement. Both are devout evangelical Christians with white Christian nationalist beliefs.

@SteveRickettsSP So that’s who Harper, Kenney, Manning and Day represent. The part of the population that represents the elite wealthy, elite corporate power base, white Christian nationalism.

Their target. Remove social democracy because they are ideologically opposed to taxes helping others.

@SteveRickettsSP Peter MacKay was leader of the Progressive Conservatives in 2003. He made a pact with Stephen Harper to merge the parties. MacKay was always a hardline Conservative. But to defeat modern liberals, it was essential to unite all on the right and to commandeer the brand.

@SteveRickettsSP That’s Canadian politics in a nutshell.

So knowing who made the decision to expand the deficit and which ideological base those policies originated from and the state of the budget, the economy and the cuts and deficit inherited are essential to judge whether Canada messes up.

@SteveRickettsSP It’s also required to assign responsibility for the state of our fiscal resiliency and ability to respond to this disaster.

I truly agree, Kenney is an ideologue and intent on removing social democracy. PM Trudeau inherited a weakened Canada.

@SteveRickettsSP In order to orchestrate the removal of social democracy, the collapse of the economy is required.

Why?

To remove the wealth accumulated by non elites since WW2 and the investments in the middle class and transfer it back to the wealthy and business elites.

@SteveRickettsSP This has been the plan since the Reform Party was created. Making this a 35 year conspiracy in Canada to remove democracy.

The conspiracy is much older. Globally classic liberals want to return to pre WW2 society. Not 1950, more like 1890.

@SteveRickettsSP Which is why Canadian cons revere John A Macdonald. He was a classic liberal, a paleolibertarian. A consequentialist libertarian, a white nationalist, a Christian extremist (compared to modern standards).

Classic liberalism is the foundational belief system to fascism.

@SteveRickettsSP Where did fascists of the 20th century get their inspiration? Southern US classic liberalism. That was Hitler’s inspiration for Mein Kampf. His manifesto.

What was the reason Southern US classic liberals went to war with the more moderate Republicans? Economics.

@SteveRickettsSP Banning slavery meant significant losses to profits for South US land owners. It was a radical departure from the idealized libertarian society the elites had established.

The elite had no limits to their power. They operated with impunity excusing it by claiming divine right.

@SteveRickettsSP That’s what classic liberalism represents. Slavery, hierarchy, landowners political power. Everyone else is subservient. Strict adherence to Christian faith and acceptance of the order that restricts all citizens to and their liberty of free men to act within that realm.

@SteveRickettsSP That’s Ordered Liberty.

That’s what the current iteration of federal and many provincial conservative parties offer, work towards and represent.

Now that we have the same facts available, we can discuss who screwed up the Canadian economy and its resiliency.

@SteveRickettsSP @threader_app compile

@SteveRickettsSP @threader_app compile please