The Danger Of Jagmeet Singh’s Ignorant & Negative Populism

The NDP Leader picks the wrong targets for criticism, and proposes ‘ideas’ that will only make things worse.

Amid all the talk about ‘populism’, there has been little discussion on the fact that populism comes in many different forms.

It can be well informed, or it can be ignorant.

It can focus righteous public anger on those who are actually responsible for damaging the economy, or it can focus on the wrong targets.

It can offer real solutions, or it can offer ideas that will make things worse.

Populism is energy

Just like pent up energy, populism can be helpful, or harmful.

For example, when we are angry, that anger can be a useful guide that something is wrong, and can help motivate us to change. Anger can also be a negative, and can cause more damage when misdirected.

When a politician harnesses that energy, the question to ask is whether they are doing so in a positive or negative manner.

Pierre Poilievre is harnessing the energy in a positive way, focusing criticism where it belongs: with the powerful politicians and institutions who have implemented the policies that have hurt so many Canadians.

Poilievre is also offering legitimate solutions to the challenges facing many Canadians, as fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, removal of the carbon tax, a return to sound money, and more economic and personal freedom are all proven to increase prosperity, lower inflation, and make life more affordable.

That is all positive.

Jagmeet Singh’s negative populism

By contrast, Jagmeet Singh is offering negative populism.

With many Canadians struggling and justifiably angry at the Liberal government and institutions, Singh has chosen to appeal to ignorance and blame ‘the rich’.

Here is how the NDP is framing the rise in prices:

“In times of crisis, there are always winners and losers.

And unfortunately, because of the rigged system created by the Liberals and Conservatives, it is always those at the top who line their pockets, while you and your family struggle to keep up.

When we see the price of groceries and gasoline skyrocket, there is someone who benefits from this increase, and it’s not you. It’s the big oil and big grocery companies that are making record profits.

The government has a role to play in balancing the scales, but the Liberals continue to protect the profits of big business.

We can make different choices that help regular families get ahead.

Join us in calling on Justin Trudeau’s Liberals to tax the excess profits of these companies and redistribute the funds to Canadians who need help to get by.”

Notice how Jagmeet Singh manages to ignore the role of massive federal spending (which he thinks should go up even more), and completely ignores the Bank of Canada.

Singh is unwilling to admit that his ideology – spend, tax, spend, tax, then spend and tax some more – is a key cause of surging inflation.

Instead of an honest appraisal of the situation, Singh hopes to generate anger against the rich, and implement socialist wealth redistribution.

Will Jagmeet Singh be the one to decide how much profit is ‘too much’?

And what will he say if his policies are implemented, and those new taxes are – inevitably – passed on to Canadians through even higher levels of inflation?

Positive or negative populism?

Jagmeet Singh isn’t alone in promoting negative populism.

Justin Trudeau was glad to make ‘appeals to the majority’ when he demonized unvaccinated Canadians in order to try and win the last election.

Trudeau is still doing so, as he ‘justifies’ ongoing mandates as acceptable because most Canadians are vaccinated.

The combination of Trudeau’s divisive appeals to the majority and Singh’s attempt to blame the rich for government-caused inflation are examples of negative populism, contrasted with the positive populism of Pierre Poilievre.

Thus, the choice of direction for Canadians becomes more and more clear.

Spencer Fernando

[widget id="top-posts-5"]