What Happened to Spencer Fernando

While I have previously discussed my shift away from an aggressively populist mindset, I still see people responding to my work with surprise and asking, “What happened to Spencer?” Further, since my initial shift began, there are new people reading my work (you may be one of them), who may see it as incongruent with what I wrote in the past.

And so, this post will serve to expand on why I have changed:

Trump vs the Truth

A large portion of the populist influencer ecosystem is built around fealty to Donald Trump. This is true even in Canada, as evidenced by the fact that many Canadian right-wing influencers now reflexively cheer for Trump’s tariffs and cheer against Canada’s interests. This is certainly lucrative for them, as pro-Trump content brings in a large amount of views, but it requires choosing to put loyalty to Trump above loyalty to the truth.

I refuse to do that. No politician should be given the kind of cult-like devotion many exhibit towards Trump, and it’s even more absurd to give that devotion when you are a Canadian, and Trump is launching economic assaults on Canada based on falsehoods about trade deficits and a constantly shifting range of issues.

Being in the right-wing populist ecosystem now often means surrendering your own sense of power and agency to whatever Trump says or does. For those who prided themselves on their ‘independence,’ giving your power to someone like that is the least independent thing you could do.

Dangerous trends on the right

Despite peddling in dangerous and fact-free revisionism regarding the Second World War and shifting into what looks like barely-concealed antisemitism, Tucker Carlson has continued to gain influence on the right. Some Canadian right-wing influencers are still sharing and reposting Carlson’s recent statements, long after it became clear which direction he and his followers are going.

Alongside the increasing embrace of unfettered prejudice and gleeful cruelty among some on the populist right, it is clear that elements of the movement are now focused on entrenching authoritarianism, destroying the idea of truth, and governing through fear and hate-based rhetoric. Not only do some of them seem to have learned nothing from the horrific suffering caused by fascism, but they also openly side with fascist regimes like Russia.

As a result, years of rhetoric about ‘freedom’ and ‘opposing tyranny’ now look like an epic bait-and-switch. It seems that what some want is the ‘freedom’ to oppress others, and their opposition to tyranny isn’t an opposition to tyranny as a concept, but rather an expression of their anger that they aren’t the ones in charge of directing tyrannical power against those they see as below them.

I will not be a part of that.

The stakes are higher

Extremely negative political rhetoric undermines public confidence. And while that undermining is sometimes justified, we all have a choice as to whether we perpetuate divisive narratives or try to focus more on solutions. A divided public is a luxury we can get away with when times are good. But now, with a large-scale war becoming more likely, and with Canada’s sovereignty under pressure, I feel it is important to use what influence I have to try to build trust, rather than undermine it.

Of course, this doesn’t mean giving the government a blank check, nor does it mean the government should be exempt from criticism. Criticizing the government is an essential part of the democratic system. What I’m saying is that there is a big difference between saying a politician is a traitor who is part of a conspiracy to destroy a nation and pointing out how a certain tax or spending plan could have detrimental effects. I am aiming for more of the latter kind of criticism.

Further, because our nation is increasingly being undermined by narratives emerging from those who wish us ill – annexationists, Russian, Chinese, Iranian regime propagandists – I am more mindful of the responsibility those of us with a decently large following have to not feed into narratives designed to rip Canada apart.

I now take that responsibility seriously.

Partisanship vs reality

As I see it, Mark Carney is clearly a much different leader than Justin Trudeau. To pretend otherwise would be to deny the obvious and would amount to putting partisanship above reality. Carney also governs the country at a time when Canada faces severe threats. While that doesn’t mean he should get a free pass, it also means that criticism should be fact-based, rather than based on false narratives designed to gin up outrage – outrage that can then be leveraged by malign actors to weaken the country. Frankly, Carney’s initial moves are largely in line with what many centrist and centre-right Canadians wanted to see, so pretending to be outraged by those moves when I am not outraged would be performative and dishonest. As I see it, true independence means assessing reality as it is, not inventing an alternate reality to fit pre-arranged partisan narratives.

Why not join the left?

Amid my criticism of the populist right, you may wonder why I don’t just become a left-winger. The answer is that the populist left is just as extreme and just as dangerous as the populist right. Look at the current federal NDP leadership race, where leadership candidate Yves Engler holds views on NATO that are reminiscent of Tucker Carlson – including claiming Russia’s war against Ukraine is a NATO “proxy war with Russia.” The proliferation of anti-NATO narratives on the far-right and far-left, alongside the embrace of anti-semitism by both factions, underscores the relevance of ‘horseshoe theory’, and is something I wish to have no part of.

Aggressive moderation

The 20th century tested three ways of organizing large groups of human beings. Liberal democracy, fascism, and communism. Liberal democracy emerged as the obvious winner, with fascism collapsing after unleashing a genocidal war of aggression, and communism collapsing under the weight of its economically illiterate program.

Liberal democratic societies are the most prosperous and the freest, and there is no credible alternative. This is in large part because liberal democracy itself is a highly adaptive system, able to shift to the right or the left as necessary, and always holding within itself the possibility of renewal through economic competition and the democratic process.

While the centre-left, centre-right, and centre all still defend this system, it is now clearly under attack by the far-right and the far-left. The worship of leaders as cult figures, the surge of racial prejudice, the open siding with authoritarian regimes, the embrace of antisemitism, attacks on women’s rights, a focus on wealth redistribution above wealth creation, a rapid decline in the quality of debate and communication, and a rejection of expertise, all indicate a society going backwards, and are all now endemic on the far-left and far-right.

As I watch this happen, I want to be part of helping to protect and renew the liberal democratic system, rather than undermining it. We are all lucky to live in a country built on a highly successful economic and political system, and it would be disastrous if we were to let short-term struggles (which are quite real for many people) be twisted into the undermining and eventual destruction of the system itself.

Those who oppose liberal democracy (or democratic capitalism if you prefer to word it that way) are often reluctant to explain what they want to replace it, since the replacement is generally some form of fascism or communism simply disguised in a more saleable package.

To counter those who want to tear apart the liberal democratic system, we need ‘aggressive moderation,’ people who have centre-left, centrist, or centre-right views, who agree on the broad importance of a relatively free market tempered by some form of social welfare, freedom of expression without empowering hostile propagandists, and democratic elections that are fairly conducted and respected by the winners and the losers, while also being willing to speak out with strength against the extremes on the far-left and the far-right.

What kind of impact do you want to have on the world?

Ultimately, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the impact I want to have on the world. I looked at some of the things I said, and the way I said them, and concluded that my contribution was veering towards the net negative, rather than the net positive. Since that is not what I wish my legacy to be, I have sought to make some changes, which are now reflected in my more reasonable writing style and my attempt to counter the extremes, rather than empowering them. This doesn’t mean I will always get it right, but it does mean I will consistently strive to have a positive impact.

And for those who think this change is about money, I can assure you that this new course is dramatically less lucrative than what I was doing before. In fact, it has been quite a struggle from a financial perspective. There is far more money to be made online in rage-bait content and fake outrage generation than there is in nuance or opposition to extremist narratives. I have empathy for those who find themselves trapped producing that kind of content, as escaping and changing direction comes at a significant financial cost. But for me, that cost is worth paying.

Whether you agree with my new direction or not, I hope this helps explain why I have changed.

Spencer Fernando