Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

The majority of voters have moved on from legacy media and legacy narratives

Published

12 minute read

From EnergyNow.ca

By Margareta Dovgal 

A Wake-Up Call for Political Strategists Across the Continent

For only the second time in US history, a president has lost, left office, and won re-election. For most Canadians watching the US election, the news of Donald Trump’s impending return to the White House comes with some degree of disappointment – and confusion.

Rather than getting caught up in doomsaying as there’s enough of that going around, I wanted to share some thoughts on what I would hope Canadians working in and around politics and policy come away with.

Speaking to the heart shouldn’t neglect speaking to the wallet

Biden probably should have resigned sooner, and Harris should have gone through a competitive primary race before carrying the flag. Hindsight is 20/20, and I doubt that the Democrats will make those same mistakes twice.

What I do suspect will be harder to shake is the commitment to running campaigns on social issues alone. The Democrats made the gamble that reproductive rights were a persuasive enough ballot box question to distract from Joe Biden’s lacklustre economic performance.

The clear majority of voters showed that they are more concerned with their job security, housing affordability, and tax bills.

The Democrats now have an opportunity to realign with the concerns of working Americans, recognizing that economic anxieties cannot be overlooked. A robust economic approach doesn’t preclude a moderate and fair social approach, but the latter can’t replace the former.

In Canada, this holds true for our discussions around energy and resources. I’m seeing a very similar disconnect play out on resource policy. Patently bad policies with horrible economic impacts are being advanced at all levels by governments more concerned with virtue signalling than ensuring robust economic performance – the federal Emissions Cap and the fantastical ambitions of David Eby’s CleanBC program among them.

Pre-pandemic, vibes-based economic policy seemed to work. In times of plenty, it is easy to persuade voters that taking economic hits is the right thing to do — after all, why worry about the price of something if you can afford it? Anyone still trying that in 2024 has lost the plot.

Affordability remains a paramount issue for many citizens, and the U.S. election highlighted how campaigns that overlook economic concerns and the declining quality of life risk alienating voters.

From groceries to gas prices, the rising cost of living is top of mind for Canadians, and resource policies must reflect this reality. For instance, a balanced approach to energy production can help keep costs reasonable while supporting Canadian jobs and industries.

It’s a reminder that beyond political credibility or mainstream appeal, policies that directly address financial challenges resonate most with the electorate.

For the resource sector, this means recognizing how affordable energy, resilient supply chains, and robust employment opportunities are interconnected with national policy priorities.

Truth and gatekeeping

The gamesmanship over who holds the authority to define “truth” continues in earnest, and engaging in it by discounting mass popular narratives is a risky gambit for any political movement that seeks to maintain widespread relevance.

We’re seeing a generational change, not just in the US but globally, on how people consume and produce media.

I would argue that Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter was the edge that Trump needed in this new era. Millions of Americans, and millions abroad, sought news and commentary from the platform. Political discourse on the 2024 election was shaped by the ideas generated and amplified online, faster than mainstream news could reliably pick up on.

Since Musk’s acquisition of Twitter/X, the editorial stance, algorithm, and tone of the platform have all shifted. Yes, it has gone ‘rightwards’, but rather than that serving to shrink the audience, it has instead grown, picking up swing voters and rallying the “persuadeds” more effectively.

Just look at the last debate between Trump and Harris: they weren’t even talking about the same political realities.

Research finds that as a main source of news, social media is still behind TV. Where we see the biggest difference is among younger voters.

46% of Americans 18-29 say social media is their top source of news, according to Pew Research. Beyond widespread appeal or readership, social media drives the political commentary of the chattering classes more than any one other platform. TikTok’s influence is likewise growing, with an even younger demographic relying on it almost entirely to help shape and articulate their views.

A similar dynamic around “truth” was plainly obvious in British Columbia’s provincial election last month. A good chunk of commentators couldn’t fathom that voters could accept a party that had refused to throw out candidates saying offensive or dubious things.

The BC Conservatives went from zero seats to just shy of government.

Enough ink has been spilled on this by other commentators, but let’s recap what many have said about the explanatory factors: BC United collapsed following its disastrous rebrand, the BC NDP was stuck with having to account with the inevitable baggage of incumbency in a struggling global economy, and the rise of Poilievre and the federal Conservatives lent some additional name-brand recognition to the BCCP.

The most important piece, in my estimation, was the Conservatives’ ability to tap into a growing demographic that didn’t feel their concerns were reflected in the mainstream political discourse. Twitter was far from the only forum for this, but I think it had a large part to play in cultivating the sense among many voters that consequential narratives were not even remotely being touched on in mainstream media. It gutted voters’ trust in the media, giving the BC Conservatives whose narratives were more effective on social media a decisive advantage.

Public safety is a great example of this. Anyone with eyes and ears who has spent time in Downtown Vancouver in recent years can attest to the visible decline, with visible drug use in public spaces, frequent run-ins with people with severe untreated mental illness yelling at phantoms, and unabashed property crime.

Yet, if we were to believe a great deal of commentators just up until the eve of the election, everything was just fine.

Willful blindness only works when people can’t comment on what they see. But comment they did, and the delayed response to it nearly cost the BC NDP the election.

In a purely practical sense, the increasing role of community-driven sources of information mean that gatekeepers can no longer control the flow of information. And let’s not mince words here: anyone concerned about misinformation is talking about gatekeeping.

Subjecting ideas out there in the commons to scrutiny is necessary. We just can’t take for granted that the outlets themselves will provide that editorial scrutiny directly, if it’s not baked in the platform by design and people are actively choosing to spend time on platforms that have a radical free speech mandate.

It’s time to accept that the train has left the station: persuasiveness needs to be redefined by the mainstream, rather than taking one loss after another and crying foul because the game has changed.

Canadian narratives for Canadian politics

Our closest neighbour and trading partner is the world’s largest economy, and Canadians can’t help but look south for news and ideas. Our own politics often mirror the messages we see in the US, and there’s no use trying to pretend that won’t keep happening.

If we want to avoid falling into the trap of inheriting the dysfunction and divisions that are increasingly defining the political system next door, we have a duty to develop compelling narratives that resonate with the unique needs of Canadians, across the political spectrum.

It’s the definition of insanity to keep trying the same things expecting a different result. Rather than directing anger at voters and political movements who have moved on from old media, if you’re not happy with the result, try meeting them where they are.

And no, this doesn’t mean ceding ground to conspiracy theorists or the fringe. They are only succeeding because a) they are speaking to issues that people decide they care about (like them or not) that are panned by the center and the left, and b) most crucially, there isn’t enough emotionally resonant, persuasive substance being put out to win hearts and minds.

These are not inevitable outcomes. Voter preferences and media technologies are constantly evolving. We need to evolve with them by subjecting our leaders to real scrutiny and demanding better.


Margareta Dovgal is Managing Director of Resource Works. Based in Vancouver, she holds a Master of Public Administration in Energy, Technology and Climate Policy from University College London. Beyond her regular advocacy on natural resources, environment, and economic policy, Margareta also leads our annual Indigenous Partnerships Success Showcase. She can be found on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Daily Caller

Shoot Down The Drones!

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jason Lewis

If you were to ask the question: Why are so many drones the size of cars flying over New Jersey? You would think someone in the government might know.

Alas, this is the “deep state” era and after a history of coverups (from Russian collusion to COVID lab leaks to Hunter Biden’s laptop), the Feds are either lying or incompetent. If it is a high-tech repeat of the Chinese balloon fiasco, you have to wonder what Xi Jinping has on the Biden family.

OK, not really.

Regardless, the drone sightings have spread across the Northeast, near sensitive locations and even temporarily shutting down a local airport — yet federal officials insist there is no security threat. But how would they know unless they are the ones putting them up?

Which, by the way, is one of the so-called conspiracy theories that suggests the Feds might be looking for something nefarious they don’t want the public to know.  The bottom line is no one is being told what is going on, but more and more folks know exactly what they would like to do about it.

Shoot the damn things down.

Predictably, craven New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (who had eagerly reiterated there were “no public safety risks,”) quickly reminded his constituents they don’t have authority to shoot down unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).

It is indeed illegal under federal law to shoot at aircraft within the National Airspace System (NAS). And for good reason if you’re talking about protecting lives engaged in military, commercial or personal air traffic.

But as we are witnessing, the centralization of power has its limits. Especially when it comes to preventing state officials from doing their duty. Relying on bureaucrats in Washington to handle local exigencies is still a fool’s errand.

The main obstacle to giving local authorities more leeway has been the largest and most powerful of commercial (and hobby) interests. Amazon and Google haven’t been shy about flexing their lobbying muscle in support of federal preemption of state law that might get in the way of delivery drones constantly buzzing over your house en route to your neighbor’s.

The invasions of privacy could get even worse. Imagine a perverted neighbor with a camera mounted drone hovering outside your bathroom window?

So, who ‘ya supposed to call? Why, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), of course. They’ll get right back to you.

Above and beyond the bureaucratic inertia, homeowners are supposed to count on an FAA that fast-tracked Alphabet’s Wing Aviation drones for consumer-goods deliveries? That was 2019, about a year and a half after I introduced the Drone Innovation Act preventing the Feds from authorizing UAS within the immediate reaches” above someone’s property without the owner’s permission.

Navigable airspace above 400 feet was left in the hands of Washington, but the legislation allowed for the traditional “police powers” of state and local government to protect common law rights to privacy from an aerial nuisance or trespass.

Not surprisingly, the special interests marshaled their forces to block a bill that would have put reasonable limits on federal preemption of state and local laws, which are especially prevalent in areas “affecting commercial UAS operators.”

Somewhere, Jeff Bezos must still be smiling.

Former Rep. Jason Lewis (R-Minn.) writes at jasonlewis.substack.com and is the author of Party Animal, The Truth About President Trump, Power Politics & the Partisan Press now out in paperback.

Continue Reading

National

Canadian town appeals ruling that forces them to pay LGBT group over ‘pride’ flag dispute

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The irony of the ruling is that Emo’s town hall doesn’t even have a flagpole 

A Canadian town has announced it will seek a “judicial review” regarding a decision that saw it being mandated by a tribunal to pay an LGBT group thousands of dollars because it refused to cave to activists’ demands by declaring June “Pride Month” and flying the related rainbow flag.

In a media statement Thursday, the town of Emo, Ontario, said it has “decided to seek judicial review of the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. As the matter is proceeding to the Divisional Court, we will not be commenting further at this time.” 

The town noted that it wished “to state that it made a Declaration of Equality in 2022, which remains in effect today.” 

“The Township recognizes the dignity and worth of all people, as well as the barriers of discrimination and disadvantage faced by human rights protected groups, including members of the LGBTQ2+ community,” said the town in its 2022 declaration.  

As reported by LifeSiteNews, last month Mayor Harold McQuaker of Emo, Ontario, was ordered by an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal to pay local LGBT activist group Borderland Pride $5,000 for refusing to celebrate the LGBT agenda during the month of June. The town was also ordered to pay $10,000.  

Specifically, the mayor and town had refused to cave to demands to fly the LGBT “Pride flag” and declare the month of June to be “Pride Month.”

After the mayor refused to pay, his bank account appears to have been garnished to pay for damages ordered against him by the tribunal.  

McQuaker had publicly protested the tribunal’s orders, calling them a form of “extortion.” In a vulgar Facebook post, Borderland Pride claimed they were successful in forcing money from the mayor via the garnishing of his bank funds. 

“Sure, sex is great, but have you ever garnished your mayor’s bank account after he publicly refused to comply with a Tribunal’s order to pay damages?” wrote the group on Facebook. 

Ontario adjudicator Karen Dawson wrote in her decision against McQuaker that “$15,000 is an appropriate level of compensation for Borderland Pride’s injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.” 

The irony of the ruling is that Emo’s town hall doesn’t even have a flagpole.   

Emo is not the only town in Canada that has recently banned the flying of “Pride” flags from municipal buildings. 

As reported by LifeSiteNews, residents of the Canadian town of Barrhead, Alberta, recently voted in a solid majority to pass a bylaw that will in effect ban pro-LGBT “Pride” themed designs from being displayed on public infrastructure, including such flags on government buildings and rainbow painted crosswalks.  

Residents in the Alberta town of Westlock likewise passed a bylaw that bans all non-governmental flags from municipal buildings and mandates that crosswalks only be painted in the standard white-striped pattern.  

The LGBT indoctrination in Canadian cities and towns via “Pride month,” which often includes flags and painted crosswalks, has been described by LifeSiteNews columnist Jonathon Van Maren as “not a ‘celebration of Pride,’” but as “an assertion of ownership, a declaration of dominance” over “public spaces.”  

Van Maren recently observed celebrated the Emo mayor, writing, “Harold McQuaker isn’t having any of it (LGBT activists demands). And we need more like him.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X