Neoliberalism and the Rise of right-wing Populism in Canada Today

Neoliberalism and the rise of right-wing populism in Canada are discussed in this episode. The rise of populist governments globally, such as Brexit and Trump, has led to increased divisiveness in politics. In Canada, the rise of right-wing populism is attributed to neoliberal policymaking since the 1980s. Neoliberalism emphasizes individual freedom, limited government influence, and free markets. This led to the defunding and dismantling of welfare systems, leaving the middle class and poor struggling. Neoliberal policies also contributed to rising wealth inequality and a division in social values. The upper classes embraced progressive and globalized values, while the lower classes held onto traditional values. The economic inequality caused by neoliberalism has disenfranchised many Canadians, leading to frustration and the rise of right-wing populism. The Freedom Convoy, a protest against mandated vaccines, and the ascendancy of Pierre Polyev to the leadership of the Conservative Pa Welcome to this episode on neoliberalism and the rise of right-wing populism in Canada today. Over the last few years, we've seen the rise of populist governments all over the world, from Brexit to Trump. These movements have been a distinct shift away from the status quo of previous decades. Politics has become more divisive than ever. In Canada, we were fortunate to watch these developments from afar. We didn't think divisive politics and right-wing populism would come to roost in Canada as well. With the Freedom Convoy, which protested against mandated vaccines, and the ascendancy of Pierre Polyev to the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, that has all changed. In this short episode, I'm going to make the argument that neoliberal policymaking since the 1980s has led to the rise of right-wing populism that we see in Canada today. To do this, I'm going to first briefly unpack what neoliberalism is and how it has been implemented in Canada. Then, I will examine some of the consequences of such policymaking. Finally, I will show how today we are seeing the rise of populist movements, such as the Freedom Convoy and Pierre Polyev's rise to be the opposition leader, and how that came as a reaction to neoliberal policies of the past four decades. What this case study reveals about neoliberalism is that it is an inherently unstable policy prescription, which leads to a lot of regular people not doing very well. Now, people are placing their faith in populist movements, which promise to resolve the consequences that have come from neoliberalism, namely high levels of inequality, even if the policies themselves are still capitalistically oriented. How we deal with neoliberalism is one of the most pressing issues of our time. Some scholars have noted that contemporary politics looks like the 1930s, which ultimately led to a number of states turning towards authoritarian regimes. If we want to avoid further extremism, we must navigate the consequences of neoliberalism carefully and effectively. Within Canada, we should acknowledge how neoliberalism has led to the rise of populism, and attempt to diagnose how that populism is taking shape. First, let's unpack neoliberalism so we can understand how it has shaped Canadian politics. Neoliberalism is a political and economic philosophy which places an emphasis on classical liberal ideals. It's rooted in assumptions about human nature that each individual ought to be free from coercion by another to use their own rational faculties to decide what would be best for themselves in society. Neoliberal theorists, like Milton Friedman, see society as a sum of individuals. This naturally leads neoliberals to the practical political prescriptions of democracy and free markets, where governments have as little influence as possible in society. Historically, Keynesian welfare systems were set up in many developed countries, including Canada, in the 1940s as a consequence of the Great Depression to combat the excesses of capitalism in the decades prior. John Maynard Keynes identified the source of extremism that caused World War II in domestic populations suffering from high unemployment rates and high levels of wealth inequality, which led to popular and extremist uprisings. Keynesian economics was a balance between capitalism and socialism, attempting to have the best of both worlds with the primary focus of keeping unemployment rates low and maintaining a stable level of wealth inequality. Harnessing market forces while limiting their destabilizing tendencies was the core function of Keynesian-style economics. It was successful from the 1950s to the 1970s, a period of economic stability many populists romanticize today. However, facing a prolonged period of stagflation, with both high unemployment and inflation rates, policymakers in Canada and the United States were desperate for a solution, so they turned to neoliberal ideals and policy prescriptions for a solution. It worked. Whether it was a direct consequence of neoliberal policies or not, policymakers believed in the power of the free market. From the early 1980s until around the early 2010s, the world entered a period of unprecedented globalization. Through neoliberal policies, like free trade agreements and foreign direct investment, offshoring rose dramatically. These shifts in the global economy unleashed productivity. Neoliberalism not only meant the signing of free trade agreements, rises in foreign direct investment and offshoring of manufacturing jobs, but it also meant the defunding and dismantling of domestic welfare systems. Less money was being invested into public service programs, which gave citizens in developed countries a basic economic safety net from which to climb themselves out of poverty. Neoliberalism had left the middle class and poor to fend for themselves, while reducing corporate taxes and taxes for the richest in society, all in the name of free market net productivity. In Canada, specifically, neoliberalism was first instituted by Brian Mulroney's progressive conservative government in the 1980s. However, since then, regardless of political party affiliation, by and large neoliberal policy-making has become the status quo. Structural reforms led to the deregulation and privatization of publicly owned crown corporations, like CNREL, Air Canada, Petro-Canada, and Ontario Hydro. Canada entered the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization Accords. By engaging in more global trade, Canada offshored a large number of manufacturing jobs. And, of course, Canada, historically known for its robust public health care and education systems, significantly limited spending in these areas, leaving them to deteriorate. Overall, through these shifts of neoliberal policies, Canadians have benefited from cheap abundance of goods, but at the cost of stagnant real wages for the majority of Canadians since the 1980s, a period when Canada's economy grew steadily, padding the pockets of the upper classes. Along with rising wealth inequality has come an increasing division regarding social values. Middle to upper class individuals, who are college educated and work in white collar jobs, adopted more progressive social values. They usually work in urban centers, they are secular, and they have global horizons. They embrace multiculturalism, travel for vacations, and relocate for work. This is in contrast to those who have been left behind by neoliberalism and globalization. Middle to lower class individuals, who are not college educated, and instead work in blue collar jobs, usually adopted more conservative traditional social values. They usually work in either rural or suburban areas, they have maintained their religious affiliations, and they have local horizons. They embrace small net communities, stay within countries for vacations, and stay in their childhood communities for work. In Canada, political and business elites have shaped Canadian values towards progressive and globalized values, which have undermined the sense of traditional national identity many Canadians have had within their conservative local communities. This second insight does not fit neatly into neoliberal critiques. Their subjectivities are not neatly categorized as neoliberal. We would expect that the upper classes in Canada would be the most neoliberal, a.k.a. desiring to maintain traditional family values and Christian morality. But instead, it is those who are affected most negatively by neoliberalism and globalization that have adopted neoliberal governmentality. Therefore, the way that neoliberalism has taken shape in Canada is particularly interesting. Progressive values, which are not neoliberal, define the upper classes' values, while traditional values, which are neoliberal, define the lower classes' values. Therefore, to explain the rise of right-wing populism in Canada today, we must acknowledge these two features, economic and cultural, and the degree to which they are influenced by neoliberalism. The argument I will be making in my case study is that high levels of wealth inequality have disenfranchised significant portions of the Canadian population, who not only lack economic opportunity due to neoliberalism, but also reject the globalized and progressive values, values that have been shaped by neoliberal globalization. Let's unpack this argument a bit more, given that we've laid out the context of everything already. The first aspect of the argument is fairly straightforward. Due to neoliberal policymaking since the 1980s, Canadians in the middle to lower class have not been doing very well since the deregulation of markets has meant many low-skilled jobs moving overseas and less social welfare has undermined equality of opportunity. Many people have been economically left behind by neoliberal policies, and this economic inequality is leading to frustration which is taking shape as right-wing populism. The second aspect of the argument is a bit more nuanced. Due to neoliberal policymaking since the 1980s, Canadians in the middle to upper class have shifted more towards urban and progressive values due to the extended horizons that globalization afforded through neoliberal economics. In a kind of post-materialist sense, middle upper class individuals have shifted their concerns away from economic issues towards progressive values informed by the secular and globalized urban worlds they inhabit. This is a kind of post-structural shift where the governmentality of neoliberal subjects has split between upper class progressive values and lower class traditional values while still reinforcing market authority economically. It is only from this nuanced perspective that we can make sense of how populism is taking shape in Canada today. First, let's look at the Freedom Convoy. Without getting stuck in the details too much, the convoy was a series of blockades and protests organized by truckers and aided by concerned Canadians about the ongoing vaccine mandates. Although initially it was regarding required vaccination for crossing the U.S. border, it later evolved into a general protest regarding COVID-19 mandates. This event, primarily supported by middle to lower class blue-collar workers, illustrated the broad discontent and distrust of the federal government's intervention in people's lives over the pandemic. To put it bluntly, working class Canadians did not trust the Canadians' governance over their agency. I'd argue that this distrust of the Canadian government has its source in the general working class's skepticism of whether urban elites have the population's best interests in mind. Conspiratorial as it might sound, these sentiments regarding the distrust of government's authority over Canadians' lives is a common theme in the country at the moment. Think about the tense debates in Alberta and Saskatchewan regarding gender-affirming care and education for minors. These cultural shifts are linked by an inherent values divide amongst governing political elites and the urban upper classes that they tend to represent and the lower local classes whose values are more traditional and skeptical of progressive agendas. These cultural tensions between the governing upper classes and the left-behind lower classes have fostered the possibility for a populist like Pierre Poliev to rise. Calling Poliev a populist comes with unnecessary baggage. We should define what a populist is. According to Oxford's dictionary, populism is a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. Because it is centered around an us-versus-them dichotomy, elites versus ordinary people, it creates immense divisions in societies and the potential for violent extremism. Not harnessed effectively, it can be destructive. Think of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. However, harnessed productively, it can address serious issues of plutocracy within societies and lead them to better futures. Think Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal. At the time, FDR was considered an extremist, a socialist, a dictator. But with hindsight, he is widely considered one of America's greatest presidents. All this to say that despite Poliev being a populist, we should be careful to automatically demonize him. So, what is Poliev's agenda, and how does it differ from neoliberalism? And is it dangerous? We can only speculate thus far, but his rhetoric, although nationalistic, with his slogan to make Canada the freest nation on earth, although reminiscent of Trumpian language, does not incite nearly as much anger and bigotry. The few policy directives he has explained work off of neoliberal premises, however. For example, with regards to housing, he wishes to remove building code regulations that make new housing developments too costly to produce, like reforming policies in Vancouver that require apartment buildings to have two stairwells instead of a simple external fire escape. Another example is that he would like to create a blue seal standard for healthcare workers to become easily certified in jurisdictions where they were not originally licensed. This would enable workers to more effectively reallocate provincially, and is intended to help immigrants contribute to the economy by using the skills they obtained in their native countries. These policy prescriptions are in line with Neal principles, however, his rhetoric has also seemed more protectionist regarding international trade agreements, although he has not laid out any formal plans. This works in his interest, as currently, with distrust in Justin Trudeau growing amongst Canadians, all that he has to do as leader of the opposition is keep the Liberals' feet to the fire. Combined with his popular rhetoric and appeal to lower-class Canadians who don't feel that the current government is listening to their concerns, Polyev could win in Canada's next federal election. We are currently living through uncertain times. As mentioned earlier, our area has much in common with the 1930s. We have rising wealth inequality and strong cultural divisions, all enticing populist movements. In Canada, neoliberal policymaking has contributed to both the shifting economic and cultural landscape. Urban college-educated elites continue to do fine for themselves economically, although they are being strained by economic inequality, and their values continue to move further left, informed by the globalized and multicultural world they live in. By contrast, rural, non-college-educated lower classes are struggling more and more to make ends meet in this economy, and their values remain local and traditional in nature. This disparity has given ample fuel for populist sentiments to rise, specifically on the conservative right. Both the Freedom Convoy and Pierre Polyev's rise to become leader of the opposition are signs that Canada has now entered its populist phase along with the rest of the world. Time will tell whether Canadian populism, although inherently divisive, can be a constructive force or bring further extremism. What I think can be certain, however, is that neoliberalism has sown the unintended seeds of instability in Canada today.