|
| Where I’m from, it’s completely normal, even expected, for political leaders to be openly criticized, often by members of their own party. People can debate politics with friends and strangers, disagree, and then move on to other topics without any hostility. Political identity isn't central to anyones personal identity, and many people change their preferred party depending on the issues they care about most at the time. We just have an understanding that we all make our choices based on what is important to us individually, and we frankly don't care about what anyone ultimately decides in the poll booth.
I understand that in a two-party system, political debates can become deeply emotional, especially around issues that one side holds very dear. I also realise this can make people more reluctant to ever reconsider their party affiliation. But what I don’t understand is why criticism of economic policies and strategies here is so often met with absurdity, hostility and personal attacks.
If this were a simple disagreement, people should be able to talk about it, in my opinion. Only a handful of people, like reformedbanker, are confident enough to question the strategies that are causing so much distress in the markets without worrying it reflects badly upon themselves.
This probably sounds like a voice in the wilderness, but this kind of dogged devotion is very dangerous. You can see it in the way Americans are getting riled up against Canadians and vice versa. There’s no reason farmers should hate other farmers just because a border and trade agreement divides them, but here we are. It only took 100 days.
Edited by Tinus 5/2/2025 05:37
| |
|
The first 100 days
