Students and pedestrians are photographed walking along Gould St. on the Toronto Metropolitan University campus on Jan 22.Fred Lum/The Globe and Mail
Which way?
Re “The old left-centre-right political axis has been replaced” (Opinion, Jan. 27): Preston Manning denigrates well-educated leaders such as Barack Obama, who led his class at Harvard University’s law school, and Mark Carney, who led Canada and Britain’s central banks.
People like this develop thoughtful policy. Populists like Pierre Poilievre use catchphrases such as “axe the tax” as simple solutions, yet offer no alternatives. Populists like Donald Trump use “trust me” shticks as applause lines.
These are not the ways to develop policies for the nuanced, dangerous world in which we now find ourselves.
Robert Halliday Sarnia, Ont.
It’s a nice argument, and railing against elites certainly fits the worldview of a certain political constituency who seems to resent objective truth, institutions and gatekeepers of the public interest.
To that end, Barack Obama did not rise to become the darling of the American aristocracy. According to the Pew Research Center, he rode to presidential victory in 2008 through the substantial support of key groups in the middle of the electorate, including youth, independents, low- and moderate-income voters and suburbanites.
Then as now, the message that should appeal to these groups is the potential for positive change and the audacity of hope for a better tomorrow.
Brian Pagan Ottawa
Surely Donald Trump, with a vast family fortune and a reputation for considering himself above the law, is a greater example of an elite aristocrat than Barack Obama. But then Justin Trudeau is described as elitist and aristocratic because he comes from a well-connected, wealthy family – just like Mr. Trump.
As for Preston Manning’s preferred choice for our next prime minister: Pierre Poilievre earns about $280,000 annually and has been earning a healthy MP salary for two decades. Most Canadians would consider him part of the elite.
I don’t know if he is democratic or aristocratic, and Mr. Manning seems to offer no guidance either way.
Steve Zan Ottawa
Conservatives now are the ones who feel they can make a clarion call to overthrow the political aristocracy. However, according to Preston Manning, aristocrats are not those born with a czar’s kingly privilege, but those educated in, heaven forbid, universities.
He further extolls the virtues of “democratic populism,” best illustrated by the Trumps of this world who will save us from the clutches of the educated (Donald Trump, by the way, went to an Ivy League school). While he salts his opinion with historical figures, one old dictum is absent: Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
With Pierre Poilievre yammering on about his “common sense” revolution, it’s no surprise that our heads are spinning. Rather than manning the barricades or storming the Bastille, I suggest we rush to our nearest library and check out books that can help us get ourselves out of this mess.
Howard Brunt North Saanich, B.C.
Preston Manning isn’t wrong about changes in the political landscape, but I don’t see how he can call Pierre Poiliviere the champion of the working class.
Spending one’s entire adult life in the House of Commons does not quite give one insight into the challenges of working-class Canadians. He seems no less elitist than the rest of them.
And where does that leave me? I live on an annual income of $45,000. I also have a PhD. Am I a hated elitist or a member of the working class? This is messier than he thinks.
Jane McCall Delta, B.C.
Preston Manning did an admirable job in discouraging me from ever supporting the “populist” Conservative Party. Since I respect scientific inquiry and understand that climate change threatens life on Earth, I seem to be an elite by his definition.
I support “diversity, inclusion and equity” because they are necessary for wise governance. Minorities matter; a century ago, women were not allowed to vote.
It is true that most Canadians are concerned with affordability and appalled at the number of citizens who don’t have access to safe housing, food and basic necessities. A basic guaranteed income would be part of a practical solution, supported by a fairer taxation system.
I haven’t heard a populist proposal for either.
Anne Learn Sharpe Essa, Ont.
By focusing on personalities, rather than policies, Preston Manning illustrates the true nature of Canadian politics.
I find it a trial by fire in which all politicians try to win public favour in a competition of ideas and mudslinging. At the moment it appears Pierre Poilievre has the edge in mudslinging, while Justin Trudeau has the edge in ideas.
Mr. Manning, then, is being way too cerebral about this.
Karlis Poruks Edmonton
Civic duty
Re “A civil Canadian society needs solid civic education” (Editorial, Jan. 27): In my son’s ALPHA free school in Toronto, the children voted every single day at the end of the school day.
Should gum be allowed during the day? Vote on it. Should there be room on the playground for skateboarding? Vote on it. Should they go on a museum visit? Vote on it. Every single day.
By the time they graduated from Grade 6, they had six years of understanding that their vote counted.
Barbara Klunder Toronto
As an elementary student in the 1940s, we had a current events time every day to which we were each expected to contribute. My parents subscribed to the local paper, which I read and from which I clipped relevant items for class.
I still read two newspapers a day, with scissors in hand to clip articles for myself or to share. I always read letters to the editor first, and write my own when sufficiently fired up.
When my grandson turned 18 the day before an election, I took him to vote for the first time. He has since graduated from Brock University with a degree in political science and labour relations.
Since 1977, I have volunteered on campaigns for politicians I support. I have never missed casting an informed vote in every election for which I am eligible.
Doreen Peever St. Catharines, Ont.
Human after all
Re “Why business needs the humanities: Focusing on STEM degrees has its own economic cost” (Report on Business, Jan. 27): It is important to mention some of the other benefits arising from having leaders in business and elsewhere steeped in the study of history, philosophy and literature.
One is the ability to place technological innovations within a human context and evaluate them from a more holistic perspective, an expertise much needed as we confront applications of artificial intelligence. Another is the development of the capacity for empathy: the ability to see situations in the way other people view and feel them, something required if we are to avoid massive unrest in the face of change.
Martin Tweedale Professor emeritus, philosophy, University of Alberta; Edmonton
Following an English and philosophy degree, I have had a successful career in large corporations and as an entrepreneur, both directly linked to my humanities education and the skills it provided. These virtues became even more evident when I was diagnosed with cancer.
During my interactions at Hamilton’s Juravinski Cancer Centre, their “human” approach to managing patient expectations, as well as treating the disease, was instrumental in helping me with the many concerns resulting from my diagnosis. Juravinski is proud of this approach, developed with an understanding of a patient’s fears, the need for clear communications and a philosophical approach to living with cancer.
I am grateful for their help, one based on the humanities as well as science.
David Mills Hamilton
Whole new world
Re “Humanity’s survival depends on listening to Indigenous voices” (Opinion, Jan. 27): I agree that humanity’s survival depends on heeding Indigenous wisdom, especially “respect for the natural world and for one another, humility to admit errors and to do what is right for future generations.”
In response to the question asking whether a new enlightenment can rediscover this wisdom, I’d point to the 2021 bestseller The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity by David Graeber and David Wengrow. It describes the “Indigenous critique” of European civilization upon contact, concluding that we can live “under radically different conceptions of what human society is actually about” and “the possibilities for human intervention are far greater than we’re inclined to think.”
Patrick Wolfe Victoria
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com