Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

How to respond to Don Cherry

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, December 10, 2010 3:11pm - 45 Comments

Brian Topp notes both Don Cherry’s latest ranting and Patrick Muttart’s recent observations and casts forward to a progressive response.

A good place to start is to stop building up our opponents by mocking or demonizing them, as so many progressive people did, self-defeatingly, in the case of both Prime Minister Harper and Mayor Ford. Next, we need to find some clear words to point out the fundamental contradiction in the conservative message – a populist message designed to beggar the populi. And third, we need to scrub off thirty years of impenetrable, internally-focussed, liberal, academic, bureaucratic, entitlement-driven, self-absorbed “progressive” language.

Tags: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • NiceGuy

    '…beggar the populi'?

    And you nitwits can't figure out why no one cares what you think? LMAO

    Also, the problem you-oh-so progressive people have is not with the 'language', it is with the philosophy.

    • John Hutchinson

      Neither friend nor fan of the progressives. But I thought that 'beggar the populi' was a nice touch. My NiceGuy, you are showing your limited historical knowledge.

      • McC_

        agree or disagree with Topp, it's a sharply written piece, and fun read.

      • TheRealKuri

        I would've employed a very similar-sounding word with a different meaning in place of 'beggar'.

  • Emily

    A brilliant and worthwhile study!

    When millionaires, neon-pink sports commentators, and a Masters degree holder have convinced people they are just 'regular working class folk' with a lunch bucket…. some very fishy propaganda is going on.

  • McC_

    "There are easy things to say about Don Cherry’s appearance at Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s inauguration a few days ago. It was time for some “blue collar” people to run city hall – says a millionaire putting the seals of office around the neck of another millionaire. Time to get the “artsy” people out of city hall – says a public-broadcasting television comedian. Time for a fresh new start – and the “lefty pinkos” can put that in their pipe, setting the scene for four years of gracelessness, thuggishness and pointless conflict, so it would seem. Was that really a fresh new start?"
    wow.

  • MaggiesFarmboy

    This is a must read for anyone who truly cares about "blue collar folk".

    One quibble. The problem isn't in mocking the likes of Cherry. Well-placed wit and humour can always provide insight. T.C. Douglas used it to great effect. On the other end of the spectrum, Matt Taibbi and Jon Stewart are devastating when they are on their game.

    It's about how you mock the Cherrys and Fords of the world. Obviously, it's a good idea to avoid making sneering generalizations about another class.

    Another good tactic is to pick your battles. Try not to come across sounding like an out-to-lunch P.C. rabble babble regular. A hint for the Liberals: I would avoid, for example, complaining that Harper's little rock show was not representative of Canada's founding cultures.

    • craigola

      …and instead point out how much his singing sounds like Ringo's.

  • Tceh

    It definitely takes years to see thru the Conservative smokescreen and see who these people really are working for and it is not the Tim Horton's crowd. Harper benefits more from Liberal disarray than anything he has done. One can only describe yourself as a fiscal Conservative for so long before somebody in the electorate notices the record deficits. Harper does an effective job of picking off his opponents one at a time and using prorogation to prolong power. That can only work for so long. Witness the media non-attention to the Harper Rock Show. Cheap tricks only work once or twice before you got to come up with something fresh.

  • Orson Bean

    Brian Topp's basic thesis here — that "conservative" political parties lull and distract the masses with cheap populism and culture warfare, all the while really promulgating economic policies which hurt them — was most notably articulated in Robert Frank's excellent (although markedly partisan) book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Frank's book took a microcosmic approach, focusing in on federal and state politics in the state of Kansas during the reign of George W. Bush. What went on there was pretty much a localized version of the Karl Rove strategy — focus on wedge "cultural" issues like gun control, gay marriage and abortion, becuase those have been shown to mobilize certain voters in a way that, for some reason, larger economic issues do not. I also think it's important to note Topp's point, though, of not lobbing personal insults at your opponents in this battle — that, e.g., is why Michael Moore's much-celebrated national tour was proven to accomplish nothing. Moore spent most of his time insulting the intelligence of anyone who would contemplate voting for Bush, and that alienated centrist voters in the US.

    • hosertohoosier

      The problem with Frank's thesis is that it is empirically wrong. Yes, GOP identification among working class voters has risen since 1968. However it has risen by a smaller amount than GOP identification among higher income voters. What's the Matter with Kansas is an example of the ecological fallacy – it assumes that because Kansas is poor and Republican, that poor people are increasingly Republican. The thing is that poor Kansans are much less Republican than rich ones.

      Take a look at "Rich state, poor state, red state, blue state: whats the matter with Connecticut" as a starting point.

      The only place where this phenomena is modestly true is among educated voters (especially in the northeast), which have become decreasingly Republican over time. However, because this group happens to include a lot of the commentariat, "Whats the matter with Kansas" appears plausible. Oddly enough, Frank and his ilk like to talk about "dumb" working class voters voting against their own interests without looking in the mirror. Assuming the Frank thesis was correct, aren't dumb educated professionals voting against their interests by electing left-leaning governments as well?

  • gottabesaid

    This is slightly off topic, but something that people haven't really mentioned is the fact that, when Cherry arrived at city hall to 'do his thing', he had been getting quite an earful in the media. I think he was trying to get off a few blasts because, well, he'd been on the receiving end (rightly or wrongly) of a few blasts leading up to his appearance. He didn't sound like he was trying to score a verbal victory for conservatives, he just sounded pissed off. Even Ford sounded like he was taken aback. Not a defense of Cherry, just an observation.

    • Orson Bean

      I think what you say is true, and was clear from the text of Cherry's remarks. He specifically referred, I believe, to those media attacks.

      • gottabesaid

        Makes you wonder what his speech would have been like if no one knew he was going to show up, and he didn't get dragged over the coals leading up to it. I'd bet a bag of hockey pucks it would have been a helluva lot less explosive.

  • pdpd

    Ok, before I start, I like Cherry. I defend him all the time to my friends and family, and think he's a national treasure.

    But he's vulnerable like hell on political grounds. Namely, he's made a number of brutal homophobic slurs in the past, on issues that now seem to be commonplace concerns (including open ice hits to the head). Someone can surely find the tape where he dressed up like a quasi-drag queen, with an earring on one ear, to speak in an affected voice while talking about critics of fighting. MacLean twisted and squirmed like crazy.

    If he sticks to hockey, whatever. We all have crazy old uncles like that. But if he wants to be political, well, then by all means, it should be a question of the national media whether or not Ford agrees with Cherry's views and behaviour.

    • Party_of_One

      Yeah…I would say that, as a political pundit, Cherry makes a good sports commentator.

      • hosertohoosier

        Of course that's where both Rush Limbaugh AND Keith Olbermann got started…

  • BGLong

    US .. but we don't get much media influence from there, do we ….

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-incomes-poor….

  • BGLong

    And this is just part of an extended exchange among a number of smart people
    at the site. But they are scattered around a bit ….

    http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/12/why_dont_low…

  • s_c_f

    What most people fail to realize, is that Cherry's speech was a reaction. A reaction to what? Topp spells it out: A good place to start is to stop building up our opponents by mocking or demonizing them, as so many progressive people did, self-defeatingly, in the case of both Prime Minister Harper and Mayor Ford.

    Ford was demonized, and so is Cherry, by their detractors, on a regular basis. Such a detractor is a "left-wing kook", by definition. Their detractors are clueless. I don't agree with what Topp says for the most part, but he's correct with that statement.

    • Richard_S_Argent

      Actually, his response was a reaction to what he perceived as personal slights in the media about appearing at the investiture. Perhaps I missed a more scathing article, but the only one I read before the ceremony was this one in the Star
      http://www.thestar.com/news/article/902041–fiori…

      Fiorito's issue with Cherry's presence was as follows:

      "The symbolism of these things is such that, if anyone is going to hang anything around the mayor’s neck, it ought to be someone who represents the people of the city. Cherry may be a fine fellow, but he doesn’t live in Toronto, shovels no snow in this city, pays no taxes here. His only currency is his chippy celebrity.

      Oh, relax, you say, his presence would be fun. Not even close. Fun would be showgirls, cabana boys and monkeys riding Shetland ponies.

      As distasteful as it would be for both of them, if anyone ought to be called on to hang the chain of office around Ford’s neck, it should be David Miller

      For the continuity.

      I would take the same position if it were Jean Beliveau, Jean Vanier, or Michaëlle Jean who’d been asked. If you don’t live here, if you have nothing at stake, then you should do the right thing and keep your nose out of our business."

      Your characterization seems out of step with this.

  • chet

    "Progressives", demonize?

    Conservatives?

    Or those with whom they disaggree?

    That sounds so surprising, that never happens around here, does it gang? I mean I haven't been called a "conbot", been accused of being ignorant for dissaggreeing, having malevolent or ill intentioned motives ascribed to me simply because I don't ascribe to the correct point of view.

    I mean….not in the last…oh say hour anyways.

    ….wait…check that….not in the last few minutes…..

    no…check that again….yup, pretty much demonizing conservatives 24/7.

    Dudes got a point.

    • kcm

      Wrong again. I'd bet most people are just tired of your dumb shtick.

  • s_c_f

    http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontomayoralrac…

    "as mayor, he would be a disaster and an embarrassment."

    http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontomayoralrac…

    "Rob Ford told he was unwelcome as a football coach at Toronto high school"

    http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/a…

    "Rob Ford, whom the candidates themselves claim would be “scary” and a disaster for Toronto if he wins."

    http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontomayoralrac…

    “have all seen the real Rob Ford and we all understand what a huge crisis Toronto would be in if Rob Ford were to become mayor."

    This is all about a candidate that was elected by a landslide

    Cherry has had the same treatment, although not in the same volume.

    This is from the media, the newspaper with the largest circulation in Toronto. Ford was being called an embarrassment, a crisis, a bad football coach, scary, a disaster, and every other epithet that was fit to be printed. But now, Cherry retaliates with the words "left-wing kooks", and wow, these same twits are all up-in-arms about it. Hard to believe, but true.

    • Richard_S_Argent

      Your point continues to remain obscure. Perhaps you could further elucidate?

    • kcm

      Rob Ford's never uttered a derogatory word in his life – right?

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      So, wait, a bunch of people said that Ford would be an embarrassment as mayor, and then the very first thing he does, literally his first act, is to bring in some out-of-towner to speak at his investiture and insult over half of the population of the city by calling them pinkos and koots? Isn't that EXACTLY the sort of embarrassing thing Ford's critics were accusing him of being capable of? Didn't Ford basically prove his critics right by embarrassing the city in his very first moment in office?

  • http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

    I used to like Don Cherry but not after seeing him turn into a whiny European the first time he's checked into the boards in the political arena. Good gawd, suck it up, creampuff.

  • NorthernPoV

    "tolerant progressive left",
    may not ring true for some observers,
    but try out:
    "tolerant progressive right",
    and try not to die laughing

    • guest

      yah, because the right isn't arrogant enough to label itself "progressive" and "tolerant" thereby implicitly calling their opponents "regressive" and "intolerant".

      you don't even see the problem, do you. never mind.

      • …

        Not certain on this one, but i believe progressive is in opposition to maintaining the status quo, rather than being regressive.

        • hosertohoosier

          So what would that make Preston Manning (who wanted to change the status quo of high spending, high taxes, big deficits, and a strong Ottawa)? Does that mean's Paul Martin's constant promises to save medicare were regressive?

          The idea that the right or the left have an exclusive claim on moving the country forwards or backwards is ridiculous because both parties are rooted in nostalgia (the left for the 60s and 70s, the right for the 50s and the 80s).

  • hosertohoosier

    The premise – that lower income voters are voting against their own interests – is not only patronizing, it is also patently wrong. At its root is confusion about social class (which is not just money) and income. Folks tend to use education as a proxy for class, but then talk about interests in the context of income. Instead, I propose looking at income consistently:

    Lets look at Progressive Conservative support in 1988, using income categories that rougly divide voters into thirds:
    <30k: 42.6%
    30-50k: 44%
    >50k: 55.9%

    Compared to Conservative support by income in the 2008 Ekos pre-election survey…
    <40k: 28.5%
    40-80k: 38.1%
    >80k: 37%

    What does this tell us?
    A. Poorer voters are still much less likely to vote Conservative than others, although the gap has shrunk modestly (while Tory support is down overall).
    B. Changes in the relative composition of the Tory party involve more middle income voters, not more lower income voters.
    C. Class divisions are far smaller than regional divisions.

    • hosertohoosier

      As for Rob Ford, his victory was not about the working class versus professionals, it was about the suburbs vs. downtown (echoing the way in which location trumps income in Canadian politics).

      Plenty of professionals, workers, etc. work in both, but they have distinct interests when it comes to how Toronto should be run. Suburban voters are more likely to be homeowners (which means they directly pay property taxes), and their communities are less likely to benefit from public spending. Thus it makes sense that they would support a candidate pushing for less spending (just as they did when they voted for Pitfield or for John Tory). Suburbanites are more likely to be commuters as well, and a lot less likely to take their bikes to work.

      Just as Canadian politics are not really about class, neither are Toronto politics – as much as some would like to beleive that the other side represents the unwashed masses. A large group of predominantly suburban voters elected the candidate that best reflected the interests of their community – rich and poor.

      • Mike T.

        You mean BELIEVE they are less likely to benefit IMMEDIATELY from public spending, not ARE less likely to benefit…

        • hosertohoosier

          I can't find data on whether the suburbs or downtown gets more in terms of municipal money, but the tax gap is undeniable. Property taxes are the primary source of revenue for the city, and home ownership rates vary significantly between the suburbs and the downtown core. True, home values are higher downtown, but since the majority of people don't own homes, it doesn't directly impact their bottom line (costs may be passed on by landlords, but the relationship is less direct than if they owned homes themselves).

          Lets compare homeownership rates…

          A selection of suburban ridings (went for Ford)
          Etobicoke-Lakeshore: 60.1%
          Etobicoke North: 59.4%
          Scarborough-Southwest: 55.3%
          Scarborough Centre: 63%
          York Centre: 49.7%

          Downtown ridings (went for Smitherman)
          Toronto Danforth: 55%
          Toronto Centre-Rosedale: 32.3%
          Parkdale High-Park: 42.1%
          Trinity-Spadina: 46.2%
          St. Paul's: 40.3%

          Downtown ridings where Smitherman and Ford split wards
          Beeches-East York: 57.5%
          Davenport: 55%
          Eglinton-Lawrence: 54.7%

    • Thwim

      It tells us that you have no clue how to use statistics to construct a rational argument.

      Seriously, you're using stats 20 years apart with categories that don't even match? You're talking different generations here and you're hoping to draw some sort of conclusion from it? Does that not seem just a tad ridiculous?

      • hosertohoosier

        You are a blithering idiot.

        The whole basis of the "Whats the matter with Kansas" argument that underlies Topp's argument is that the right changed its messaging to target working class voters, and that the nature of its class coalition has changed. How the hell are you supposed to illustrate change over time without looking at data from the past?

        You have to look at the "good old days" of upper class conservatives (ie. before the supposed appeals to working class voters that started with Reform and continue with the Muttart approach) if you can test that thesis.

        If somebody hypothesizes change, and you illustrate little to know change, then you have refuted their argument. I frankly can't understand how somebody as stupid as you can even avoid accidentally walking into traffic on a regular basis.

  • kcm

    'And third, we need to scrub off thirty years of impenetrable, internally-focussed, liberal, academic, bureaucratic, entitlement-driven, self-absorbed “progressive” language.'

    I'm not sure what he really means by that[ a good start would be to ditch the NDP aversion to capitalism - at least regulated capitalism]
    A good approach for centre/left progressives would be to adopt the successful blair/Clinton strategies of harnessing the power of the markets to move a progressive agenda forward. Unfortunately there are limits here too. Both Clinton and Blair either lost the thread, became too close to the wall street crowd, or in Blair's case decided god was directing him, not the British electorate ; actually Blair did worse, much worse, he participated in the wholesale unwinding of hundreds or years of British jurisprudence and set up an appalling nanny state…and to think i once admired the man.

  • Richard_S_Argent

    Adam Vaughan calling Cherry the Sean Avery of hockey pundits probably hurt Cherry like hell.

    The "Left Wing Pinko" pins that spacing is selling is the perfect response – a humourous response to a raging buffoon – who in my more generous moments I forgive because I'm fairly certain he's in the early stages of senility (at best, dementia at worst).

  • kcm

    The key with Cherry is to not take him too seriously. He does occasionally express what the blue collar working guy is thinking – trouble is when is it legit and when is pure demagoguery, xenophobia and so on? Gentle mockery or satire is best – besides i hear he's a nice guy.

  • chet

    Others speak of this "tolerant progressive left"?

    Go figure.

  • Emily

    No, actually you're the only one who does that.

  • Vince

    Put that in your pipe you left wing kooks…and please, at least for 5 minutes, please, please stop whining.

    nuff said

  • Mike T.

    A good approach for centre/left progressives would be to adopt the successful blair/Clinton strategies of harnessing the power of the markets to move a progressive agenda forward.

    ****

    That's pretty much an NDP strategt.y. Their biggest problem isn't bad policy – it's what people IMAGINE is their policy.

Previous

Next

From Macleans