The dialogue between Jesse Hirsh and Allan Gregg, featuring guest Che Marville, delves into the complexities of contemporary political dynamics, particularly through the lens of Donald Trump's foreign policy maneuvers and their implications for Canada. Marville posits that the essence of Canadian identity, characterized by collectivism and a commitment to community welfare, stands in stark contrast to the individualistic ethos often associated with American political discourse. The conversation further explores the ramifications of Trump's rhetoric on Canadian society, suggesting that it evokes a renewed sense of national unity among Canadians. The discussion also touches upon the generational shifts in political engagement, particularly among youth, highlighting their struggles within a rapidly evolving job market and the psychological impacts of social media. Ultimately, the episode serves as a profound examination of how these elements intertwine to shape our understanding of citizenship, identity, and the collective future in a politically charged environment.

Takeaways:

• The discussion highlights the contrasting approaches to politics in Canada and the United States, particularly in relation to the power dynamics and cultural perceptions surrounding leadership.
• Che Marville articulates the significant psychological impact of Donald Trump's foreign policy and its implications for Canadian identity and unity.
• The podcast explores the changing landscape of political engagement among younger generations, emphasizing the need for new voices and perspectives amidst traditional party politics.
• Jesse Hirsh and Allan Gregg reflect on the importance of social media as a tool for political expression and the need for parties to adapt to these changes in communication.
• The conversation touches upon the existential challenges faced by the NDP, questioning their relevance and ability to innovate in the current political climate.
• Marville's insights on public health initiatives provide a critique of the political framing of health care policies, emphasizing the conservative roots of collective health care in Canada.

Hi, I'm Jesse Hirsh and I'm here with my friend Alan Greg for the Red Tory podcast. And today we're gonna have a far reaching, holistic conversation with our special guest, Che Marville. Close friend, wise friend.

There's all sorts of ways that I would describe you, Che , but our last episode we had Avi Lewis on and he protested that I did not introduce him. So I cannot introduce any guests anymore.

We're gonna roll right into it in the usual way in which I say, Alan, what have you been thinking about lately?

Well, to say I'm curious about Donald Trump's latest move would be cliche and redundant because it seems to be ongoing. But here's a guy who ran in America first, which almost by definition is a focus on domestic politics.

Yet if you look at his agenda over these last three and a half weeks, he has spent more time on foreign policy than even on immigration or bureaucracy reform. This latest conversation with Putin again has got everyone outraged.

The whole EU saying, why aren't we part of this NATO and you know, this is our back door. Ukraine saying, you know, you're going to negotiate a deal with, without us at all. We're a sovereign nation. We can't allow that to happen.

And then I go back to his inaugural speech and the one thing he said that didn't seem outrageous, in fact, I think most people applauded, was that his job was to stop wars, not make wars.

I think this guy, actually, as unorthodox what he's doing, might actually have some not bad motives on, on foreign policy, as nutty as the outcomes seem, seem to look. And it's completely different because it's expansionism without any multilateralism.

He doesn't want to have anything to do with any other country in the world in what he's doing. So we'll see how it's unfolding. Maybe I'm being schoolboyish and naive here, but I think this guy wants to win the Nobel Prize.

I mean, we know he's a narcissist. What a bigger applause would there be for the world to say, you are the greatest peacekeeper who has ever walked this, this planet.

So I'm trying to look at things, Che , with a little bit different lens. Not to get so caught up.

Yes.

In my past perspectives on things. But you're trying not, you're trying not.

To be deranged about him, right?

Exactly.

Right.

Before we get to you, though, I just want, I wanted. Because I don't want to forget for Jesse does a sub stack four times a week.

He did one today that I thought was really interesting in no small part because you cite right off the top, Gad Horowitz, which is when I was an undergraduate student in political science, studying Canadian politics with Thelma Oliver at University of Alberta. The articles that he wrote, Liberals, Socialists and Red Tories, was probably the single most important thing I ever read.

You talk about how our defense against this chaos of America and the threats that come from America may find their root in the unique nature of Canadian conservatism. Talk to me a little bit more about that.

Well, it's kind of the collective nature of Canadian thinking that where America fundamentally is everyone on their own, survival of the fittest.

Canada always has had a culture of taking care of each other, of, you know, whether it's left, center or right, there has always been a larger ethic, whether it's for the nation, whether it's for community.

And I even had, in the comments on that post, I made a point that it's ironic that conservatives have been so opposed to public health initiatives because there's actually nothing more conservative than public health. Right. It's saying we want to conserve resources, think about the community, use public education to help people with health. Right.

In our bizarro world, it's been framed as like, progressive and the left.

But it's the same reason that a lot of Canadian social policies come from small c Conservatives, even if they're left wing conservatives, as I often think of Social Democrats as.

So for me, it's really that collectivist concept which goes back to the loyalist kind of British leaving behind the American kind of revolutionary side.

Counter revolutionary beginnings. Yes.

Yeah. But also to your point about Horovitz's framework, right, of how he thought about the different relationships in ideology.

And before we started, you mentioned we should think about other axes or other ways of defining ideology in this emerging world, especially the technological world world.

But my primary hypothesis was Canada's a threat to Trump, not just because we have the resources he wants, not just because it's a good trade tactic, because we genuinely think differently. We have a different psychology, we have a different approach. And I am kind of agreeing with you, Alan, that there is a vanity that motivates Trump.

He would love to solve peace in the Middle East. He would love to solve peace in Ukraine.

I think the people around him are manipulating him in a way of leveraging that ego, leveraging that narcissism, because I'm not sure they want peace necessarily, because getting the Palestinians out of Gaza is not gonna be peaceful.

Talk about radical, right, right?

But everyone, one last thing I'll say, and then I'll throw it to you, Che , with the same question of what are you paying attention to? I wanted to share with you guys this story of this delivery guy who brings my medicine every month and he has to actually get my signature, right?

And it's like specially contained. So where most people leave the package, I talk to him. And he's an immigrant from East Africa, recent immigrant, and he loves Trump.

Like, every time he comes, he's talking to me about the latest Trump news, like volunteering it. And I'm usually receptive in the sense that I wanna hear more, but I ask him, like, what is it about Trump that you love?

Cause in my head I'm thinking, man, like, I don't go on. Because he's sticking it to the man, right? Cause he's shaking things up. Cuz he's disrupting the system.

And he means it and he believes it and I don't disagree with him, right? I'm like, all right, right on. And like, see you next time. But it does make me think that that sentiment is kind of widespread.

And I think Trump is kind of smart in how he's leveraging it, you know, to your point that he's, he may not be the idiot that everyone makes him out to be. So, Che , welcome to take any of those threads. Also, what have you been looking at? What's on your mind?

Well, I, I, I don't think he's an idiot. I, and I think, I think one of the things that's threatening to him is that we're a pluralistic society.

And, you know, even though we're having some problems and we have some debt, $62 billion, and we're having immigration issues, and, you know, the list of things that are wrong is long.

I think that we are a threat to the culture of, of America in Trump's mind, because we're pluralistic, because we're mediators, because we're peacekeepers. But also, I think it's personal. I think he did not like. True. He does not like Mr. Trudeau.

I think that, I think that he feels also, I think Trump is very petty and he's conflict, he's conflict stimulated. And I think for four years he felt like people were making fun of him. And it feels like a lot of payback.

It feels like you, you know, I am, yes, I want peace, but I'm going to do it the way I want it.

And I'm gonna, I'm gonna pay every Single group, country, person back that tried to belittle me and say that I cheated and that, you know, I wasn't gonna come back. And. And, you know, I just think he's driven by revenge, just driven by it. And you know what? I. I also think. I mean, I feel like this is a betrayal.

I know I'm using very emotional words, but this is how I think. You know, we've been siblings and allies for 150 years. You know, most of us have friends and family in America. We're America. Like, we're.

We're North American. Right. However, I think Canada has often gotten off on saying we're not American, and we're. They're.

They're bombastic and, you know, they're aggressive and they're assertive and. And. And I think. Yeah, they are. And I think some of us want that.

Also in Canada, I think we, you know, we have a productivity issue, and I think Canada wants a little bit of this. And, and so this is a real. Like, it's a shock because they. Even though there were all. There were these challenges between Mr. Trudeau and Mr.

Trump, they never expected him to give it to them the way he's given it to them or giving it to us. You know, it's. Yeah, and it's horrible. I mean, it's. I mean, he's. He's. He's. His behavior is so poisonous. I.

I know lots of people love him, and I think. But it's. It's so. It's so the opposite of what we think. Like, as. Like, as people who are passive aggressive and. And conflict adverse. Like this.

This is like, this. This. This is keeping people up at night. Like, it's just so uncomfortable. Right.

But Jesse and I were talking about this before we turned the camera on, and I wanted to get you in this specifically because I think you'd have some very interesting views on Trump's opponents. 80 million people voted for Donald Trump. Donald Trump, arguably is the most successful politician in the last half century.

Rule 101 in politics is no. 9 enemy, or in combat is no, no, no, my enemy.

You know, the vast majority of progressives assume that those 80 million people are lunatics and that, you know, that. That Donald Trump is their natural leader because he's a lunatic. We're underestimating the enemy here.

And, and as a consequence of underestimating, not understanding and not understanding, not being able to develop any strategies or tactics that actually makes sense in winning the war. And, and you look right now at the Democrats in. In the United States.

Where are they?

They're flabbergasted. They're completely flummoxed. He's got them sitting right on their hands. They do not have any clue what to do right now.

You worked in opposition for years and years and years. If you were advising the Democratic National Committee right now, what would you be telling them?

Oh, my God. Oh, God. Sorry, I was coughing. You're often clipped just saying his name, but let me catch my breath for a second. Trump takes my breath away.

I think that Trump is really fascinating, and I think that you're correct. We have underestimated him. Jesse, one second. I don't know what's happening.

Yeah, yeah, I'll jump in for you. I think part of Hsieh and I's conversations have been on the silliness, the performative nature of party politics. And part of.

I think the paradox of Trump is that he's both performative and authentic.

And I think in that regard, the Democrats are kind of at a loss, because on the one hand, they want to be authentic, but on the other hand, this is one heck of a performance, and everyone's expecting them to step up and perform, but they're not entirely sure what role to play because the stage itself is kind of uncertain.

No, but I think they have not just underestimated Trump. They've underestimated the power of social media, the power of podcasting. They've underestimated the word authenticity.

You know, people throw this word around, and some, somehow, it doesn't mean what it used to mean. It used to mean.

Right.

You know, you were, like, honest and transparent, and you were like, you're just gonna. You're gonna be raw now. It means that you have to be profane. It means that you have to be naked.

It means that you have to have an argument with somebody. It's. If. If you're not arguing with someone, then you're not being authentic. It means that you have to.

To speak about the most personal things in your life. And I think what Trump understood, because he was in the media for so much longer than he ever was a politician, he understands performance.

The Democrats do not understand performance from what I can see, nor do the Canadians, to be quite frank. Like, I don't think we are very good here about understanding where the culture is.

In fact, I think Trump has done something that's surprising everyone. He's bringing Canadians together, because all of a sudden, people are like, I. I have to defend Canada. I have to defend what we stand for, or.

Or even if they. They don't want to defend Canada, that we're talking about what it means to be Canadian.

And he's the, he's the first politician that's done that, I think, in the last 50 years.

Well, he's not just uniting Canadians, he's also uniting Canadians against America. I mean, they're booing the national anthem at the Four nations hockey game. Tourism numbers just came out today to the States in the dumper.

Never been lower the number of people who are crossing the border into, into the United States. And you hear people anecdotally, you know, saying, you know, I'm not going to buy American products.

I got a friend, I've got a friend who's got booked a tour to Europe with American companies. I'm just canceling it. I'm like, I can't, I cannot patronize them. And you go, damn, you've spent tens of thousands of dollars. I don't care if a.

It's just not going to happen.

No, no, I think I, I think we, I, I think Trump is so unusual. He's, he, he is both a performer and he's authentic. And here's what I mean by that. He, he does say what he thinks. And some of the met.

Much of what he thinks is offensive. And, and there are a lot of people who think because he says offensive things, that makes him authentic.

It's really, it's very contrarian thinking, but he doesn't care. He doesn't care about offending anyone. But he also doesn't care about what he's stimulating in the country.

Right, because he believes that he is right no matter what.

And I think that's really uncomfortable for the rest of us because, you know, especially in Canada, we're taught to be objective and to be, you know, not to have bias and have multiple sources. And, and you, you, you can't just go off the rails and say things. The social media, the podcast platforms, Trump, they don't care about any of that.

Well, you said something really interesting there, and that is, there what is authenticity now is not what we've traditionally defined it. One of the things we try to do here is use different yardsticks that haven't been used to try to explain the world.

I gave a speech to the Public Policy Forum a number of years ago, and it was called On Authenticity, How Truth Is Going to Save Politics.

And I worked from that old paradigm and that old assumption, and with hindsight, it looks ridiculous because what I was saying was exactly that if people were honest and good, you know, good human beings and they showed that through and weren't performative and weren't trying just to look like they're saying people wanted to, to hear they would, they would be, be attracted to, but it isn't, it's something completely different. I also remember doing focus groups after Rob Ford became the mayor, right. Of, of Toronto for the Atkinson foundation, who was horrified.

Again, liberal organization saying, how do we get, you know, a leather lung, thick neck, knucklehead like this representing us? And we did these focus groups and people said, well, I don't necessarily agree with them. I don't think he's got all the right ideas.

But at least I know what I'm getting with this guy and that notion. At least I know what I'm getting. Right. It's got currency today, the likes of which we've never seen before.

Well, there's something else, and that is, you know, the elite in, in every country but in Canada and the U.S. have been allowed, you know, they've had a lot of space to create and make, you know, run the world, to run the countries.

And this is a backlash against the elite. And Trump has really, he really got that.

He understood that if he went into, you know, you know, there was a time when no one knew whether he was Democratic or Republican. And he chose the Republicans strategically because he knew they were losing.

He knew that he could win more favor with people who were not Democratic or Republican, that he could draw them in to the party.

And he, he, he really just was able to champion this idea that even though he is from the elite, even though he is wealthy, that he represents the underdog. And what did the last four years become?

It was, everyone was trying to get Trump, everyone was trying to take him down and take him through the courts. And with every win, he got stronger and the underdog started to identify with him if they didn't identify with him before.

There was something else you said that I'd like to tie into this, though, that reinforces that, which I'll rephrase as kind of the, the rhythm of the digital street. Yes, right. That if we think about old school politics, was kind of street politics and you had to know what was happening.

What was the word on the street now that's digital? And there was a time, you know, back to Howard Dean, that Obama, where the Democrats had, that they were tapped in. Right.

Both on the youth side and the kind of digital social media side. But the fact that Donald Trump is not necessarily ideological, he's opportunistic.

Yes.

I think that made it easier for him when the rhythm on the digital street changed because of the pandemic, right? Everyone's at home, everyone's using digital media, right? No one could control where the culture went. It went haywire.

Driven by conspiracy, driven by fear, driven by all this stuff. And the opportunist he is, he took advantage of that. Because if you look at who his cabinet is right now, right?

Rfk, Tulsi Gabbard, even Cash Patel, these are Internet clowns. These are people.

If they, if he gets through. Cash.

But, yeah, agree. But look, if rfk and if Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi Gabbard got through. She got through.

My God.

Right, but. But this is my point. They are all either Fox News people or Internet people.

And he is crafty in the way that he harnesses that sentiment and that rhythm. And that's where I felt out of touch when he won in November, because I discounted that Internet constituency and quite the opposite.

That's why we've been looking at a lot of these Internet centric ideologies, because that seems to be where a lot of his support. But not just that. His, his energy, his engine is coming from.

Well, he thanked Joe Rogan the other day. He said, you know, I think it was yesterday, he said that Joe Rogan was a huge. Gave him a huge boost.

But I think the other thing is that Trump and his people recognize the tribalism of America. That America. Listen, I. I mean, here's the other thing, you know, with this DEI stuff, that one of the things that we.

We don't talk about is the fact that there were a lot of people during the last 10 years of DEI that were angry and resentful about diversity, equity, inclusion, and they felt that they were being mistreated and excluded, and they didn't have anywhere to talk about it until the podcast social media sphere kind of lit up. And then that started a whole momentum, a whole kind of wave of people feeling like, you know, they were being left out, and.

And they were feeling like they. They were being excluded. And then the pandemic happened, and the idea of being controlled seemed to really drive people over the edge.

They could not deal with it. And it became like the Internet really became the Wild West.

But the Democrats, you know, many of the elite in Canada as well, were not observing what was going on in social media. They kind of said, they're still doing this, you know, like, it's not important.

Like, Poliev had that, that interview with Jordan Peterson about four, three weeks ago or four Weeks ago, maybe. I know, it's, it's nothing now. It was so huge four weeks ago.

But what was so interesting about that interview was that he wouldn't sit down with one Canadian journalist and do an hour long interview like that. And he did it with Jordan Peterson and 42 billion people. Whether they were, you know.

Well, you mean million million?

42 million. Yes, 42 million. I love the word billion. Anyway, it's 42 million people. I know, I know, I'm not.

But, you know, in a country of 41 million people.

Yeah, they downloaded that and, and the reason I bring it up is because for about 48 hours after that interview, and after 42 million people downloaded it, the Canadian media barely covered it. Yeah, yeah, they barely covered an almost two hour interview with the opposition that was at that point leading in the polls.

And so it tells you that we still do not think that social media has credibility, but yet the people do.

And to your point, my digital sources were breaking it down. Right. They were dissecting it. They were going into, look at what this means. Look at how this implies for his policy.

Look how he's speaking, his dog whistles and so on and so forth.

Exactly.

You mentioned something else which I want to bring up because it speaks to me why the right is winning the radical arguments. Because I'm very pro medicine, very pro public health. I found most of the response to the pandemic hard, heartbreaking.

But I felt that the center and the left missed a huge opportunity to be critical of big Pharma. Right. You don't have to be critical of pharma, you don't have to be critical of medicine.

But to validate a huge distrust of the concentrated power that exists in pharmaceutical companies would have made their vaccines a lot more valid. Right.

But you're throwing the baby out of the bathwater by trying to defend the vaccines while ignoring, and this is the UnitedHealthcare and Luigi Mangione. The amount of frustration, animosity, alienation that's out there is so ripe.

And if the center and the left just doesn't wanna touch it, doesn't want to acknowledge it, and the right does, that's how you see this huge sweep, which I don't want you to get too into it because I know this is an area where you could really get going. But I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the gateway between the wellness world and fascism. Right.

And the extreme right, because we saw that in the COVID times.

Yeah.

And it's still happening now.

We see it now still.

And it's an area where the left and the right are ignoring it and it's kind of happening right under everyone's nose.

Well, well, it's, there's so much to unpack there. But you know, as you know, my mother died because of, of the pandemic. And Covid, she, she got covet and she died 18 days later.

And she wasn't in a home.

She was in a cute little apartment in Toronto living her best life making gluten free food for my husband because she never thinks I cook enough gluten free food for him because he has celiac. But that's a whole other story. So to say that I am someone who believes in vaccines and caring for the most vulnerable, like I can't.

I could, you're right, I could just go on and on about it, you know, and obviously for me, the pandemic was devastating, you know, from, from that point of view, because I happen to like that woman very much. However. But what, what shocked me also during the pandemic is that there was no conversation really publicly about how to be well. So it's not.

So there was no criticism of the pharmaceutical structures or critique or engagement about what was happening. But then there was no public discourse about actually beyond washing your hands and getting vaccinated.

There was no real conversation about how to be well. And it's not just in the, during the pandemic. We are missing it right now. We do not help people to be well.

We do not train kids from a young age to be healthy and well and look at their bodies as remarkable structures that can do amazing things.

We have kids sitting for six or seven hours and exercising very little when we know that movement and breathing, you know, changes how your brain functions and grows new, new neural pathways. As you know, I can go on about this, but I don't think we do a very good job at medical care. That's just daily medical care.

We do an amazing job even though we're struggling in Ontario with emergency care.

But we don't do a good job of just helping individuals understand the power of their physical body and how to nourish and nurture their physical body and to make well being a priority.

Our society talks a lot about well being, but we actually do not make well being a priority in terms of how we structure our organizations and how we care for people. We don't.

And I mean, to what extent then is there this alt right pipeline in which the people who kind of fill that void are directly fueling both the Conspiracy movement and MAGA down south.

Well, you know what's so strange about it is that their whole point of view is don't trust the man, don't trust the pharmaceuticals, don't trust the government. But they don't really say what else you should do to. And.

And nobody other than buy their supplement, right?

Buy supplements. And then nobody really talks about nutrition and the cost of food, egg, a carton of eggs being $11. Right.

Like, nobody talks about the fact that exercise is. Is. Is the greatest medicine that any of us could actually take and do and activate in order to increase our well being.

We still are selling, you know, all sorts of other. We're legalizing drugs or legalized a lot of drugs. We sell cigarettes, we sell alcohol.

And I'm not saying that I'm not going to have some Prosecco tonight for Valentine's, but I'm just saying that we. Wellness is not integrated, like real wellness is not integrated into our healthcare system. And I'll give you an example of that. So, so. And.

And it might seem like a strange thing to bring up, but many women who live beyond the age of 38 are going to go through something called perimenopause and menopause. And most physicians, con. Conventional physicians do not know how to care for women going through perimenopause and menopause.

And why is this important? Well, it changes. Changes their lives dramatically because there are so many symptoms that aren't just about aging.

They're about the fact that estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone are decreased in women's bodies. And it changes how they function. It changes how their brains function, it changes how they sleep, it changes how they process food.

It changes everything. And it means that some women are not going to be able to work. And we lose millions and millions of dollars because of women cannot work.

And many women will tell you that they've gone to their doctor and they've said, I need help. I'm struggling with depression, I'm struggling with weight gain. I'm struggling with. With brain fog.

And the doctor will say to them, you just have to live with it until, you know, until you get to menopause. And, and this may sound like it's just an issue of us, of. Of a small group of women, but it's not true. It's every woman.

No, I was expecting that. I know you quite well, Che , and I would say this is why the right. Because you. You're incorrect when you say nobody's talking about this.

The right menopause is talking about this, about, about all of this stuff.

Well, they're talking about it, but in a certain way where it's, it's always.

It'S, they're not scientific.

Well, it's not scientific. It's not research based. It's very angry. It's, it's aggressive. It's about, it's not holistic.

It's not about individuals becoming well through movement and breathing and meditation and nutrition and mental, good mental health. I mean, look, look at, look at the, right in, in the U.S. look at the things that they're triggering. Just from a psychological point of view.

Look, I, can you imagine what someone who is from Palestine feels like when the president of the United States says, I'm just going to move you guys, I'm just going to move you guys out of there because it's a dump. They've, people have lost their entire families just psychologically. Why would you ever even say that to another human being who's been devastated?

Just devastated? And what they don't seem to understand is that these wars create wars in people. They create wars inside of people's souls.

So you can move someone and you can put them in a nice house, but you are not going to replace the 15 family members that were blown up.

I mean, not, not to flip the script on you, but does that suggest that we're going to be seeing conflict? You know, and if you, because you described earlier the positive side of Trump's intimidation of Canada, right.

That we're coming together, we're having a sense of unity, we're trying to buy Canadian.

But at the same time, you kind of just described really a kind of conflict that is the consequence of his rhetoric, that is the consequence of his policy. And maybe it's booing at hockey games today, but to what extent does this conflict spill over into the broader society?

And I say that because I do want to talk to you about the Ontario election only because it's happening and it does impact us perhaps initially more directly than Trump does, even though his tariffs do quite a bit. But do you think that this is all leading to conflict?

Do you think that as empty as this rhetoric may be, to your point, it is having a very emotional impact?

Well, I think it's not leading to conflict. It's because of conflict. He's using conflict to psychologically damage and scare and terrify people.

He's using economics like economic terrorism to, to, you know, hurt all the nations that he feels that, you know, he was humiliated by the. The reason for it, he says, is that everyone's taking advantage of America, and it's time for that to stop. Stop.

And so that's part of his America first agenda. But why does the America first agenda have to be psychologically damaging? Why does it. Why does.

Why does making America great mean that he has to put a burden economically on the rest of the world? Why? And, and, and the thing that I think is very unusual is that typically we would try to have conversations and build alliances and then negotiate.

And then once you have negotiated and it doesn't work, then maybe you start to put up these harder lines. But he's coming right out of the gate with threats. And, And I think that it just, it's.

It exemplifies his whole mentality, which is about power and control. What we're also seeing is that there are a lot of people agreeing with him.

There are a lot of people saying, well, you know, we've never tried this option. And I'm not sure if they're saying that because they believe it or. Or because he's just more powerful than him and he's.

They're intimidated and they don't want to be the ones who get the hundred percent tariffs. Right.

Do you think that's what Doug Ford's doing? Like, I assume you've been paying attention to what he's been doing the last few days a little bit.

And I assume you've been paying attention to the election a little bit as an ontarian. What's your reading, both on how Doug is playing this game, but also how the NDP are responding or not responding.

I think the NDP is having the same problem they have, you know, every time there is an election, they.

I don't know that the NDP really takes themselves seriously because here, and here's the reason I'm saying that you've just talked about this groundswell on social media.

You know, the, the people who are the conspiracy theorists to the, the people who are, you know, against the pharmaceuticals, you know, you know, all the negativity that is being cultivated in social media. Right. That, I mean, also, that's, that's the algorithm. The algorithm aggregates negativity, fear and unhappiness.

It would appear that the ndp, both federally and provincially, are not really paying attention to any of that because they're still working from a playbook that I think feels like it's 20 years old. It doesn't feel current, and it doesn't feel like it's Going to where people really are at.

This country has a productivity problem, Trump or no Trump. We have some of the greatest minds in this country. Look at what's coming out of AI. You know, look at what's happening in terms of green energy.

We have a healthcare system.

Even though there's a lot of criticism and people are in hallways, it's an extraordinary, A remarkable healthcare system in terms of the amount of people it looks after without a cost to you when you leave. Right. And yet, and yet we cannot get the NDP to be like, to agitate for innovation and growth.

All they do is criticize, like, what new ideas are the NDP coming up with? And, and I'm saying this as a person who was, you know, obviously in the NDP party, I. I know the NDP very well, and I wish they were better.

I wish they were stronger. I wish they were paying more attention to the. To the people that are not just hungry but. But needing new opportunities and new jobs.

I don't think they're doing that. But I also don't think.

I mean, I also think they need to pay attention to people who are doing shit and doing interesting things.

Yes, true.

In the digital space, in the policy space, who I see in the world. And those people have nothing to do with the ndp.

So this is a question Alan brought up a couple of episodes ago, and I'll throw it to both of you, because what I'm kind of hearing here, what I'm seeing in the Ontario election as a predecessor to the federal. This could be the end of the ndp.

I'm really not sure, especially if Doug Ford wins, especially if, you know, Poliev at least does decently, that there's going to be a lot of pressure on the parties to merge on there to be a united left to stand up to Trump, to stand up against the far right. And I'm not saying I support that. I'm just saying because the NDP is not distinguishing themselves.

They are not, you know, responding to this particular moment. To your point, if they're playing off a playbook.

Oh, do you want. Okay.

Yeah. Either of you.

Alan, do you want to jump in here?

No, you lost me at Big Pharma. Go ahead. What do you mean, 25 minutes ago?

Oh, my. I Know I did. Why did you stop talking?

Well, and is there a piece. Did you want to come back on the Big Pharma piece or is it just from there?

No, not at all.

Are you offended?

No, not at all. I just understand what you're talking about.

Anyway, go ahead, Che . Do you think the NDP has a future?

I think they all. They do have a future, but is it a good future and is it a future where they will be relevant?

I think there are some lessons to learn from someone like Trump in the sense of having to go right outside of the mainstream and realize, take the temperature of the people who are talking about politics in social media. I think social media matters a lot more than we think in Canada.

I think there are conversations that are happening in social media and people are being motivated in ways that I've never seen before. And there's a rhetoric that is profoundly negative. And I don't think we have to go negative, but I think we have to answer to it.

I think we have to respond to it. And I don't see them innovating and I don't see them responding. I don't see them like, you know, what do they have to lose, to be frank, in it, by.

By stepping outside of the mainstream of politics and giving people an opportunity to really share their views and bringing leaders to the table who are trying to do different things, who are thinking about the world differently. Why can't they be the ones who are helping to moderate and have those conversations? They're not going to win. I know that sounds like.

Why do we keep pretending they're going to win? It's a terrible thing to do to the people who are running. It's a terrible thing to do to the people who are voting for them.

But to your point about open conversations, do you think not just the ndp, but the Liberals as well, they're scared of the Internet? They're scared of the conversations on the Internet.

They have a lot of money. They have a lot of money. Right? I mean, that's part of why.

But that's true of the Tories, and the Tories don't seem to be scared of the Internet.

They're much more content to have those conversations versus, like, if I were to say to the Liberals or the ndp, hey, you should be online more, they would say, what about the haters? What about the trolls? Yeah, right. It's, it's an uncivil, you know, experience.

Well, I think it's, it's, you know, there's a lot of, A lot of Liberals have stepped down. Right. You know, because of the fear.

And that had never happened to her before in her 20 plus years of, of being a, you know, a, a politician in Canada. And she was, and she was stunned by it. And she, she does fear for, for her life and her safety.

We've never lived in a time like this where there are these types of behaviors.

And I think that because we support our, our political parties, I think they have a responsibility to speak up about this and to do something about it. I think that the Conservatives seem pretty sure that they can win in, in Ontario.

And I think the Conservatives federally are feeling the heat now that there's a Liberal, you know, campaign and that, you know, for, for leader of the Liberal Party. But everybody's still relying on low voter participation.

They're relying on, you know, they're, they're relying on just low participation and that, and that people are not really going to be fully engaged until the day of the vote and then that some people may not vote. And I think it's just kind of like it's the same old, same old. I don't feel like there's anything innovative coming out of our parties right now.

Not from Liberals, Conservatives or ndp.

Well, and why don't we end Alan Miriam, who's kind of one of our producers at large because she helped us book Tobias, that legal professor.

She wanted to hear your thoughts on strategic voting and the extent to which strategic voting keeps coming back every election as again a panic against the right. And does that go back to your point about a merger between the two parties and, or is strategic voting ever really part of the process?

I've never really understood whether strategic voting actually impacted anything thing or whether it was just kind of chatter to make people feel like they had an impact in the final outcome.

And Justin Trudeau won that election not because of his sunny ways or his charisma with young people, but because Tom Mulcaire made what proved to be a mistake in the province of Quebec by talking about Muslim issues and headgear and lost 10 points in a week that reflected in two and a half points in the national numbers.

And you saw the NDP vote massively shift towards the Liberal Party, not because he didn't like Thomas Mulcara, but because all of a sudden the Liberal Party looked like they were the best able to stop Stephen Harper.

If I had to put money, I would guess that the NDP will lose official opposition status in Ontario largely as a consequence of the little bump that the Liberals are getting federally by virtue of the leadership convention that they're, they're having now. And I'm publishing an article in Star tomorrow that does suggest that they better start talking about a merger together.

Because the other thing is there's no to the point you're making shape. There's no real difference.

I don't see any kind of profound positions that the NDP are taking today that suggest that we really need that, that alternative.

You talk about productivity, I mean, the reason that our productivity is so shitty is very, very simple, is that businesses in Canada invest virtually nothing in equipment, technology, ip, yet we give them millions and billions of dollars in subsidies. Yep, billions of dollars in subsidies.

We let them take the money that we give them in subsidies and if they use it to buy their shares back to enrich no one but the existing, existing shareholders. I don't hear jug Meatsing or merit styles ever talk about these things. You want to improve productivity, get rid of the male, female wage gap.

You want to get rid of productivity, make sure that new Canadians who have the proper credentials work in jobs for which they're, they're qualified. You want to improve productivity. Why don't we see that indigenous Canadians graduate from high school at the same level as non indigenous Canadians?

You know, all of these things would make, this is what I'm saying, massive contributions. Don't hear a word of that.

This is what I'm saying. They don't talk about any of these things.

And, and you know, here's the thing that's so fascinating about this moment with like this conflict with Donald Trump is that I think it's the first time that we really have to think as Canadians about what we actually not just stand for, but what do we produce here? What are we like, what do we create? What stays here? What are we investing in this country?

Because I think for a long time a lot of successful Canadians have gone to the U.S. they, they, they've taken the money they've gotten here and they've built businesses around the world. And to your point, they've not done it here. So.

And why is that? And so now Donald Trump is saying, america first is. I, I defend everything that is, that belongs to this country. I defend all that we stand for.

And Canada has to actually ask themselves, what, what do we stand for and what are we going to do? I mean, the fact that it costs more, like there's more tariffs between provinces than between us and other countries, that's insane.

It's not just insane. It's been a debate that's gone on for 30 years.

But why is it a debate? Like, it's, why would it be a debate? Like, it's just, it's so bizarre.

I mean, it would require a much stronger federal government, and there's a lot of provinces who don't want to cross that bridge.

No, but there's also, it's in our nature of federalism. There's all kinds of things that are under provincial jurisdiction. BC wants to provide, you know, protect BC wine.

Yeah.

So you go to BC Wine store, there's no Ontario wine. You go to an Ontario wine store, there's no BC wine. It's. You're. But you're right, it's absolutely crazy.

We've got all of these things that, you know, should be up for debate and. Interesting. We talked about this in the, in the other podcast the other day.

Well, actually, there's a lot of things that are up for debate that had been kind of off the table, and we're giving more focus and more priority for now as a consequence of understanding how vulnerable we are as a country by virtue of having interprovincial trade barriers, by virtue of having companies that are nowhere near as productive as Americans, by virtue of having a massive dependency on one economy and one economy only, and it's caused us to take a step back and say maybe all those things, rather than being strengths, our weaknesses, and maybe we, we. We should seriously revisit them.

Exactly. I, I think, you know, my personal belief is that every tragedy and trauma produces growth. You know, it's not the way we want to grow.

It's not, it's, it's never what you want. Like, you know, grief is not something you want to experience, but you grow out of grief.

You, you, you become something different because of the things that you lose.

And I think that Canada is, at this moment, I don't know if we will fully take it because I don't know if we have the right wise leaders and innovators at the, you know, at the table. I don't know if we're going to make decisions out of fear. I, I'm not saying that We. I'm not saying that we don't have the right leaders.

I just don't know if we do because we've never been in this type of confrontation before. But I think this is a moment that could actually change our trajectory potentially for the better if we were to actually invest in all of Canada.

I just don't know if we can.

But to your point. Sorry, go ahead, Alan.

Let me shift up just a little bit because we've never met before, but I know you, and I know some of us, stuff you've done. I know you've done a lot of work in the intergenerational.

Yes.

Space. And I'm fascinated, in part because of my age, what's happening with, with young people.

I mean, you know, when I was growing up, a prerogative of youth was optimism. Most pessimistic age cohort in Canada right now is people under the age of 30. And that's, that's unheard of.

Yet provincially, those under 30 there, the NDP is actually competitive with the Conservatives with that age cohort and only that age cohort, which suggests to me that it's not ideology that's driving them to the right or left. No, there's. There's something else going on here. Give us your perspective, because I say, I know you've worked in this space.

I think.

Well, the reality is that we have multiple generations in the workforce, and the youngest generation does not have the same opportunities that the oldest generations had. And that's one of the reasons why there is. You see this difference in, you know, supporting the NDP or supporting the Conservatives.

You have a lot of young people who are dying for a chance. They've done all the things that they were supposed to.

They went to school, they finished high school, they went to college, they went to university, and now they are looking for jobs. But the jobs they are looking for don't really exist because the job market, not only has it. Has it changed, but it is changing.

Like we there, you know, we're.

We're on the plane and flying the plane, you know, building the plane and flying the plane at the same time in the, in the, in the job market for young people.

And the other thing is that we have a generation of people in Zed and young Millennials who have mental health issues, but also a psychological, psychologically different perspective on what they value in a way that's different from Boomers and Gen Xers. I Don't think that we're actually paying enough attention. You know, the, the unemployment rate for young people is about 12%. Right?

I mean 6% for, for, for the adult population is high. 12%. That, this, this means that you have a whole generation of people who can't really start their lives. And here's the big piece.

For many people, not just is their life online and involved in social media. I know a lot of young people who don't, who don't participate in social media, but their life is defined by technology.

Everything they do is in technology. They don't.

And because of the pandemic, they don't have the same relationships and friendships and, and you might say, well, you know, what's stopping them? A lot of people don't know how to have relationships. And one of the pillars of well being are our relationships with one another.

You know, the last four years, one of the things that happened, especially in the first two years in the workplace is that a lot of young people were entering the workplace. You know, if they got a job, they're entering the workplace but not having anyone to mentor them.

So they're working in organizations and not actually engaged with any of the leaders or managers or directors because everything is online.

And Alan, I would suggest to you that not only is social media and technology, although it's brought a lot of good things to us and a lot of opportunities, I think what it's done to us psychologically, all of us, has been so damaging and detrimental that we were potentially going to lose a very significant portion of every generation because of the mental health suffering that people are experiencing.

And clearly you guys were talking earlier when the pandemic had to talk about not being able to have relations. I've got a 35 year old son who you know, is exactly that boat.

But that one of the most fascinating findings of public opinion research I've seen in my, in my entire career, it was just kind of a month ago where emerson College asked 18 to 29 year olds whether it was acceptable or unacceptable that Luigi Mangioni shot the CEO of United Healthcare. Almost 50% said it was at least somewhat, if not totally acceptable that he shot him.

Which suggests to me, you know, I hinted before, not right or left. This is nihilism. Yeah, almost. This is that the system works against me and it almost your delivery man, Jesse, you know, if you. The man, that's fine.

Yes, yes.

And, but that's dangerous. I mean it is being naive, but we, we look to youth as, you know, the future and, and they. To solve the problems that we've made worse.

And if you have that sense of nihilism, I, I just don't know where that goes. Goes where society goes.

And let me use that as an opportunity to wrap up because, Che , you know, we could go on and on for hours.

We're just getting started.

I was just. And we end. But there's two threads I want to connect there. I hate to evoke this, but I feel I have to.

From a powerful point to me, the archetype of the incel. Right, the involuntarily celibate.

It's this extraordinary extremist young male movement of guys who are, you know, have no ability to maintain social relations, feel complete rejection on a sexual level and have constructed basically a cult, an extremist cult that becomes very violent because they are weaponizing the things that we've been describing. That's at the far end. But at the other end to your point, shift are new leaders.

Like, I am increasingly seeing really inspiring young people who are speaking up against what's happening in the United States, who are understanding how to read social media trends in a way that I see makes them leaders, politicians. So where, Che , you have a little bit of hope in this moment of crisis that we are going to see new things grow. And I agree with you.

I lament our current leadership as being not necessarily up to the task, but I think we're going to witness a generation of young people of young leaders who are going to start using these tools to express themselves. And I think we have a responsibility as elders in a society to empower them. Right.

I think they're already doing it. And I, I don't think we should underestimate the power of TikTok.

I, I think one of the most fascinating things about TikTok are the leaders that are on TikTok talk. And they're not called leaders and they're not even called influencers. They're. They are individuals.

Some of them are groups who are fearlessly talking about things that they've never actually, They've never been trained to talk about, but they're sharing what they see and what they.

And what they are calling, what they, what they are, are attacking is the hypocrisy of the older generations, the pretense, the performative behavior.

It's saying that you're a democracy, but then not wanting people to really participate, which is what you see in the mainstream media in North America, across North America. And so, so I, I don't.

I'm not hopeless Because I think I meet young people all the time who are doing incredible things, but they just are not doing it the way we did it. And they. And because the world is completely different.

And I think the reality is that social media, not so, not just social media, but technology, this, this not being in relationship, not being in the presence of other human beings, the physical presence is very damaging. And I think the last four years has hurt a lot of young people. They, they don't. They're trying to climb out of this abyss of not feeling.

So when someone says, you know, Luigi might have, you know what, whatever they say, you know, he might have done the right thing or they agree with him. I don't, I don't know that they're saying that because they feel it. They don't, they're not feeling anything.

Nothing to do with Luigi or the.

No, but that's the nihilism.

Yes.

Yeah, but just let me add one more layer to the uncertainty that we're discussing. Okay?

And that's the last word.

Okay? This is the last word. We can talk about this more. More later. We are on the cusp.

We haven't started to see it yet, but we are on the cusp of the greatest intergenerational transfer of wealth the world has ever seen.

As the big generation, my generation, starts to die and these poor going nowhere kids are going to inherit trillions of dollars within the next 15 years. And what that's going to do, I have no idea. But they will all be millionaires because all their parents are millionaires now.

Unless my bitcoin prediction comes true and all those savings go to shit. And on that note, Che , that's been another fantastic conversation. Red Tory is available on YouTube on all your audio podcasts.

Che , why don't you tell the audience where you can be found?

You can find me on TikTok, actually, Coach Che marville. You can find me on Instagram and you can, you know, connect with me on Twitter and if you want to talk about.

We didn't talk about love or, you know, connection. More, you know, connection and, and being in each presence.

The red part of, of red Tori here on Valentine's Day. Is that what you mean?

Yeah, the love, the love part that heals. I, I mean, I think that's actually going to change our world and our future.

And I think there are a lot of people who are talking more about, about love and, and compassion and empathy. It's just that doesn't make you a lot of money. And everyone's concerned about money.

Although you know, we could talk about only fans at some point as the cornerstone of the Internet economy, but again, we are out of time.

Okay, but let's talk if you have me back. Incels. Incels. And the only fans. I want to talk just about that. Just that.

That.

That's too scary. Too scary. But you're correct. A powerful intersection, Alan. Thanks again, Che . Thanks again. And thanks to everybody.

It's been great chatting and yeah, find us on the socials, find us on clips, but don't find us in incel communities anywhere. Take care, Alan.

Great to meet.