Mediaboss Marketing

What does it mean to be a conservative or a liberal in the United States of America?

The question is less strange than it may seem. American liberals and conservatives both hark back to the revolutionary founding of their country. Both claim either to fulfill or to renew the principles animating that revolution. Both profess a doctrine of liberty and equality. Either side calls the other tyrannical, and each believes that it alone promotes freedom. So, depending on your perspective, you could argue either that America has no conservatives, because everyone appeals to liberal principles, or that it has no liberals, because all appeal to a tradition.

The American arch-conservative George F. Will addressed this matter in his book The Conservative Sensibility. He admits that America has no school of European-style conservatism founded on aristocracy, hierarchy, and so on. The old Tories fled to Britain or Canada, and there is no counter-revolutionary party left. Instead, Will says, American conservatism aims to preserve the conditions that made the American Revolution possible. If you think through what Will is saying, you arrive at a paradox: American conservatives are liberals. So we may well ask: what are conservatives who do not agree with that characterisation?

Robert Kagan has the answer.

His new book Rebellion: How Anti-Liberalism is Tearing America ApartAgain asserts that all Americans are, or should be, liberal revolutionaries animated by the spirit of 1776. And yet, the principles of that revolution, he says, have always been resisted by an allegedly conservative faction which either wants rights and freedoms only for itself or which rejects liberalism altogether. The conservative, anti-liberal faction was ascendant in the old slave-holding South, was not actually crushed in the Civil War, and has lately made up the Tea Party and MAGA movements.

And if, says Kagan, Trump is re-elected, anti-liberalism will triumph over the Constitution, and that will be the end of the American Republic. Those who watched the recent presidential debate may struggle with the theory that only Joe Biden can or should save American democracy. But that is the force of Kagans book, and we shall know whether he is right soon enough.

In structure and content, Rebellion is clearly supposed to be something like a narrative of a sea voyage from the American Revolution to the present. Kagan fears that the journey may end in disaster should Trump take the helm again, cast aside the sextant and nautical charts of liberalism, and pilot the ship off the edge of the world. But what actually happens in the book is that Kagans ship runs aground within the first few pages. The background narrative continues as a literary equivalent of rear-screen projection, but the ship is not in motion. The impediment is the meaning of liberalism itself.

We can begin with Kagans portrayal of the American Revolution. That revolution was shaped by some grave misunderstandings and exaggerations, which Kagan neglects to mention. Here are two examples.

First, the colonists vision of the monarchs power was influenced by earlier generations experience of royal absolutism. They expected George III to intervene on their behalf against Parliament. But if this had happened, it would have amounted to the same sort of tyrannical abuse of constitutional norms associated with kings Charles I and James II, which notably had not bothered the colonists; but, when the king did not intervene, the colonists called him a tyrant. Second, they also hated the Quebec Act of 1774 because of all its liberal features. It granted tolerance of Roman Catholicism, allowed the use of the French Civil Code, and aimed to prevent the colonists from infringing on Aboriginal territory in what is now Middle America. So one may well ask in what sense the American Revolution was really liberal in spirit.

Kagans attempt to define liberalism is a larger problem. Liberalisms sole function, he says, is to protect certain fundamental rights of all individuals against the state and the wider community. John Lockes life, liberty, and property are what Kagan has in mind, and he is curiously impressed by the truly revolutionary claim that those rights were inherent in the nature of being human.

Many surprises follow. Kagans liberalism has no roots in the Enlightenment, he insists. Nor, despite the invocation of Locke, does it originate in all the liberty enjoyed by Englishmen. As for its purpose, liberalism is not a means of improving human lives, except by providing a historically unique form of freedom.

And yet, liberalism is not about progress, except the progress of ever-expanding rights. It has no destination or teleology. It is not the endpoint of some concept of modernization. AndI was especially shocked by thisit cannot be justified rationally. Kagans liberalism is no more rational or more just than the hierarchical worldview that has guided the vast majority of human beings for almost the entirety of recorded history. Liberalism, says Kagan, is at root a faith.

A man dressed as George Washington kneels and prays near the Washington Monument with a Donald Trump flag, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo.

As I said, Kagans is a surprising definition, and I suspect that many self-avowed liberals would reject it. Kagans definition is a significant climb-down from the more exalted claims that liberalism has made for itself over the past 30 years. And so, I am almost ready to agree with Kagan. His idea that liberalism is a faith is very nearly right, though perhaps not in the way that he intends. Lockean liberalism is a quasi-Protestant political theology, as many scholars have called it. And the idea of rights inherent to all persons, which Kagan finds so impressive and revolutionary, is actually a very old Western Christian anthropological claim that Locke did not originate.

One can argue in fact that Lockean liberty makes no sense outside its Christian context, and I think Kagan could potentially be convinced of this also. The American Founders unwisely separated Locke from his theology by asserting that certain unalienable rights were self-evident. And Kagan himself marshals all the evidence to prove that this assertion was wrong.

It was the liberal constitution of 1789 that permitted slavery for nearly a century, and slave-holding elites constantly appealed to principles of freedom and to property rights. Their opponents did not make convincing counterarguments, so much as opposite appeals to other liberal values. Kagan portrays this contest as one between liberals and anti-liberals; but one may see it more clearly as a fight within liberalism, especially when the South seceded on the same pretext of liberty and property rights invoked by the colonists in 1776. The South was of course defeated in the ensuing Civil War; but, as Kagan reminds us, the South continued to defy the federal government, asserting white supremacism and racial segregation with appeals to rights, liberty, autonomy, and so forth.

Obviously, it would be impossible to argue that slavery was genuinely compatible with liberal principles. But the Founders liberalism did not only fail to vanquish it, but liberal principles were also useful in defending it and its similarly loathsome aftermath. Moreover, liberals of the North easily persuaded themselves that their values would gradually prevail in the postbellum South without further interventionan attitude which prolonged segregation and white supremacism. Self-evident truths, indeed!

Nevertheless, Kagan is very close to identifying the actual flaws in the American republic. Or rather, he has rightly summarised all historical proofs of them, without drawing the right conclusion. He is right to say that many Americans have never fully accepted Lockean liberalism, but he cannot yet see that the American tradition of liberalism has been cut off from its root.

The root of liberalism, as Kagan says, is faith. But liberals no longer believe in it. The theory of natural and inherent equality among all persons comes from the New Testament and was elaborated over many centuries from St Augustine onwards. As historian and philosopher Larry Siedentrop put it, belief in the moral equality of men created a role for conscience, and that set limits to the claims of any social organisationa conviction which requires respect for the difference between inner conviction and external conformity.

Remember also that Thomas Jefferson had sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man, not because he hated religion, but because the individual person must be free to follow the dictates of his reason and conscience implanted in him by God.

In this July 14, 2010, file photo, a statue of Thomas Jefferson, right, stands in New Yorks City Hall Council Chamber. Richard Drew/AP Photo.

Christianity is also the origin of the secularism and tolerance that Kagan makes so much of. The idea that there is a secular and a religious realm, and that the two must be separated, is a constitutional theory best associated with the 11th-century papacies of Leo IX and Gregory VII. The idea, originally unknown outside Europe, has prevailed ever since, and theories of secularism, tolerance, and religious freedom grow out of it.

Those principles must be in place, as Locke and his epigones knew, not because religion is a pernicious influence on government (as Kagan repeatedly says and implies), but because belief would be insincere without them. Liberalism ought to form the conditions under which authentic beliefs may flourish, for there can be no benefit to anyone if people are forced to conform to what they do not really believe.

Both American theories of a biblical republic on the one hand, and utter godlessness on the other, depart from this tradition. In our own irreligious age, demand for external conformity has vanquished respect for inner conviction. And the divorce between liberalism and Christianity has undermined the only justification that liberalism has ever had.

Apart from religion, Kagans liberalism has another blind spot. I mean the illiberal, or (to borrow Kagans adjective) anti-liberal, excesses of the political Left. For instance, the collapse of American race relations in our own time is in Kagans view simply a reckoning and the inevitable by-product of the liberal system the Founders created. And he asserts that wokery is unfairly vilified by conservative, anti-liberals.

But if Kagan really believes that, it only emphasises how remote he is from Lockean liberalism. The woke hierarchy of oppression and fixation on race and privilege do not aim at equality and unity, but rather division and exactly the sort of tyranny over the mind of man that Jefferson hated. DEI initiatives are exclusionary and illiberal also, and they have not raised up minorities so much as empowered a new class of commissars policing everything from speech to Halloween costumes.

The New York Times 1619 Project, a re-examination of the history of American slavery, notably teaches that the liberal ideals of the American Constitution were false from the beginningexactly the same conclusion reached by John C. Calhoun and the other defenders of slavery. By Kagans own logic, the two antagonists of wokists and slavers are actually les extrmes qui se touchent.

If the stakes are really as high as Kagan says, then liberalism requires a much more vigorous and convincing defence than Rebellion provides. Jefferson wrote of the tree of liberty which from time to time needs the refreshment of its natural manure: the blood of tyrants and patriots. This is a dreadful thought that seems to lurk behind Kagans assertion that the people and their beliefs have always been the problem for liberalism. But if the root of the tree is faith, as Kagan affirms, then nourishing that faith is the only thing that can renew liberalism, not vanquishing unbelievers.

But Kagans liberalism takes shape as a non-metaphysical religion that cannot be vindicated by reason; which is no more just than any other worldview; and which has consistently failed to achieve its goals.

So why, one may wonder, should anyone espouse it? And how can a non-believer be convinced? Kagan, like a crypto-Protestant theologian, simply affirms that you either believe it or you do not. The Liberal Elect simply know who they are. No amount of persuasion, but faith alone, can make the American people into liberals. If this is true, and Kagan seems to believe that it is, the track record of that non-theological faith suggests that its future will be very bleak indeed, no matter who wins the next American election.

Original post:
Michael Bonner: Defenders of the liberal faith feel the fire - The Hub

Open this photo in gallery:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau arrives for the NATO 75th Anniversary celebratory event at the Mellon Auditorium in Washington, D.C., on July 9.BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/Getty Images

Re U.S. plans to press Canada, other NATO allies at summit to meet 2% spending target (July 9): Canada will be grilled about financial commitments. Canada should go beyond GDP numbers.

Our massive land mass compared to the United States is roughly the same, but our population is not. We cant be expected to similarly maintain physical and communication infrastructure with much lower tax contributions from individuals and companies.

The remaining Group of Seven countries are smaller in size with larger populations. Metro Tokyo alone has approximately the same population as Canada.

Forget an apples and oranges comparison of countries. In the G7, we have a grape population in a watermelon land.

Alice Marshall Peterborough, Ont.

Re When Liberals talk about Poilievre, Trudeau drowns out the sound (July 9): One should take the recent ditch the Liberals, turf Trudeau polls with a grain of salt, particularly considering the recent Toronto-St. Pauls by-election results whereby only 43.5 per cent of the eligible 84,934 voters turned out.

A close race was also watered down by numerous questionable candidates fomenting a sound and fury of nothing. It was a Conservative victory to be sure, but the contest was so close that it may indeed reflect how the nation votes once we get down to it.

For the Conservatives, please do not continue to slag Canada as broken. For the Liberals, it would be a fraught time to stay the course.

For Justin Trudeau, he would do well to remember there is no I in team.

Marian Kingsmill Hamilton

Re Seeing energy policy only through the lens of climate change? That time is over (Report on Business, July 3): Thanks for reporting on the survey of Canadian perspectives on energy and climate change. What, if anything, are respondents doing to counteract affordability concerns?

Are they driving a hybrid or electric vehicle? Do they heat with high-efficiency gas or heat pump? Are their attic and basement walls insulated? Have they switched to LED lights? Do they turn off the lights, radio and television when not in use?

The payback on some of these choices may not be prompt. We can do them now or do them later, but they are going to have to be done.

Brian Yawney Toronto

Re As artificial intelligence rises, data-centre costs spiral. Quantum is the solution (Report on Business, July 3): I read about quantum computing nearly my whole IT career at a major company, but it has so far not achieved operation at scale and forever seems just around the corner.

We should keep focused on the objective: finding solutions to problems for companies and society, be they corporate efficiency goals, climate change initiatives or new medical treatments, among others.

Quantum computing offers the promise of addressing issues quickly with less resource consumption. Traditional computing is now powerful enough to run large language model artificial intelligence to do the same.

But neither is a panacea. Quantum computing, as powerful as it is, would be able to unlock encryption algorithms and compromise security. Traditional computing requires massive amounts of electricity.

Being an optimist, I believe well muddle through and find innovative methods to address our collective requirements. And it will use neither current computing nor quantum computing, but some combination thereof.

John Madill Oshawa, Ont.

Re Ontario gets it right with advertising and news businesses (July 3): Governments at all levels across Canada should prioritize Canadian news publications when placing government advertising, as it can be a vital lifeline for news publishers. Supporting our domestic news industry is critical to sustaining high-quality, fact-based journalism.

However, government advertising should be informative to the public and not veer into partisanship. I believe Ontario got it wrong with its recent $8-million Its happening here ad campaign, which appears to be more about making the government look good rather than providing useful information to Ontarians.

While promoting provincial pride has merit, ads with little substantive content, especially during challenging economic times, should raise questions about the Ford governments priorities and use of millions of taxpayer dollars for communications bordering on political promotion. Partisan promotion should be seen as a misuse of public money, regardless of which party is in power.

ric Blais Toronto

Re Alice Munro betrayed us, and her legacy (July 9): Alice Munro was my first literary hero, Lives of Girls and Women a revelation to me at a tender age. There was no greater compliment than being told ones attempts at fiction were Munrovian.

However excellent, her writing is now tainted for me, her words deceptive, her honours, accolades and adulation undeserved. For me, there is no hand-wringing angst over trying to separate art from artist, no need to defend her talent. I dont want to read work by someone who chose her predatory husband and literary fame over her own daughters safety.

Ms. Munro is no hero to me; if she is now notorious because of her unwillingness to help her daughter heal, then I believe it is deserved.

It seems that all the adults in Andrea Skinners life failed her. Less importantly, Ms. Munros hypocrisy in leading us to believe she had insight and empathy fails us all.

Shirley Phillips Toronto

If history is written by the victors, then revised by the disgruntled, social mores can be said to be afflicted by the reflexive disgust of bourgeois media. Mentioned are various cancel culture victims (Michael Jackson, Ezra Pound), but the lesson inherent in their enduring legacies should be: Art really is separate from the individual.

Perhaps one never liked Kevin Spacey, but has a soft spot for Roald Dahl. J.K. Rowling shaped ones childhood, but now friends say shes an enemy of the trans community. Yet when these books are reopened, the only stain to be identified is the one placed there by ones self.

Every artist has peccadilloes or worse in their background as do we all. Art transcends these, and the passing predilections of the shocked class.

Michael Devine Halifax

How can we read her again, ever? My answer to that rhetorical question would be: With something approaching reverence.

It is asserted that Alice Munros private life, now partially revealed, calls for a necessary reassessment of her work. Syllabuses, publishers plans, bookstore shelves so much rearranging to do. How about public book-burning?

The crystal clarity of Ms. Munros writing will always chime for me, her gorgeous textures will always evoke worlds.

John Metcalf, Editor, Biblioasis Ottawa

Sounds right out of an Alice Munro story.

Anne Hansen 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

Go here to see the original:
Liberal outlook plus other letters, July 10: For Justin Trudeau, he would do well to remember there is no I in team - The Globe and Mail

Moderates have broke the woke in New Yorks Democratic Party.

A left-leaning political revolution that swept over New York Citys sleepy northern suburbs in 2018 and 2020 has receded with outspoken progressive politicians like Squad Rep. Jamaal Bowman, Mondaire Jones and Alessandra Biaggi swept out or no longer in office.

The liberal activism unleashed in reaction to Donald Trumps 2016 election and presidency has taken a nosedive in four years with the hard-left incumbents and candidates defeated and Democrats taking a hard swing toward the center in major races.

Political power rests on a pendulum which swings back and forth, New York state Democratic Party chairman Jay Jacobs told The Post.

When it swings too far in one direction, it is sure to swing back the other way, said Jacobs,a moderate who is also the Nassau County Democratic leader. That is what we are seeing today in New York and across the country.

The pendulum has swung back. The Democratic voters made clear that they favor a moderate approach.

Controversial policies like Defund the police andopposingIsrael are unpopular positions among rank-and-file Democrats that are pushing suburbanites away from extreme candidates, party officials and strategists said.

The shift to the center includes:

Political consultant Jake Dilemani said the changes in the burbs can be a sign of the way the party is going way beyond the state.

Comparing now from a couple of years ago the elected representation in Westchester is certainly more in the hue of mainstream Democrats than far-left Democrats, he said.

It became the most expensive House primary in history, partially because it was a message election, Dilemani said.

That could potentially set up a domino effect for these other members of the Squad nationwide, the next one up being Cori Bush in Missouri, he said. So obviously the Bowman-Latimer [upset] is significant, but not just for that one district but potentially nationwide ramifications.

Sign up for our Metro Daily newsletter!

Some of the liberal voices were amplified during Trumps term, he said, because some Democrats were pushing to vote as far away from Trump as humanly possible.

And so in a lot of contests when youre dissatisfied with politics and whats happening nationally, a lot of Democrats cant take it out on Republicans because in a lot of these districts, the Democratic nominee is the de facto winner in November, so they take them out on incumbents or mainstream Democrats in a primary, he said.

But by 2022, in the midst of the Biden administration, the pushback had already begun, he said.

Meanwhile, on Long Island, Republicans have won virtually every major office in a voter backlash after Democrats in Albany approved the unpopular cashless bail law in2019. But in a bright spot for the party, moderate Tom Suozzi in February won back the 3rd Congressional District he previously held in a special election after serial fibber Republican Rep. George Santos was expelled.

Centrist John Avlon was able to easily win over Stony Brook University chemistry professor Nancy Goroff in the East End/Suffolk Countys 1st Congressional District.

Jacobs said Democratic voters are clearly rejecting extremism while claiming the Republican Party is embracing it by renominating Trump for president.

This trend debunks the Republicans false narrative that the Democrats are the party of the far left. We are not, Jacobs said. We respect their views, but we are a moderate party that promotes common-sense solutions to the real everyday challenges facing our states and nations voters.

Jacobs stopped short of spelling out the issues where moderates carried the day, other than to say that being pro-Israel is the sensible position in suburbia, and he previously backed changes to tighten the bail law.

But Democratic campaign strategistJon Reinish said voters turned against the hard-left politicians push for policies perceived as more pro-criminal than pro-safety and being more obsessed with bashing Israel than addressing bread-and-butter issues.

Most voters are common-sense voters who reject extremism of any kind and that includes defunding the police and being anti-school choice, said Reinish, whos worked with charter schools.

Voters want to be safe and prosperous, he added.

The rebellion started in 2018 when progressives toppled four incumbent state senators who were part of the Independent Democratic Caucus that was allied with Republicans the kiss of death in the deeply blue state during the Trump era.

Meanwhile, Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also upset veteran Queens-Bronx Rep. Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary that year.

Democratic socialist candidates won six seats in the state Legislature in the prior electioncycles.

The far left was ascendant but New York voters found out they were extremist themselves, Reinish said.

The Working Families Party, which backs many left-leaning candidates and sometimes is allied with the Democratic Socialists of America, backed Bowman in his unsuccessful race.

But the WFP noted its candidates fared well in statelegislative races.

Faced with challenges from the right, we were able to successfully defend every one of our state legislators. We also added three new women of color to the Legislature. New Yorkers want leaders with bold vision who will make real changes to improve their lives, said WFP sposman Ravi Mangla.

Bowman is still on the WFP ballot line, but the congressman isnt running an active campaign to play spoiler and siphon votes from Latimer, the current Westchester County executive.

Latimer is facing pediatrician Miriam Levitt Flisser, the Republican candidate, in November in the Democratic-leaning district.

The state legislative races were a mixed bag for the political left.

For the second consecutive time, moderate Assemblyman Michael Benedetto easily defeated Jonathan Soto in the 82nd District in the north Bronx. Soto was backed by Ocasio-Cortez, the DSA, and the WFP while Brooklyn incumbent Assemblywoman Stefani Zinerman beat backa challenge from DSA insurgent Eon Huntley .

But DSA candidate ClaireValdez won a seat in western Queens,prevailing over Democratic Party-backed candidate Johanna Carmona and incumbent Assemblyman Juan Ardila, who was dogged by sexual abuse accusations, in the 37th District covering Ridgewood,Long Island City and Sunnyside.

DSA incumbents, like most incumbents including Brooklyn Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher easily won re-election.

Read the original post:
Woke policies fall flat as NY suburban Dems fight to take back party in blow to activist liberals - New York Post

Doggett referred to President Lyndon Johnson, who made the painful decision to withdraw from the 1968 election due to his waning popularity against Richard Nixon. President Biden should do the same, Doggett said.

Bidens lackluster performance at last weeks presidential debate, in which he gave lengthy, often incoherent answers and repeatedly failed to refute Trumps dangerously inaccurate claims, has created growing waves of dissent throughout the previously united Democratic Party. In the debates wake, Democrats have started pushing for Biden to step aside, so that a younger candidate can take up the mantle of securing the White House.

This dissent may only continue to grow among Democratic lawmakers. While the Biden campaign has rushed to assure donors and activists that the president is still up for the task of defeating Trump, there has been little outreach to the Democrats on Capitol Hill, according to Politico.

See the rest here:
Conservative Behind Trump Agenda Issues Cryptic Threat to Liberals - The New Republic

The Liberals seem to think they have a surefire wedge issue against the Conservatives: their hardhearted opponents want to snatch away free dental care from the nations kids and seniors.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was on the offensive in late May, talking at some length about the threat the Tories pose to programs such as dental care.

These measures are based on the idea that everyone in this country should have access to the care they need no matter where they live, or how much money they have in their bank account, he said during a news conference in Truro, N.S. And yet, the Conservative Party of Canada opposes this idea at every turn. They opposed free dental care for kids and now for seniors, including pushing on dentists across the country to not sign up to offer free dental care to vulnerable seniors.

Its a great line of attack, except for one minor detail: almost nothing that the Prime Minister said is true, starting with his characterization of the federal dental benefit.

For a start, there is no free dental care, despite Mr. Trudeaus repeated assertions to the contrary. (He made the same claim in the House of Commons on March 20 and May 22.)

Sure, there is a Canadian Dental Care Plan. And yes, that plan does currently cover dental services for children, seniors and adults with disabilities. But there are still out-of-pocket expenses. One is the co-payment required for any recipient whose adjusted net family income is higher than $70,000.

Even those with family incomes below $70,000 will still have to pay for dental care, since dentists fees can exceed the amount that government pays out. The official description of the program is perfectly clear on that question perhaps the Prime Minister should bookmark the page.

Then there is the conspiracy-theory-tinged accusation that the Conservatives are somehow manufacturing dissent among dentists. When asked for proof of that assertion, the Prime Ministers Office deferred to the Health Ministry, which dispatched boilerplate language that did not answer the question. So, no proof, then.

For its part, the Canadian Dental Association is quite insistent that its concerns are largely rooted in the mistaken belief, and resulting ire, of some patients that the federal program is free a misperception amplified by Mr. Trudeau, among others.

The pity of it is, the Liberals have a perfectly good sales pitch to make on their new dental program. As this space has previously said, the design of the dental care plan is a blueprint for a modernization of social programs.

The benefits are targeted to those most in need, rather than diffused to higher earners who dont really require Ottawas help. The co-payments are part of that targeting, and are an excellent innovation.

The programs design recognizes the importance of the private sector. It does not displace existing private-sector dental plans. And rather than hire a slew of bureaucrats, the government chose to outsource the administration of the program to a private company with expertise in the area.

Then there is the latest innovation which Mr. Trudeau studiously ignores that allows dentists to charge more than the reimbursement amounts set by the government. Patients will end up paying something for services rendered, but the subsidies from Ottawa will substantially defray those costs.

The decision to not attempt to cap dentists fees avoids recreating the artificial scarcity that has left millions of Canadians without a family doctor.

The Liberals could take that policy success and brandish it as evidence of pragmatic innovation, and lay out a contrast with the Conservatives. That should be an easy debate to win, particularly since the Conservatives voted against the interim dental plan, and have yet to say what they would do with the current plan if they were to form government.

But that would require a Liberal Party that embraced the political centre, a party that was not afraid to talk about the virtues of the private sector, a party that was happy to highlight its enthusiasm for limiting costs to the public purse and to talk about its blueprint for modernizing social programs.

Instead, Mr. Trudeau is busy trumpeting a badly distorted version of that policy, preferring progressive fantasies to the reality of his governments own handiwork.

Go here to read the rest:
A Liberal attack line on dental care that has no bite - The Globe and Mail