By Fareed Khan
Avi
Lewis’s election as leader of the federal New Democratic Party earlier this
year was not merely an internal party upset or a moment of ideological turbulence.
It was a national signal—clear, forceful, and overdue that Canadians are
rejecting the traditional political binary that has dominated federal politics
for years—a choice between the Conservative Party and Pierre Poilievre’s rage‑based
theatrics, or the Liberal Party led by Mark Carney, a polished but pliant
technocrat. Lewis’s victory shows that Canadians are hungry for something
different, for a politics rooted in humanity, solidarity, and economic dignity.
For
decades, Canadians have been told that their political choices begin and end
with the two parties that have governed the country since Confederation—parties
now led by a career politician who thrives on division and a former central
banker who campaigned on “elbows up” toughness but has governed with “hands up”
submission. Neither Poilievre or Carney offers what Canadians actually need.
One cannot deliver because he sits in Opposition, and the other has failed
because none of the initiatives he announced as prime minister have
materialized—whether on affordable housing, affordable groceries, affordable
internet and phone services, a government willing to confront corporate greed,
or a leader with a moral compass in the face of genocide who stands up to
foreign pressure rather than bows before it.
Lewis’s
rise demonstrates that Canadians are sick of fear‑based politics and want to embrace
a politics of decency—one that understands the daily struggles of ordinary
people and refuses to treat corporate interests or foreign governments as the
true constituency of Canadian democracy.
The
failure of the old politics
Poilievre’s
politics revolve around resentment, division, and perpetual outrage. He has
mastered the art of weaponizing anger while offering little in the way of
substantive solutions. Carney, by contrast, presents himself as a steady hand,
a global thinker, a technocrat who has the international experience to manage
crises with calm expertise. But his record since becoming prime minister
reveals a troubling pattern. Despite his speeches promoting “elbows up”, when
confronted by pressure from Donald Trump’s administration, Carney has given
concessions without getting anything from the United States in return.
Many Canadians voted for Carney out of
fear—fear of Poilievre becoming prime minister, and fear of Trump’s threats to
annex Canada or impose crippling tariffs. But fear is not a governing
philosophy, and Canadians are now realizing that Carney’s leadership has
delivered submission more than economic stability, and that his tools to deliver
that economic stability are very limited.
Trump’s escalating war with Iran (something
over which Carney has no control) has already destabilized global markets,
driven up energy prices, rattled supply chains, and pushed major economies
toward recession. Canadians have felt the effects of this in gas prices and at
the grocery store. His erratic tariff
threats, sanctions, and military adventurism have created an environment where
no country can count on predictable trade flows or stable investment conditions.
Carney promised during the federal
election that he would shield Canadians from global volatility, insisting that
his experience as a central banker in both Canada and the United Kingdom
equipped him to steady the economy in turbulent times. But the reality has been
starkly different. Despite his international stature and frequent overseas
trips to seek investment and sign trade deals, Carney has no meaningful ability
to counteract the economic shockwaves generated by Trump’s decisions. His
government cannot blunt the impact of Trump’s escalating confrontation with
Iran, which has already driven up global energy prices, disrupted supply
chains, and pushed major economies toward the brink of recession. Nor can
Carney insulate Canadians from the broader instability created by Trump’s
unpredictable sanctions, tariff threats, and military brinkmanship. In
practice, Carney’s government has little leverage and no effective strategy
beyond waiting for the chaos instigated by Washington to pass. The economic turbulence unleashed by the US
president since returning to office is far larger than Carney’s ability to
deliver on his promises, and Canadians are now living with the consequences.
Carney’s
pattern of capitulation
Carney’s
“elbows up” pledge has collapsed under the weight of repeated concessions to
Washington. Four major examples illustrate this pattern clearly.
Digital Services Tax retreat: Carney promised to ensure multinational tech giants
pay their fair share—a 3% levy on the Canadian revenues of US tech giants. But
when Trump threatened retaliatory tariffs, Carney rescinded implementation
of the Digital Services Tax in
June 2025, effectively surrendering to US pressure rather than defending
Canadian sovereignty. Critics across the political spectrum described the move
as a capitulation wrapped in the political spin of affordability for Canadian
consumers.
Gordie Howe Bridge concession: Trump’s administration attempted to use the Gordie
Howe International Bridge as leverage, threatening delays and regulatory
obstacles unless Canada made concessions on unrelated trade issues. Instead of
asserting Canada’s rights in a binational infrastructure project based on a
legal and binding agreement, Carney quietly acquiesced.
His government’s refusal to release the details of the deal speaks volumes.
It’s another instance of when Trump pushes, Carney yields.
The F‑35 procurement paralysis: More than a year after Carney called for a review
of Canada’s purchase of F-35 fighter jets, his refusal
to make a clear decision—despite years of planning and billions of taxpayer
dollars already committed—is another example of his unwillingness to confront
Washington. Trump’s administration openly pressured Canada to accelerate the
procurement and Canada even put in a down payment on 14 additional jets, and
Carney has responded with indecision rather than resolve. His hesitation
signaled weakness and an unwillingness to make a decision that affects the
future of the RCAF.
Withdrawal of the Online Streaming Act levy: Perhaps the clearest example of Carney’s
capitulation came with his withdrawal of the Online Streaming Act levy. The levy would have required major American
streaming platforms—Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, and others—to contribute up
to 15% of their Canadian revenues toward Canadian and Indigenous content
production. The policy was designed to strengthen Canada’s cultural sector and
ensure foreign platforms invested in the country from which they profit.
But after
intense pressure from US officials, American tech companies, and Trump’s trade
representatives—who called the levy “discriminatory”—Carney
reversed course. He directed the CRTC to rewrite the rules, effectively
scrapping the levy and replacing it with a $600‑million annual federal subsidy.
Carney framed the decision as an affordability measure, claiming the levy would
raise subscription costs for Canadians. But critics immediately recognized the
move for what it was: another concession to Washington in the middle of Trump’s
trade war with Canada.
The
reversal shocked Canada’s cultural sector, blindsided Liberal MPs, and signaled
to foreign corporations that Canadian cultural policy is negotiable whenever
U.S. pressure is applied. It was a textbook example of Carney’s governing style—rhetorical
toughness paired with policy surrender.
Avi Lewis
represents the politics many Canadians want
Lewis’s
victory in the NDP leadership race signals a profound shift in the Canadian
political landscape, as is the NDP’s rise in the polls. Canadians are rejecting
the politics of fear and capitulation and instead choosing a politics of
empathy, solidarity, and material improvement.
The truth is that Lewis understands what Canadians
want: affordable housing built
for people, not investors. Affordable groceries in a market
dominated by corporate giants; affordable
internet, data, and phone services in a country where telecom monopolies
extract some of the highest fees in the world; a government that stands up to corporate power, not one that bends
to it; a foreign policy rooted in human
rights, not one shaped by the interests of states like Israel whose
actions violate international law with impunity.
Lewis’s
politics are grounded in the daily realities of Canadians who are struggling to
pay rent, feed their families, and stay connected in an increasingly digital
world. He speaks to the majority, not the elite minority.
A new
kind of leadership
Lewis
offers something Canadians have been denied for years—a politics of courage and
compassion. He does not posture. He does not perform toughness while quietly
capitulating behind closed doors. He does not weaponize anger or fear. Instead,
he offers a politics rooted in human dignity.
He has shown
he can empathize with people’s struggles and articulate a vision of Canada that
is not defined by corporate interests or foreign pressure. He has demonstrated
that he understands the basic needs of the vast majority of Canadians—and that
he is willing to fight for them.
This is
why his rise to lead the NDP matters. It is not simply a victory for the party’s
left wing. It is a declaration that Canadians are ready for a new political
era.
The
Canadian public has shifted
The old
political class still insists that Canadians are fundamentally centrist,
cautious, and resistant to bold change. But Lewis’s victory proves otherwise.
Canadians are tired of being told that they must accept corporate greed, rising
costs, and foreign interference as inevitable facts of life. They are tired of
being governed by people who do not understand them.
Lewis’s
election is a wake‑up call—not just for the NDP, but for the entire country. It
shows that Canadians are ready to embrace a politics that prioritizes human
dignity over corporate profit, sovereignty over submission, and solidarity over
division.
Carney and Poilievre offer Canadians politics as it has been for most of Canada’s existence—alternating between two parties which have both shifted to the right of the political spectrum. Lewis offers a politics of hope, and Canadians are making it clear which they prefer.
© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment