Turning Legitimate Criticism into "Alternative Facts"

I was reading through /r/Canada on Reddit this morning and stumbled
across a thread on a story about Danielle Smith in the National Post
newspaper. I don't have a Reddit account, so I thought I'd respond here.
I know, I know. I'm shouting into the void.

Smith is the new premier of the province of Alberta. She was chosen by
her party after the previous premier, Jason Kenney, stepped down. His
departure followed a leadership review in which he gained the support of
just over 50% of party members. He stepped down voluntarily given the
low level of support within his own party.

Before taking over the United Conservative Party, Smith was the leader
of the Wild Rose Party, and she espouses a number of alt-right ideas.
Lately, her announcement that the World Economic Forum would have no
hold in Alberta has been the subject of a great deal of scrutiny and
derision.

That's the issue at the heart of this phlog post.

On Reddit, Smith is ridiculed for her opposition to the WEF. I don't
understand why anyone would ridicule that stance. There is nothing good
about allowing unelected groups of corporate titans to influence
government policy. The World Economic Forum, the Bilderberg Group, and
other international organizations with substantial corporate membership
should not be permitted to hijack our democracy.

The WEF brags about having Justin Trudeau and his cabinet in their
pocket[1]. Current finance minister Chrystia Freeland and former Bank of
Canada governor Mark Carney attended the 2022 Bilderberg meeting[2].
This should be cause for concern, not fodder for ridicule. These are not
completely transparent organizations. We don't really know how they are
influencing our government's policies -- and that's a problem. More
importantly, even when their agendas are out in the open, they have no
right to influence. Our governments were elected to represent us, not a
group of corporate billionaires. We have campaign finance laws to keep
corporations out of our elections. These organizations are a means of
skirting around those controls on corporate influence.

Another disturbing development in that Reddit thread involved a
commenter who remarked on the mainstream media as a propaganda machine
"owned and controlled by a select few." Twenty years ago, that was a
valid criticism and a concern shared by many on the left. The corporate
consolidation of major media outlets was seen as a looming threat to
free speech and democracy. Now, when this person makes the same claim,
they are accused of being anti-semitic. They immediately denied that
accusation.

But the bigger problem here is that once-legitimate criticisms of
unelected supra-national bodies and media conglomerates are now
associated with the alt-right and anti-semitism and are laughed off as
ridiculous ideas.

We do this at our own peril. It would be much better to separate the
criticism from the group or person levying it, and assess each idea
based on its merits. Unlike political leaders, we as citizens do not
gain anything by opposing every idea that comes from the other side.
Rather, we lose the opportunity to explore our shared interests and
concerns.

I'm glad that people on the right are exercising some skepticism and are
seeing some long-standing problems with our democracy. That's an
opportunity to open a dialogue. We should talk, not ridicule.


[1] https://financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-in-canada-follow-the-money-the-ideas

[2] https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meetings/meeting-2022/participants-2022