Some people have said that the opinion polls leading up to the election were wrong – those people were wrong; the polls were not.
Some people have said that the election was rigged – those who were observers during the voting and counting said it was not.
These were not the problems the PPC had during this this election – the problem was the media.
In the last election in the United States, Donald Trump had the support of Fox News and other news outlets across the country. In Canada the PPC has had no support from the media.
Canada has no true right leaning media. The closest we come is the Toronto Sun and the National Post, both of which often publish left leaning and biased articles, and both of which supported the Conservatives in this election.
New media like The Post Millennial and True North News have a Conservative bias. The Rebel News is the only outlet which gave the PPC fair coverage, but even the Rebel has a Conservative bias. The greater problem is that these new media have very little reach in Canada. The Rebel is probably seen by less than 5% of Canadians.
Knocking on doors throughout the election, I knew that the polls were accurate, and I knew what the result would be on election day. On the final day before the election, people were saying things like, “This is exactly what I have been looking for. Why have I never heard of you?”
A few days before the election a woman sent me a lovely email saying that she had never heard of the PPC until she saw one of our election signs. She looked at the party platform and wrote, “WOW! AMAZING! FINALLY! Down to earth, real issues, level-headed thinking! You have my support.” But most people don’t vote because they saw an election sign, and most people don’t bother to look at the party platform.
The PPC had two problems in this election: public awareness and the perception that we could not win. Both can be condensed into the first one: if we had higher awareness, we would have had a chance to win.
The PPC election result of 1.6% was very good in proportion to the number of voters who were highly informed about the PPC, which is likely less than 5%. And more people would have supported the PPC, but they voted strategically knowing that the PPC did not have a chance to win.
The PPC probably got a third of the votes among informed voters, and may have got more than half if we were seen as able to win. That is a good indication of our future chances, when public awareness grows.
The PPC will eventually win but we must overcome the media problem.
This problem can’t be solved after a PPC win. The PPC will defund the CBC and eliminate subsidies to failing media. But unbiased media is needed to get the PPC to power, and only once in power can the CBC be defunded.
Even with subsidies, the legacy media will eventually collapse. Subsidies can’t force people to watch what they don’t want to watch. Subsidies will only keep these zombie organizations going as they get fewer and fewer viewers.
The transition to online media will continue, and with it there will be more opportunities to create new media outlets and new content that will give fair and unbiased coverage to the People’s Party.
Most people who say that they believe in a climate crisis do not change anything about their behavior that shows they believe it. They heckle people who say climate change is nothing to panic about, and then get in their fuel-inefficient SUV and drive home.
This hypocrisy is quite common when people feel they must follow an established social norm but are unable or unwilling to follow it. In the case of climate change, there is very little that individuals or governments can do. We need our cars, we need our industry, and we need a healthy growing economy.
Hypocrites also doubt that climate change is so severe. After all, if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 25% over the past 50 years, how will an increase of 5% over then next ten years make much of a difference? Common sense is your enemy when you must believe.
Failure to follow a moral rule that is enforced by a society, or by a social group, makes people even more eager to enforce it on others. Hypocrites witness others being heckled for lack of compliance with the rule. Knowing that they themselves don’t comply makes them nervous. The best way to avoid becoming the target of heckling is to enforce the rule on others.
That’s why people who are secretly racist express strong support for anti-racism, men who are sexist call themselves feminists, and people who doubt climate change act angry and defensive when anyone questions its existence or severity.
The same behavior can be seen among religious followers, as many church-goers have likely witnessed. The strongest doubters, and worst practitioners, are often the most eager to enforce moral rules on others.
This mechanism becomes a useful tool for social control. If you can establish a new moral social norm, you can get people to enforce it. The less practical it is to follow, the more likely people are to virtue signal and enforce it on others.
Moral hypocrites also demand that government solve the problem. Political parties and governments promise to do “something,” to appear that they are acting. This is satisfying to the hypocrite since appearance is all that matters to them.
If you point out that government programs aren't working, the hypocrite will ignore you or get angry. The government virtue signals on their behalf, and that is all they want.
More inequality and more individuality (a type of diversity not based on race or culture) leads to greater prosperity.
It is has lately become fashionable to talk about economic inequality as though it were the cause of great problems in our society. In reality, we would benefit from increased inequality, particularly in our education system.
The campaign against inequality is one of the latest strategies of socialist economists and intellectuals to try to advance the core concept underlying socialism: material equality – the same outcome for everyone – which basically means the same income for everyone.
The problem with this is obvious to any student of economics: differences in income are essential to motivate people to enter the more difficult, and higher demand, jobs. In a similar way, differences in profits motivate entrepreneurs to shift production to areas of greater demand and away from areas of low demand.
If we eliminate income differences, we would need to assign people to jobs based on ability. Otherwise most people would want the easiest jobs, given that they would earn the same income regardless.
This is, in fact, what socialist intellectuals were aiming at. The elimination of freedom of choice and the imposition of government control over production and consumption. Best of all, in their fantasies, intellectuals and economists would run it all through a massive bureaucracy. You, the ordinary person, in this world view, are too dumb to care – or to decide – what you want.
The failure of forced equality can be seen most clearly where it has been most successfully implemented: in public schools. The adoption of free and mandatory public education happened at the same time as the great rise in socialist thinking in the Victorian era.
In the minds of the socialists, public education was just a first step. The central planning of all other aspects of our society would come later.
The problem is that central planning is a failure, it eliminates motivation and it suppresses freedom and creativity.
Fortunately, socialism was never more widely adopted, but it still manages to harm our children in the public education system.
To have economic and social development, a society must strengthen all its people, but particularly it’s most capable people. The most capable people will then start businesses, create jobs, work for the government, and make the economy and the country advance.
Welfare will not help a society become more prosperous. It is when a society becomes more prosperous that it can afford welfare.
It is harmful to the prosperity of a society to keep the most capable people down. By giving everyone the same education, you put a limit on the top end that any individual can achieve.
When people have individual choice, they can reach their own level. And the most capable people will be able to reach a higher level than they do in public school.
Even for the least capable people, public school is a problem. They are not able to keep up with the standardized pace, leading to failure and frustration.
For young men, the negative impact to social status and self-respect caused by this failure makes them drop out and find other ways to build themselves up – out on the street.
Minimum wage laws, and minimum employment age laws, compound the problem because they prohibit productive alternatives. The result is that these young men join street gangs and get involved in crime and violence – resulting in personal and societal self-destruction.
Uniformity of curriculum is also harmful. Rather than graduating with an education adapted to your own interests and abilities, everyone ends up with very nearly the same knowledge. The only difference being your test scores which almost solely determine eligibility for college or university.
Anyone entering the job market directly after public school has almost nothing to distinguish themselves from their peers.
Minimum wage laws make it difficult to get a first job without work experience. This is good for the education industry – you are forced to take additional training. But formal education, for many people, is an inferior alternative to actual paid work. And it is often inaccessible to those who cannot afford to pay the school fees and who cannot afford the time, when what they really need is work.
In his book “The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey Into How the World's Poorest People are Educating Themselves,” James Tooley shows that prior to the introduction of free and mandatory education by the government of England, most children already went to school. They went to low-cost private schools.
This contrasts with our general perception today that the government has been responsible for improving access to education. James Tooley shows that, in underdeveloped countries today where governments are only able to send part of the population to government run schools, low-cost private schools thrive and provide better education at lower cost than their public-school alternatives.
In developed countries like Canada, with the introduction of free public schools, the market for low-cost private schools has been eliminated. Only top end private schools survive.
The children of wealthy parents are not affected by public schools. They send their children to private schools. It is the middle-class and poor who are left to send their children to public schools. Public schools have made us poorer and have kept people in the middle-class from advancing as much as we otherwise could.
When the market is left alone to provide education, consumers will select the best education most adapted to their needs. Individual outcomes are better, and since our economy and society is the collection of its individuals, our society is better – more prosperous, more creative, and more free.
We send our children to public school because it is free and because it is convenient – but we still have a choice. One option is to organize volunteer-run community schools where parents, and other adults, supervise children and run the school together. Children are helped to choose subjects and methods of learning adapted to their own abilities and interests, to maximize their full creativity and potential.
Public schools keep poor and middle-class people poorer and more powerless compared to where we could be if our children got an education more adapted to their ability, interests and needs. There are alternatives, it's our choice.
I decided to drive into town on Sunday, just feeling like that is what I should do. I took a different route than normal, and along the way I picked up a hitchhiker. I don’t always pick up hitchhikers but, in this case, I was glad I did. Greg’s motorcycle had broken down and it turns out he was a friend of a friend.
On the way into town a small chihuahua puppy came running out into the road right in front of us, seeming intent on getting itself killed. I honked to try to scare the dog and notify the drivers coming up behind me and I pulled off the road.
By the time I got out of the car, the cars in both lanes had stopped and the chihuahua was standing defiantly in front of a white pickup truck. The driver had gotten out and was trying to capture the dog while it barked and snarled at her. I circled around behind and scooped him up.
Greg and I then went on a search for the owner in a nearby marina. Greg called out and someone came out from one of the boats and offered to take the dog, Chico, and reunite it with it’s owner.
As we were walking away, Greg said, “Man, that feels good!”
It reminded me of what Darik Horn had said in my interview with him: it feels good to do good things and make good things happen.
Greg said that good luck comes in threes, so I should expect something else to happen that day.
Nothing notable had happened until, as I was leaving town, I made one last spontaneous decision to go down to the lake. The water was calm and beautiful at sunset.
When I arrived, I saw a woman pulling a heavy kayak out of the water. I offered to help lift it onto her car and she agreed. I told her, “You must be number three,” and explained to her what had happened earlier. She was grateful for the help at the end of a long day of fishing.
It’s a long road ahead, and it will not always be easy, but it feels great to be a People’s Party candidate, because now I will have the opportunity to do good things and make good things happen.
With the rise of modern populism, traditional parties just can't win.
Harvard professor Clayton Christensen created the term disruptive technology to describe his observation that companies manufacturing mainframe computers could not switch to making desktop computers, and they ended up losing their market to these lower cost computers.
The main problem was that desktop computers had a completely different market. Mainframe companies were trapped serving their existing customers.
New start-up companies don't have any existing market and so can grow to serve a completely new market. In the case of the desktop computer, the technology improved until it replaced most of the market for mainframes. The new companies became rich and the old companies went bankrupt.
We are seeing similar disruption today in politics. Because of the internet, people are more informed than ever before about politics and political issues. This has created a new market of politically active private individuals.
Until now, politics has been dominated by special interest groups and big businesses. They have supported political parties, and influenced the media in favor of these parties, in exchange for special benefits and privileges which help them make money.
The most striking current example of this is the support of all the traditional federal parties for Supply Management. The dairy lobby even helped Andrew Scheer win the Conservative leadership, when Maxime Bernier, who is opposed to Supply Management, would have won otherwise.
The loss of the Conservative leadership was a blessing in disguise for Maxime Bernier. He was able to start a new party, the People's Party of Canada, unencumbered by the special interest ties of the traditional parties.
Special interest groups are the market for the old parties, and deep ties to this market make it difficult, or impossible, to shift to the new market of the newly active and informed public. Instead we see the old parties doubling down on their crony capitalist corruption, which will only lead to their downfall.
The People's Party is like the desktop computer and the established parties are like the mainframe. It's only a matter of time until the People's Party wins.
(image source, logo added)