but, you know, it's actually another great example.

the reality is that the liberal party's historical immigration policies are very similar to what the populists say they want. if you throw caution to the wind for a moment and take ann coulter at her word, she claims she just wants to make sure that immigrants have skills, so they don't end up on welfare or in crime. and, she puts a big emphasis on language. that's exactly what the liberal party's historical immigration policy stressed. granted, the context is different. in the 60s, putting a focus on language and education was designed to open the system up to more immigrants. but, acknowledging that change in context doesn't change the basic reality that this is, in fact, rational - once you separate it from all of the racism and other nonsense that coulter and her ilk spew. why wouldn't you want your immigration system based on skills? and why would you let in hordes of people that speak foreign languages? i exaggerate to stress the point: this really isn't controversial.

so, we're in this situation where there's this populist uprising. on point after point, the populists are basically articulating historical liberal party policy. the liberals are in power. and, they are reacting by pushing down various types of toryism...!?

it boggles the mind.

why isn't trudeau doing the obvious populist pivot, given that doing so is nothing more complex than upholding pearson's legacy?