How to Launch a Successful Motorcycle Brand in the U.S.

Harper's success inspired Trudeau, who realized he couldn't move from third party to government without imitating the Conservatives' modernizing initiatives. In reality, by the time they defeated Harper's Conservatives, the Liberals had beaten the Tories at their own game by accepting modest digital donations. A decade later, Pierre Poilievre has outperformed them all, combining genuine policy pledges, captivating communication, and internet involvement in a potent fundraising offensive that has blown other parties out of the water.The federal shift in fundraising mentality was not unavoidable. Indeed, Canada's largest province followed a darker path. While Harper was enacting political reform, Ontario Liberals discovered that large labor had as much money to throw around as big business did. The Working Families Coalition, a consortium of Ontario's public sector unions, provided millions not only to the Ontario Liberal party war room budgets, but also to third-party advertising campaigns, assisting the Liberals in defeating Ernie Eves and then remaining in power for a decade. During that time, public sector unions obtained the best wage and benefit packages they had seen in years.By the conclusion of McGuinty's tenure, even he was concerned about the province's finances, so while some union funds continued to come, the Liberal cabinet was told to fulfill rigorous fundraising targets by hosting events with major donors rather than appealing to normal people. Eventually, embroiled in a cash-for-access scandal during Kathleen Wynne's stint as premier, the government was obliged to amend Ontario law to prohibit corporate and union donations. This could have been a significant turning point.

Unfortunately, Patrick Brown, the Ontario PC. 

leader at the time, chose to take advantage of a "loophole" in the new legislation, continuing the previous fundraising method rather than seizing the opportunity to break the PC party's addiction to large donations. After establishing government a few years later, the Ontario PCs reverted to the past, hiking donation restrictions and allowing MPPs to attend their own fundraisers.Now, the provincial government is facing its own version of a cash-for-access scandal, and as the Ontario Liberals try to rebuild, leadership frontrunner Bonnie Crombie is bragging to members about her fundraising chops—not because she has a compelling, ideological vision for Ontario that motivates individuals to scrape together some of their hard-earned cash and donate, but because developers and other corporate interests believe she has the best chance of winning aIt's difficult to conceive how anyone could choose the latter political culture over the former, especially if one's goal is to strengthen democracy. Jonah Goldberg is an otherwise highly knowledgeable pundit, so I can only blame his erroneous remarks on a trend I've noticed among similarly wise commentators of a particular age. These critics correctly bemoan lost institutional trust and the elite's deteriorating ethics and intelligence, but rather than interrogating what elites did to lose trust, they lash out against those who refuse to offer it.

Justin Ling and others who have commented. 

on his research tend to advocate for a per-vote subsidy rather than a return to big donor techniques. This strategy is undoubtedly superior, but taxing Canadians more to fund political projects they don't like appears to be a hasty move given how well the federal status quo works. Critics of small-donor fundraising do not trust little old women and their credit cards to decide who's political success should be sponsored. But, if our next prime minister feels he owes something to someone, wouldn't you rather it be Agnes from Thunder Bay? Even if she's just letting off steam?As Palestinian sympathizers continue to organize in several Canadian locations to effectively demonstrate in support of Hamas' horrific attacks against the State of Israel, the inherent conflicts and limits of pluralism are exposed for all to see.Pluralism is an important part—if not the most important part—of Canada's identity and shared citizenship. The country's core promise is that of peaceful coexistence. Our institutions, norms, and practices are designed to accommodate a wide range of perspectives and beliefs on the most fundamental questions about justice, human flourishing, and what defines a decent life.Pluralism is also an important, if not the most important, aspect of my worldview. Although, as I've become older, I've become more at ease with my own thoughts on these issues, I've also grown less comfortable with the concept of pushing my solutions on others. Our inherent constraints (what Kant referred to as our "crooked timber") always limit the individual pursuit of truth. The public square should thus be a crowded, complex, and controversial marketplace of ideas. The state must oppose imposing a single version of truth on society.

However, pluralism cannot be an. 

open-ended promise either. Our ability to understand the truth may be imprecise and partial, but that does not imply we should succumb to hollow relativism. Some concepts are terrible and incorrect. We cannot allow our pluralistic principles to provide license to individuals who reject our society's fundamental ideals or even intend to destroy it. Pluralism cannot mean a one-sided surrender to illiberal and reactionary forces. We've seen the conflicts and limitations that come with Canadian diversity in recent days. While the majority of us mourned and condemned the barbaric nature of Hamas' terrorist attacks on Israel, a small minority justified and even praised them. These individuals and groups have used Canada's promise of freedom to condone and glorify the indiscriminate brutality of a group classified as a terrorist organization by our own government.Pro-Palestinian demonstrations have taken place around the country, thereby affirming Hamas' terrorism. The videos from pro-Hamas rallies in Mississauga and Montreal were disturbing. It must be stated that demonstrations in support of a terrorist organization that has conducted a systematic campaign of murdering women and children are incompatible with Canadian principles.