I’m thinking from your Pierre T. example, that it might have been similar to the often-cited case of conservative (?) president Nixon opening China. A democrat would not do so, for fear of inviting the criticism of being in bed with Communists.
So perhaps a leftist Trudeau is more free to unleash hell upon the lefties? A conservative might have had more hesitation. That’s something to consider. Perhaps a Democrat president might be the first to issue shoot-to-kill orders against “his own people.”
So perhaps a leftist Trudeau is more free to unleash hell upon the lefties? A conservative might have had more hesitation. That’s something to consider. Perhaps a Democrat president might be the first to issue shoot-to-kill orders against “his own people.”
Yes, that was in the back of my mind. One of the rules of advertising is that a spokesperson speaking against his/her interest enjoys high credibility. Similarly, a lib politician acting in a conservative manner enjoys a credibility boost. It's easy to call someone like Nixon a "fascist." But a left-liberal like Trudeau, even when his government declares martial law? To the ordinary bloke, that label is contrary to common sense. If anything, Trudeau getting behind anti-terrorist (and properly aimed) martial law makes him look bigger than his ideology.
Consequently, someone like Obama can get away with imposing law-and-order if he chooses to. Just as Ronald Reagan could launch peace initiatives and look better, not worse, for doing so.
In fact, Obama has already benefitted in that way. How much support did he lose for signing the NDAA?
Oh...while I'm on the subject of advertising: another found rule is that a black spokesman also enjoys high credibility. Quite an achievement for a 'racist' country ;)