Nein, Globe und Mail, Mark Carney ist nicht das zweite Kommen von Brian Mulroney

This entire op-ed is just the author grumping about the Globe & Mail, combined with some pretty blatant mischaracterizations of Carney

> Modern conservatism has little in common with classical conservatism. The former has largely incorporated classical liberal and libertarian ideals into its main ideology, while maintaining a smattering of social conservative principles related to individuals and families. That’s why modern conservatives typically champion small government, lower taxes, free markets, private enterprise, greater individual rights and freedoms and so forth.
Article content

This part is mostly correct, though I’d say there’s more than just a „smattering“ of social conservative principles within modern conservatism.

> Carney doesn’t fit into these conservative-leaning parameters. His progressive values do fit within the context of the modern Liberal Party of Canada. While he’s not exactly the same as Trudeau, I [pointed out](https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-taube-if-you-think-carney-will-be-different-from-trudeau-youre-mistaken) in a March 16 National Post column that they’re “remarkably similar.” How so? In my estimation, “they’re both left-wing, pro-government intervention, distrust privatization and free markets, favour wealth redistribution, champion radical environmentalist policies, support woke ideology and political correctness — and more.” That’s what today’s Liberals basically stand for, and Carney’s personal and political record fits like a glove.

Saying that Carney of all people distrusts privatization and the free market is a *wildly* inaccurate thing to say, as is the claim that he supposedly favours wealth redistribution. Also, it’s been a hot minute since I’ve seen complaints about political correctness. Remember when that was the favourite anti-left dogwhistle phrase of conservatives?