This piece cuts through the polite fiction of technocratic governance to expose a dangerous pattern: leaders who campaign on progressive promises only to dismantle the very machinery required to deliver them. Cory Doctorow argues that Canada's current political trajectory isn't an anomaly, but a textbook case of "Carneyism"—a strategy where the rhetoric of protection for working people is weaponized by austerity-minded elites to clear the path for oligarchs and foreign dominance.
The Third Way Trap
Doctorow opens with a stinging definition of the "Third Way" in liberal politics: it involves "saying things that working people love, but doing things that sociopathic plutocrats love." He traces this dynamic through the recent history of Canadian leadership, noting how previous administrations promised climate action while subsidizing oil pipelines. The result, as Doctorow observes, is a voter base that feels betrayed so deeply that they become susceptible to authoritarian alternatives.
The core of Doctorow's critique targets Mark Carney, the former central banker now leading the Liberal Party. Doctorow writes, "When it comes to championing working Canadians while royally screwing them, Carney is the only Canadian politician capable of out-Trudeauing Trudeau." The argument here is that the problem isn't the policy ideas themselves, but the specific individual implementing them with a commitment to austerity over execution.
"The problem with Carneyism isn't Carneyism itself – the problem with Carney is Mark Carney."
This distinction is crucial. Doctorow points out that Carney once championed a 3% tax on US tech giants, a move designed to stop them from using shell companies in Ireland to avoid paying taxes anywhere—a reference to the notorious "Double Irish" accounting loophole. However, as soon as political pressure mounted from Washington, Carney abandoned the policy entirely. Doctorow notes that he dropped the tax and apologized profusely the moment the US administration expressed displeasure, proving that his commitment to Canadian sovereignty was conditional on American approval.
Critics might argue that in a globalized economy, unilateral taxes are difficult to sustain without international coordination. Yet, Doctorow's evidence suggests the retreat wasn't strategic but reactive, prioritizing diplomatic comfort over fiscal justice for Canadians.
The Hollowing Out of Institutions
The piece takes a sharper turn when examining institutional decay. Doctorow highlights a paradox: the Canadian government recently passed legislation that theoretically transformed its Competition Bureau into one of the world's strongest antitrust regulators. On paper, this was a victory against monopolies. In practice, it was a trap.
Doctorow explains that while the new law gave the Bureau teeth, Carney simultaneously slashed its funding to the point where it cannot function. "Canada has a Competition Bureau with all the powers it needs to save Canada from its oligarchs – but it can't afford to do any of that stuff." This creates a scenario where price-fixing cartels, such as the one recently exposed in the bread industry, operate with impunity because the agency designed to stop them is starved of resources.
This dynamic mirrors the "enshittification" process Doctorow often describes: platforms and institutions are allowed to degrade until they serve only their owners, while the public is left with the illusion of regulation. The author notes that consumer protection agencies save the public hundreds for every dollar spent on them, yet Carney's administration eliminated Canada's primary consumer protection agency.
"Whatever Galen Weston doesn't steal is yours for the taking!"
The argument extends to national security and technology. Doctorow criticizes the decision to hand over military data systems to Palantir, a US corporation deeply intertwined with the American executive branch's aggressive domestic and foreign policies. He writes that it is an "insane idea" to turn over Canada's military infrastructure to a company that has fused itself with programs of ethnic cleansing and extraterritorial aggression.
Furthermore, the plan to replace tens of thousands of civil servants with AI chatbots is framed not as innovation, but as a surrender of sovereignty. Doctorow argues these systems are controlled by US corporations beholden to foreign political agendas, effectively outsourcing the administration of justice and service delivery to entities that may have no loyalty to Canadian citizens.
The Austerity Endgame
The most alarming prediction in the piece concerns the future of economic policy. Doctorow warns that when the current AI investment bubble bursts, causing a crash in global capital markets, Carney's response will be predictable: austerity. "Austerity is how we lose the country," Doctorow asserts, linking this fiscal tightening directly to the rise of fascism.
The logic is historical and stark. When essential services are cut and public trust erodes, voters turn to strongmen who promise simple solutions. Doctorow draws a parallel to the "Third Way" failures that previously opened the door for far-right movements in Canada. The cycle is complete: progressive rhetoric wins votes, austerity policies destroy the safety net, and the resulting anger fuels the very authoritarianism the liberals claimed to oppose.
"Austerity – more than any other force – drives working people into the arms of fascists."
The piece concludes with a provocative challenge: if Carney's own words are so popular, why not elect someone who will actually do them? Doctorow suggests that the solution isn't to reject the idea of technocratic excellence or "Carneyism," but to reject the specific leader who refuses to implement it. The irony is palpable; the administration has shown its opponents exactly how to defeat it by embracing the popular policies it claims to support while actively dismantling them.
Bottom Line
Doctorow's most compelling insight is that the danger lies not in radical policy, but in the gap between progressive rhetoric and regressive execution. The piece's greatest vulnerability is its reliance on a specific interpretation of Carney's motives rather than a broader analysis of structural economic constraints, yet the evidence of funding cuts and policy reversals remains damning. Readers should watch for how the promised "technocratic excellence" plays out when faced with real-world budget cuts and the inevitable failure of AI replacements in public service.