I had occasion to read The Hill Times this week. This is the first time I had read it in awhile. It was an older addition that was sitting on the table in the lunch room at work.
The top story was about how the Liberal promise of election reform has been essentially broken and how that fact would not hurt the Liberals, at least according to the polls.
Upon reading this the only thing that I thought about was of course it was not hurting the Liberals because the majority of Canadians really do not care how they elect their governments. I mean, it is not like ordinary Canadians across the country are holding meetings to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the FPTP and PR.
This should be obvious to anybody who looks outside of the Ottawa bubble. More than 30% of Canadians do not even bother to vote on a regular basis. They do not care about voting let alone the voting method. Of the remainder a very small percentage would care about that issue. The rest are going to care about such meat and potato issues as "how safe is my job", "my 17 year old daughter wants to be a doctor, how am I going to pay for that", "my 80 year old mother needs full time care and her pensions barely cover that".
Unfortunately, the ruling elites (big business, big media, government bureaucrats and politicians) in the Western world have completely lost touch with the needs and wants of the people they rule. That story in The Hill Times, the definitive publication for the Canadian ruling elites, demonstrated that in spades with that top story.
A couple of years ago I would not have cared beyond just having a head shake moment upon reading that story.
Unfortunately this problem is becoming real with real consequences. Histroy has demonstrated that when the ruling elites become completely disconnected from those that they rule society suffers, often leading to revolution, bloodshed and the rise of demogogues. Witness Brexit and Donald Trump. As well, I would say that those events are probably just the beginning.
I would say that the solution to all of this is the elites need to find a way to reengage with those that they rule but history has also demonstrated that has never happened. What has invariably happened throughout history is those elites are cast aside to be replaced by a different ruling elite in an invariably messy and highly disruptive process.
While I do not care one whit about the fate of the current elites I do care about the impact that the disruption caused by their replacement will have on the lives and livelihoods of ordinary citizens of the West (of which I am one). Fortunately, all of the Western countries are healthy and robust democracies so perhaps there is a chance that the disruptions caused by this change can be mitigated by that fact.
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Wednesday, November 09, 2016
Well, that was unexpected
So Donald Trump fooled all of the pollsters, pundits and prognosticators, including me.
I am certain that this election will be analyzed, examined, washed, dried and folded many time over the next few years so I will leave other people to it.
I would like to examine what we might expect from a Trump presidency.
First of all, there will be no wall between the US and Mexico. Leaving aside the expense and the massive logicistical nightmare such a thing would create several of the southern states have economies that are addicted to the cheap labour provided by illegals that cross that border every day. They would not tolerate that supply of cheap labour being cut off. Combine that with the fact that Latinos generally vote Democratic, Democratic Congressmen and Senators would combine with the Congressmen and Senators from the Southern States and California to block any funding for a wall.
The blue collar voters that handed the Presidency to Donald Trump are in for a big disappointment. They have every right to be pissed off at the establishment it is just that they chose the wrong one. They are not victims of an out of an touch Washington establishment they are victims of Globalization and the global establisment that created and sustains it. That is not going away no matter what Donald Trump does so blue collar jobs will continue to flee the US in the coming years.
With regards to NAFTA it is probably pretty safe. Donald Trump cannot reopen it for renegotiation without agreement from the other two signatories and considering his treatment of Mexico and Mexicans during the election the Mexican government will not agree to that. He can unilaterally tear up the treaty but I believe there is a big enough pro-NAFTA lobby in Washington to prevent that from happening. On the off chance that he does actually decide to tear it up and he succeeds I cannot say that I would be that upset. When I saw how the US completely ignored the decisions of the Trade Tribunals during the softwood lumber fiasco in the first year of the Harper government I concluded that the treaty is not really worth the paper it is printed on and that if the treaty did not exist trade between the US and Canada would not really be impacted. Over a billion dollars worth of trade crosses that border every day. Even Donald Trump would not do anything that would cause any kind of substative impact on that.
On the other hand the TPP is probably a dead duck. I have mixed feelings about that deal so I cannot say that I would be very upset if it never sees the light of day.
Donald Trump made some noise about NATO but the military-industrial complex in the US dwarfs everything in that country so nothing much will change there.
Some have concerns about the Supreme Court of the US. However, what these people seem to forget is the SCOTUS has had a conservative majority for the better part three decades. Except for allowing ridiculously lax guns laws the SCOTUS has not really rocked the boat that much on social issues. I think even the conservative members of the court realize that their job is to maintain the freedoms of Americans and not allow governments to step on said freedoms. I am pretty certain that will not change.
Iran will be a nuclear power within the next decade. I have no doubt that Donald Trump will listen to the ideologues that are informing his foreign policy positions and cancel the nuclear deal with Iran. In addition those same ideologues believe that the US should attack Iran so that will probably happen as well. It will be a low risk military campaign, to greatly reduce any chances of American casualties, that will not do much to Iran's ability to make nuclear weapons. All it will probably do is convince the hardliners in Tehran that now is the time to take that next step to becoming a nuclear power and push Iran into the sphere of China.
ISIS and what it stands for will continue or at least something that looks like it. If ISIS was easy to get rid of it would already be gone by now.
What kind of President will Donald Trump be? He is an asshole and I believe hugely unqualified to do the job but the job is now his. He will either grow into it or he will not.
What I do know, from observing politics for over 30 years, is he will not be a good as his supporters believe him to be and he will not be as bad as his detractors believe him to be. He rode to power on a wave of anger and those who voted for him will expect results. If he is unable to deliver that anger could very quickly turn on him.
One other thing I have noticed from observing politics for 30 years. Things do not really change when a new leader of a country is chosen. There are too many vested interests in government to allow some guy or gal, who is only there temporarily, to actually upset the applecart that much. When all is said and done the United States will be in the exact same spot, as they were before last night, the next time Americans go to the polls.
I am certain that this election will be analyzed, examined, washed, dried and folded many time over the next few years so I will leave other people to it.
I would like to examine what we might expect from a Trump presidency.
First of all, there will be no wall between the US and Mexico. Leaving aside the expense and the massive logicistical nightmare such a thing would create several of the southern states have economies that are addicted to the cheap labour provided by illegals that cross that border every day. They would not tolerate that supply of cheap labour being cut off. Combine that with the fact that Latinos generally vote Democratic, Democratic Congressmen and Senators would combine with the Congressmen and Senators from the Southern States and California to block any funding for a wall.
The blue collar voters that handed the Presidency to Donald Trump are in for a big disappointment. They have every right to be pissed off at the establishment it is just that they chose the wrong one. They are not victims of an out of an touch Washington establishment they are victims of Globalization and the global establisment that created and sustains it. That is not going away no matter what Donald Trump does so blue collar jobs will continue to flee the US in the coming years.
With regards to NAFTA it is probably pretty safe. Donald Trump cannot reopen it for renegotiation without agreement from the other two signatories and considering his treatment of Mexico and Mexicans during the election the Mexican government will not agree to that. He can unilaterally tear up the treaty but I believe there is a big enough pro-NAFTA lobby in Washington to prevent that from happening. On the off chance that he does actually decide to tear it up and he succeeds I cannot say that I would be that upset. When I saw how the US completely ignored the decisions of the Trade Tribunals during the softwood lumber fiasco in the first year of the Harper government I concluded that the treaty is not really worth the paper it is printed on and that if the treaty did not exist trade between the US and Canada would not really be impacted. Over a billion dollars worth of trade crosses that border every day. Even Donald Trump would not do anything that would cause any kind of substative impact on that.
On the other hand the TPP is probably a dead duck. I have mixed feelings about that deal so I cannot say that I would be very upset if it never sees the light of day.
Donald Trump made some noise about NATO but the military-industrial complex in the US dwarfs everything in that country so nothing much will change there.
Some have concerns about the Supreme Court of the US. However, what these people seem to forget is the SCOTUS has had a conservative majority for the better part three decades. Except for allowing ridiculously lax guns laws the SCOTUS has not really rocked the boat that much on social issues. I think even the conservative members of the court realize that their job is to maintain the freedoms of Americans and not allow governments to step on said freedoms. I am pretty certain that will not change.
Iran will be a nuclear power within the next decade. I have no doubt that Donald Trump will listen to the ideologues that are informing his foreign policy positions and cancel the nuclear deal with Iran. In addition those same ideologues believe that the US should attack Iran so that will probably happen as well. It will be a low risk military campaign, to greatly reduce any chances of American casualties, that will not do much to Iran's ability to make nuclear weapons. All it will probably do is convince the hardliners in Tehran that now is the time to take that next step to becoming a nuclear power and push Iran into the sphere of China.
ISIS and what it stands for will continue or at least something that looks like it. If ISIS was easy to get rid of it would already be gone by now.
What kind of President will Donald Trump be? He is an asshole and I believe hugely unqualified to do the job but the job is now his. He will either grow into it or he will not.
What I do know, from observing politics for over 30 years, is he will not be a good as his supporters believe him to be and he will not be as bad as his detractors believe him to be. He rode to power on a wave of anger and those who voted for him will expect results. If he is unable to deliver that anger could very quickly turn on him.
One other thing I have noticed from observing politics for 30 years. Things do not really change when a new leader of a country is chosen. There are too many vested interests in government to allow some guy or gal, who is only there temporarily, to actually upset the applecart that much. When all is said and done the United States will be in the exact same spot, as they were before last night, the next time Americans go to the polls.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
The Walloons have spoken
Last week a small region of Belgium, that European powerhouse, managed to effectively scupper the CETA. It really is a sight to see.
The reaction from the movers and shakers on both sides of the Atlantic has been predictable. I read one opinion piece stating that the very credibility of the EU is at stake and that they cannot be trusted any longer to negotiate any kind of deal.
Of course those who religiously support free trade have to blame the EU or the Walloons or Satan himself because to blame the concept of free trade itself would show an very big loss of faith.
What the supporters of free trade refuse to admit, even to themselves, is most of the Western democracies have seen free trade in action for almost four decades and an increasing number of those living in those democracies are not liking what they are seeing.
The supporters of free trade have been exaggerating its benefits for decades, stating it would lower prices, create jobs and bring incalculable economic benefit to the economies involved in these free trade deals. They admitted that there would be some losers but their numbers would be insignificant and goverments would be able to provide assistance to them to "adjust" to the free trade realities.
Of course none of this happened. Prices still continue to rise, the number of good paying jobs that have fled from the rich western countries to the poor southern countries increases every year and the "adjustment" programs have been a token joke. You see those who support free trade generally support smaller governments and reduced government spending so the promised adjustment programs never really amounted to much.
Further many are seeing threats in these free trade deals. They are not just deals to allow the free flow of products and services between countries. There are clauses in them that would allow corporations to dictate policies that have been the perview of governments almost since governments existed, including, health, clean water, the environment, just to name a few. Most citizens expect their governments to take care of these basic services and they are justified in being worried about any deal that might take away a government's ability to do so.
It should come as no surprise to free trade proponents that we are now seeing a backlash against free trade deals. More and more people are saying enough. The Walloons are just the latest. Bernie Sanders was competitive in the Democratic primaries in the US while running on a platform that went completely against the free trade dogma. He forced Hillary Clinton to step away from a full throated defence of the TPP. As well, Donald Trump has promised to either scrap the NAFTA or renegotiate it, presumably to the point that it would be a free trade deal in name only. Regardless of how the election turns out in the US I believe that there is more than a 50% chance that the TPP will die on the vine in the coming years.
However, it is a surprise to them. They just cannot see past their ideology to see that a growing number of people are not happy with the current situation. So, they will keep pushing. I suspect that the Walloons in particular and the Begian government in general will be brought onside with the CETA by means of the old carrot and stick approach.
The free traders will win that battle but the cost will be high as the number of people who do not believe in free trade grows as a result and the opinions of those who already do not believe grows harder against free trade. It is only a matter of time before that hits critical mass and some demogogue with more political smarts than Donald Trump comes along and galvanizes that critial mass into a true organized movement against free trade.
If free traders were not blinded by their ideology they would see the danger and take a break from pursuing more free trade deals to allow those opposed to catch up. If they were also smart they would be supporting increased government spending on programs to assist those who have been losers as a result of free trade (and there are many). Taking these two actions would go along way to countering the arguments of the anti-free traders.
However, free traders are neither smart nor open minded enough to do either of these actions so they will continue on the current path. So, buckle up, the Walloons are just the beginning. The backlash will continue and it will probably overwhelm the supporters of free trade soon enough.
The reaction from the movers and shakers on both sides of the Atlantic has been predictable. I read one opinion piece stating that the very credibility of the EU is at stake and that they cannot be trusted any longer to negotiate any kind of deal.
Of course those who religiously support free trade have to blame the EU or the Walloons or Satan himself because to blame the concept of free trade itself would show an very big loss of faith.
What the supporters of free trade refuse to admit, even to themselves, is most of the Western democracies have seen free trade in action for almost four decades and an increasing number of those living in those democracies are not liking what they are seeing.
The supporters of free trade have been exaggerating its benefits for decades, stating it would lower prices, create jobs and bring incalculable economic benefit to the economies involved in these free trade deals. They admitted that there would be some losers but their numbers would be insignificant and goverments would be able to provide assistance to them to "adjust" to the free trade realities.
Of course none of this happened. Prices still continue to rise, the number of good paying jobs that have fled from the rich western countries to the poor southern countries increases every year and the "adjustment" programs have been a token joke. You see those who support free trade generally support smaller governments and reduced government spending so the promised adjustment programs never really amounted to much.
Further many are seeing threats in these free trade deals. They are not just deals to allow the free flow of products and services between countries. There are clauses in them that would allow corporations to dictate policies that have been the perview of governments almost since governments existed, including, health, clean water, the environment, just to name a few. Most citizens expect their governments to take care of these basic services and they are justified in being worried about any deal that might take away a government's ability to do so.
It should come as no surprise to free trade proponents that we are now seeing a backlash against free trade deals. More and more people are saying enough. The Walloons are just the latest. Bernie Sanders was competitive in the Democratic primaries in the US while running on a platform that went completely against the free trade dogma. He forced Hillary Clinton to step away from a full throated defence of the TPP. As well, Donald Trump has promised to either scrap the NAFTA or renegotiate it, presumably to the point that it would be a free trade deal in name only. Regardless of how the election turns out in the US I believe that there is more than a 50% chance that the TPP will die on the vine in the coming years.
However, it is a surprise to them. They just cannot see past their ideology to see that a growing number of people are not happy with the current situation. So, they will keep pushing. I suspect that the Walloons in particular and the Begian government in general will be brought onside with the CETA by means of the old carrot and stick approach.
The free traders will win that battle but the cost will be high as the number of people who do not believe in free trade grows as a result and the opinions of those who already do not believe grows harder against free trade. It is only a matter of time before that hits critical mass and some demogogue with more political smarts than Donald Trump comes along and galvanizes that critial mass into a true organized movement against free trade.
If free traders were not blinded by their ideology they would see the danger and take a break from pursuing more free trade deals to allow those opposed to catch up. If they were also smart they would be supporting increased government spending on programs to assist those who have been losers as a result of free trade (and there are many). Taking these two actions would go along way to countering the arguments of the anti-free traders.
However, free traders are neither smart nor open minded enough to do either of these actions so they will continue on the current path. So, buckle up, the Walloons are just the beginning. The backlash will continue and it will probably overwhelm the supporters of free trade soon enough.
Friday, July 29, 2016
President Hillary Clinton
That is what we will be hearing in January after she takes the oath of office.
The reason for this is she just has too many advantages over Donald Trump for him to overcome.
Her first advantage is her experience in presidential elections. Essentially this is her third one. She knows what it takes to come out the winner at the end of the final sprint to the finish line because she has already lived it twice. If she forgets she can ask her husband because he did it twice and if that does not work she can ask the current President because has done it twice as well. That is before considering that she has assembled an very good election team.
Donald Trump has no experience on how to win the final three months of the campaign. In fact he has very little political experience at all. That was glaringly obvious when he publicly suggested a sometimes hostile government hack the e-mails of an American citizen and interfere in a US presidential election. That was just dumb and the attack ads during the next three months pretty much write themselves.
Politics is a game and like all games if one opponent has tonnes of experience playing it while the other has very little the one with experience almost always wins.
Her second advantage is the Democratic Party is united behind her. The media has played up the dissidents from the Bernie Sanders camp a great deal in the last few weeks. However, what they forget (willfully I might add) is Bernie Sanders and most of his followers were not members of the Democratic Party 18 months ago. Although Ms. Clinton would certainly welcome them she does not really need them because the "old" Democrats, the ones that helped Barack Obama get elected twice, are firmly behind her. Further, they know that they have a golden opportunity to elect two different Democratic presidents back to back, something that has not happened since FDR and Truman. As well, the election apparatus that the Democratic Party has spent the last four years building just for these next three months is also firmly behind her.
Donald Trump essentially blew up the Republican Party. He can count on his own supporters but he cannot count on the support of the Republican "old guard". Some will certainly support him out of habit but many others will not. Further the election apparatus that the Republicans have been building for the last four years is in tatters.
That leads to Hillary Clinton's third advantage. Anybody who has ever participated in an election knows that elections are won on the ground. It is the GOTV efforts of those low level operatives and volunteers at the local level that decide elections. Ms. Clinton, with a united Democratic Party and election apparatus behind her should be able to count on a much more successful GOTV effort than Donald Trump with a fractured Republican Party behind him.
Her fourth advantage is she is out fundraising Donald Trump. Donald Trump has the personal resources to run a campaign but it is an open question whether he wants to spend that much of his own money. Mr. Clinton is spending other peoples' money, she has more of it and she will not hesitate spend it all for the campaign.
Advantages three and four are going to be crucial in those tight races in the battleground states. In state battles where the margin of victory is often only a few thousand votes having the most successful GOTV effort, to identify and pull the vote of your supporters, while having the money to campaign hard right to the very end to convince independent and non-aligned voters to support you could be the difference between receiving that State's electoral college vote or watching your opponent walk off with them.
Her fifth advantage is this is the first time a woman has a legitimate chance at becoming President. In 2008 when Barack Obama was nominated the voter turnout of African Americans on election day hit record highs. They came out in droves and contributed greatly to what became a landslide for President Obama. The same is probably going to happen this time. Even amongst women who do not like Ms. Clinton she will probably receive their votes. I am certain that the women of the US realize the historic potential of the moment, that it might not come again for a long while and they will come out in force to try to make history. That 103 year old women from earlier in the week who stated she is really exited that she will be able to vote for a women for President is only the tip of the iceberg.
Her sixth advantage is she is the only candidate that the "establishment" can really back. In past elections the two parties have always nominated presidental candidates that were acceptable to the "establishment" so it divided along partisan lines and no one candidate received a clear advantage. That is not the case this time. The "establishment" craves continuity and Hillary Clinton virtually guaratees that. This advantage will manifest itself over the next three month as Conservative and Liberal think tanks will publish op-ed pieces in major publications, on line and on TV talk shows warning of the dangers of a Trump presidency and extolling the virtues of Hillary Clinton. It will be subtle and relentless. What will not be so subtle but still just as relentless will be the treatment of Donald Trump by the MSM. It is all owned by representatives of the "estblishment" so they will do what they can to prevent a Trump victory. This advantage will really frost the balls of those on both the left and right who want to see the status quo changed, who want nothing more than revolution. However, it should be noted that revolutions never come from the ballot box so you should not expect it to be any different this time.
Her seventh advantage is she is competent. She will probably be able to do the job. Despite the hype we see in the US media I am certain that the majority of Americans are like the majority of Canadians and citizens of other democracies. They want leaders who they believe will not wreck their country and/or make life more difficult for them. It is a safe bet that Hillary Clinton will meet those two criteria while it is an open question as to whether the same can be said about Donald Trump.
The one aspect where she is equal to Donald Trump is her level of unpopularity. Americans do not seem to like either one. In the end it will probably be a wash.
Her one disadvantage is that there is a desire for change in the United States. You can ask Stephen Harper (if you can find him) what that can mean to a politician. However, you can also ask Tim Hudak if that was enough when he tried to bring down the Ontario Liberals. The desire for change can be a strong motivator but if voters do not like the change that is presented to them they will play it safe. Again, I will point to Stephen Harper. He won two elections, in 2008 and 2011, despite the fact there was a desire for change and the fact he was not well liked even by many who voted for him. However, enough Canadian voters decided on both occasions that he and his government were competent enough and that the change represented by the other guys was too much of a risk to change the government.
Donald Trump would be hard pressed to overcome even one or two of Hillary Clinton's advantages. To overcome them all is probably an impossible task and that will likely result in Hillary Clinton being the next President of the United States.
The reason for this is she just has too many advantages over Donald Trump for him to overcome.
Her first advantage is her experience in presidential elections. Essentially this is her third one. She knows what it takes to come out the winner at the end of the final sprint to the finish line because she has already lived it twice. If she forgets she can ask her husband because he did it twice and if that does not work she can ask the current President because has done it twice as well. That is before considering that she has assembled an very good election team.
Donald Trump has no experience on how to win the final three months of the campaign. In fact he has very little political experience at all. That was glaringly obvious when he publicly suggested a sometimes hostile government hack the e-mails of an American citizen and interfere in a US presidential election. That was just dumb and the attack ads during the next three months pretty much write themselves.
Politics is a game and like all games if one opponent has tonnes of experience playing it while the other has very little the one with experience almost always wins.
Her second advantage is the Democratic Party is united behind her. The media has played up the dissidents from the Bernie Sanders camp a great deal in the last few weeks. However, what they forget (willfully I might add) is Bernie Sanders and most of his followers were not members of the Democratic Party 18 months ago. Although Ms. Clinton would certainly welcome them she does not really need them because the "old" Democrats, the ones that helped Barack Obama get elected twice, are firmly behind her. Further, they know that they have a golden opportunity to elect two different Democratic presidents back to back, something that has not happened since FDR and Truman. As well, the election apparatus that the Democratic Party has spent the last four years building just for these next three months is also firmly behind her.
Donald Trump essentially blew up the Republican Party. He can count on his own supporters but he cannot count on the support of the Republican "old guard". Some will certainly support him out of habit but many others will not. Further the election apparatus that the Republicans have been building for the last four years is in tatters.
That leads to Hillary Clinton's third advantage. Anybody who has ever participated in an election knows that elections are won on the ground. It is the GOTV efforts of those low level operatives and volunteers at the local level that decide elections. Ms. Clinton, with a united Democratic Party and election apparatus behind her should be able to count on a much more successful GOTV effort than Donald Trump with a fractured Republican Party behind him.
Her fourth advantage is she is out fundraising Donald Trump. Donald Trump has the personal resources to run a campaign but it is an open question whether he wants to spend that much of his own money. Mr. Clinton is spending other peoples' money, she has more of it and she will not hesitate spend it all for the campaign.
Advantages three and four are going to be crucial in those tight races in the battleground states. In state battles where the margin of victory is often only a few thousand votes having the most successful GOTV effort, to identify and pull the vote of your supporters, while having the money to campaign hard right to the very end to convince independent and non-aligned voters to support you could be the difference between receiving that State's electoral college vote or watching your opponent walk off with them.
Her fifth advantage is this is the first time a woman has a legitimate chance at becoming President. In 2008 when Barack Obama was nominated the voter turnout of African Americans on election day hit record highs. They came out in droves and contributed greatly to what became a landslide for President Obama. The same is probably going to happen this time. Even amongst women who do not like Ms. Clinton she will probably receive their votes. I am certain that the women of the US realize the historic potential of the moment, that it might not come again for a long while and they will come out in force to try to make history. That 103 year old women from earlier in the week who stated she is really exited that she will be able to vote for a women for President is only the tip of the iceberg.
Her sixth advantage is she is the only candidate that the "establishment" can really back. In past elections the two parties have always nominated presidental candidates that were acceptable to the "establishment" so it divided along partisan lines and no one candidate received a clear advantage. That is not the case this time. The "establishment" craves continuity and Hillary Clinton virtually guaratees that. This advantage will manifest itself over the next three month as Conservative and Liberal think tanks will publish op-ed pieces in major publications, on line and on TV talk shows warning of the dangers of a Trump presidency and extolling the virtues of Hillary Clinton. It will be subtle and relentless. What will not be so subtle but still just as relentless will be the treatment of Donald Trump by the MSM. It is all owned by representatives of the "estblishment" so they will do what they can to prevent a Trump victory. This advantage will really frost the balls of those on both the left and right who want to see the status quo changed, who want nothing more than revolution. However, it should be noted that revolutions never come from the ballot box so you should not expect it to be any different this time.
Her seventh advantage is she is competent. She will probably be able to do the job. Despite the hype we see in the US media I am certain that the majority of Americans are like the majority of Canadians and citizens of other democracies. They want leaders who they believe will not wreck their country and/or make life more difficult for them. It is a safe bet that Hillary Clinton will meet those two criteria while it is an open question as to whether the same can be said about Donald Trump.
The one aspect where she is equal to Donald Trump is her level of unpopularity. Americans do not seem to like either one. In the end it will probably be a wash.
Her one disadvantage is that there is a desire for change in the United States. You can ask Stephen Harper (if you can find him) what that can mean to a politician. However, you can also ask Tim Hudak if that was enough when he tried to bring down the Ontario Liberals. The desire for change can be a strong motivator but if voters do not like the change that is presented to them they will play it safe. Again, I will point to Stephen Harper. He won two elections, in 2008 and 2011, despite the fact there was a desire for change and the fact he was not well liked even by many who voted for him. However, enough Canadian voters decided on both occasions that he and his government were competent enough and that the change represented by the other guys was too much of a risk to change the government.
Donald Trump would be hard pressed to overcome even one or two of Hillary Clinton's advantages. To overcome them all is probably an impossible task and that will likely result in Hillary Clinton being the next President of the United States.
Friday, July 22, 2016
Setting Fire to the Ashes
Yesterday I wrote a post stating that Donald Trump needs to mend fences with the many factions that the Republican Party has fractured into in order to increase his chances of winnning the November election.
Having seen his acceptance speech it can only be said that he did the exact opposite. He burned many bridges to win the nomination and the speech he gave yesterday did nothing to reverse that.
Unfortunately for him his convention speech was the best chance of him starting the process. He could have began the real campaign for the US Presidency by sounding presidential. He could have used the speech to reach out to the supporters of the other Republican hopefuls from the primary season. If he could not bring the actual candidates on board he could at least have begun convincing their supporters that a vote for him was a vote for their values. He could even have begun the process of expanding his appeal beyond his own supporters and the Republican Party.
He did none of that. He stuck to the script that got him the nomination.
Time will tell if that was a mistake but my initial thoughts are he seems to believe he can win this election as a one man band and he could be in for a very big surprise if that continues. As well, the next few months are for the Presidency not just for the nomination. He should have used his acceptance speech as the pivot from the nomination battle to the battle for the Presidency and he did not do that either.
If he loses the election many will point to that acceptance speech as the point at which his remarkable run began to go off the rails.
Having seen his acceptance speech it can only be said that he did the exact opposite. He burned many bridges to win the nomination and the speech he gave yesterday did nothing to reverse that.
Unfortunately for him his convention speech was the best chance of him starting the process. He could have began the real campaign for the US Presidency by sounding presidential. He could have used the speech to reach out to the supporters of the other Republican hopefuls from the primary season. If he could not bring the actual candidates on board he could at least have begun convincing their supporters that a vote for him was a vote for their values. He could even have begun the process of expanding his appeal beyond his own supporters and the Republican Party.
He did none of that. He stuck to the script that got him the nomination.
Time will tell if that was a mistake but my initial thoughts are he seems to believe he can win this election as a one man band and he could be in for a very big surprise if that continues. As well, the next few months are for the Presidency not just for the nomination. He should have used his acceptance speech as the pivot from the nomination battle to the battle for the Presidency and he did not do that either.
If he loses the election many will point to that acceptance speech as the point at which his remarkable run began to go off the rails.
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Donald Trump has the same problem as Stephen Harper
Donald Trump has won the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States. He should be congratulated for that achievement. However, that was the easy part. The next thing he has to do is create a coalition of American voters big enough to put him into the White House. On that score he has a very steep hill to climb.
As I have stated a few times on this site, during the last Federal election in Canada I found Stephen Harper was throwing an inordinate amount of red meat to his base. At no time during the election did he attempt to expand the appeal of the Conservative Party beyond his base. In fact, I would say he did the opposite. I suspect the reason why is because the Conservatives were not certain that they could count on their base to come out and vote for them or to just vote at all. In the end the Conservatives did hang on to their core vote but only after two months of effort.
Donald Trump has the same problem. The Republican base is fractured. Party stalwarts, including the last two Republican presidents have come out against him in this election and his greatest opponent during the primary season just jammed a political sword between his ribs during the current Republican convention. Those high profile Republicans that have endorsed him have not exactly been effusive in their praise of him. They have said the minimum necessary and then retreated back into the woodwork.
This all means that Donald Trump is going to have to spend a great deal of time and resources over the next few months repairing the rifts in the Republican Party. For him to have any chance of winning he needs to expand his base from those who absolutely love Donald Trump to include those Republicans that think he is the worst thing to happen to the GOP since Barry Goldwater. In short, he is going to have to do what Stephen Harper did and shore up support from those voters most likely to vote Republican.
It is an open question whether he can accomplish this task and even if he does he then needs to expand his appeal beyond the core Republican vote. Mitt Romney won that vote in 2012 but failed to expand beyond it and it cost him the election.
The second part of his task will be the hardest part. He has managed to alienate virtually every demographic in the United States except old and middle aged, poorly educated, angry white men. He is going to find it very difficult to walk back alot of what he said about the different demographics in the last few months. Most will not believe him and a large segment of those who have supported him from the beginning may feel a bit betrayed if he does begin to pander to them. As well, the amount of time to do it is short. The election is only four short months away and although that is many lifetimes in politics it is still a very short timeframe in which to repair the rifts in the Republican Party and expand his appeal beyond it.
All this has to be done while taking on an opponent who will have a very popular sitting President campaigning for her and a still very popular former President campaigning for her as well. The only saving grace for him is the fact that Hillary Clinton is not very well liked either but she at least can count on maintaining the core Democratic vote going forward.
My guess is Donald Trump faces a nearly impossible task. He does not have the time, the charisma, the political smarts or the temperment to be able to mend all of the bridges he burnt to win the nomination while running against an opponent who will be actively trying to prevent him from accomplishing that feat.
As I have stated a few times on this site, during the last Federal election in Canada I found Stephen Harper was throwing an inordinate amount of red meat to his base. At no time during the election did he attempt to expand the appeal of the Conservative Party beyond his base. In fact, I would say he did the opposite. I suspect the reason why is because the Conservatives were not certain that they could count on their base to come out and vote for them or to just vote at all. In the end the Conservatives did hang on to their core vote but only after two months of effort.
Donald Trump has the same problem. The Republican base is fractured. Party stalwarts, including the last two Republican presidents have come out against him in this election and his greatest opponent during the primary season just jammed a political sword between his ribs during the current Republican convention. Those high profile Republicans that have endorsed him have not exactly been effusive in their praise of him. They have said the minimum necessary and then retreated back into the woodwork.
This all means that Donald Trump is going to have to spend a great deal of time and resources over the next few months repairing the rifts in the Republican Party. For him to have any chance of winning he needs to expand his base from those who absolutely love Donald Trump to include those Republicans that think he is the worst thing to happen to the GOP since Barry Goldwater. In short, he is going to have to do what Stephen Harper did and shore up support from those voters most likely to vote Republican.
It is an open question whether he can accomplish this task and even if he does he then needs to expand his appeal beyond the core Republican vote. Mitt Romney won that vote in 2012 but failed to expand beyond it and it cost him the election.
The second part of his task will be the hardest part. He has managed to alienate virtually every demographic in the United States except old and middle aged, poorly educated, angry white men. He is going to find it very difficult to walk back alot of what he said about the different demographics in the last few months. Most will not believe him and a large segment of those who have supported him from the beginning may feel a bit betrayed if he does begin to pander to them. As well, the amount of time to do it is short. The election is only four short months away and although that is many lifetimes in politics it is still a very short timeframe in which to repair the rifts in the Republican Party and expand his appeal beyond it.
All this has to be done while taking on an opponent who will have a very popular sitting President campaigning for her and a still very popular former President campaigning for her as well. The only saving grace for him is the fact that Hillary Clinton is not very well liked either but she at least can count on maintaining the core Democratic vote going forward.
My guess is Donald Trump faces a nearly impossible task. He does not have the time, the charisma, the political smarts or the temperment to be able to mend all of the bridges he burnt to win the nomination while running against an opponent who will be actively trying to prevent him from accomplishing that feat.
Sunday, July 10, 2016
The Police Shootings in Dallas
The police shootings in Dallas are tragic and they should be condemned on so many levels.
However, no one should be surprised by them. There have been countless instances of white police officers shooting mostly unarmed black men and not suffering any consequences for their actions. Are people really surprised that in the racially charged atmosphere of the US that some angry blacks would not seek revenge?
The fact it took this long surprises me but not that fact it happened. As well, my guess is this was probably not the last of such attacks. There is great potential for things to get very nasty in the United States.
As well, I have read some media commentators, both here in Canada and the US, and I am surprised that they now seem to have just realized that there is a problems between the black communities of the US and law enforcement. For the many times mostly young black men died at the hands of most white police officers these media commentators did not see a major problem but when a black gunman decides to specifically target white police officers there is SUDDENLY a huge problem.
It speaks volumes to the blindness (and perhaps just a little racism) of much of the media to the real problems facing society and the world. It is the same blindness that caused them to declare 9/11 as a world changing event. Islamic terrorism had been a scourge on the world for many decades before that but until those Saudi citizens flew a couple of wide bodies jets into the sides of the World Trade Centre and the Pentigon very few North American media commentators noticed. They finally did notice and we have been living with the consequences ever since.
However, no one should be surprised by them. There have been countless instances of white police officers shooting mostly unarmed black men and not suffering any consequences for their actions. Are people really surprised that in the racially charged atmosphere of the US that some angry blacks would not seek revenge?
The fact it took this long surprises me but not that fact it happened. As well, my guess is this was probably not the last of such attacks. There is great potential for things to get very nasty in the United States.
As well, I have read some media commentators, both here in Canada and the US, and I am surprised that they now seem to have just realized that there is a problems between the black communities of the US and law enforcement. For the many times mostly young black men died at the hands of most white police officers these media commentators did not see a major problem but when a black gunman decides to specifically target white police officers there is SUDDENLY a huge problem.
It speaks volumes to the blindness (and perhaps just a little racism) of much of the media to the real problems facing society and the world. It is the same blindness that caused them to declare 9/11 as a world changing event. Islamic terrorism had been a scourge on the world for many decades before that but until those Saudi citizens flew a couple of wide bodies jets into the sides of the World Trade Centre and the Pentigon very few North American media commentators noticed. They finally did notice and we have been living with the consequences ever since.
Mr. Kenney goes to Calgary
Jason Kenney has decided to leave Federal politics to attempt to win the leadership of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party and to unite the right in that province. What can I say but "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."
Much has been said about his chances of success and most of it has been of the nature that he has a very tough mountain to climb. I could say more but that just about sums it up so I will not add anything.
What I will mention is that many media commentators have taken this to mean that really serious Conservatives believe that the Liberals cannot be beat in 2019. My only comment about that assertion is it was true before Mr. Kenney decided to jump into Alberta provincial politics.
I have written in this space before that the next Conservative Prime Minister of Canada is not on anybody's radar right now. All of the current crop of hopefuls for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada are trying for the job of placeholder and nothing more. None of them or any others that might throw their hat into the ring have much of a chance of becoming PM in 2019.
It is a simple fact that after a long serving government loses power it is destined to wander the political wilderness for at least two election cycles. There have been exceptions but they are very rare. Liberals, including me, forgot about this fact in 2006 and their belief that the first minority Harper government was just going to be a short recess between Liberal governments was a great contributor to the profound downturn in their political fortunes in the next ten years.
Many people in Conservative circles seemed to believe the same thing about the current situation and it took the departure of Mr. Kenney to begin making them think otherwise. I guess that should not surprise me but it does.
Barring something really big derailing the Liberal machine they are probably a shoe in to winning the 2019 election. Conservatives had better accept that. Then again, if they want to do what the Liberals did after the 2006 election and miserably fail to do what was necessary to renew the party until after a crushing electoral defeat then I would have no problems with that. It would only guarantee a Liberal win in 2019.
Much has been said about his chances of success and most of it has been of the nature that he has a very tough mountain to climb. I could say more but that just about sums it up so I will not add anything.
What I will mention is that many media commentators have taken this to mean that really serious Conservatives believe that the Liberals cannot be beat in 2019. My only comment about that assertion is it was true before Mr. Kenney decided to jump into Alberta provincial politics.
I have written in this space before that the next Conservative Prime Minister of Canada is not on anybody's radar right now. All of the current crop of hopefuls for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada are trying for the job of placeholder and nothing more. None of them or any others that might throw their hat into the ring have much of a chance of becoming PM in 2019.
It is a simple fact that after a long serving government loses power it is destined to wander the political wilderness for at least two election cycles. There have been exceptions but they are very rare. Liberals, including me, forgot about this fact in 2006 and their belief that the first minority Harper government was just going to be a short recess between Liberal governments was a great contributor to the profound downturn in their political fortunes in the next ten years.
Many people in Conservative circles seemed to believe the same thing about the current situation and it took the departure of Mr. Kenney to begin making them think otherwise. I guess that should not surprise me but it does.
Barring something really big derailing the Liberal machine they are probably a shoe in to winning the 2019 election. Conservatives had better accept that. Then again, if they want to do what the Liberals did after the 2006 election and miserably fail to do what was necessary to renew the party until after a crushing electoral defeat then I would have no problems with that. It would only guarantee a Liberal win in 2019.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Brexit
The voters of the United Kingdom have had their referendum on whether to stay or go from the European Union and they voted to leave.
Or did they?
When the votes were counted only 72% of eligible voters had bothered to vote and of those 52% of them voted to leave. By any measure that is not an overwhelming majority of the citizens of the UK who voted for leaving the EU. As well, the vote broke along national, ethnic and age lines showing great divisions within British society. In short the only thing this vote did was bring the divisions in British society into sharp focus.
So, this thing is not over by any stretch of the imagination. Like Canada the UK is a parliamentary democracy so referendums are nice but the final say will come from the UK House of Commons and the UK House of Lords. If the vote on whether to stay or go would have been left to Parliament the outcome would have been much different. Further the final deal to leave the EU will need to be voted upon by Parliament in order to ratify it and alot will happen between now and then.
The backlash against the Leave vote has already began and it will continue to grow, particularly when the nitty-gritty details of what leaving the EU means to the UK dawns on the British. It will be a couple of years before any deal can be brought before the UK Parliament and this issue will dominate British politics for that entire time. By the time any deal reaches Parliament things could be very different in the country.
Stay or go the impact on the EU will not be as dire as many in the media seem to believe. The United Kingdom has always been a reluctant partner in the EU, constantly demanding and negotiating special arrangements within the EU structure. It has never really embraced the EU, preferring the benefits of membership while trying to reduce the responsibilities. Further the EU has always been a more continental arrangement and the two key members of the EU, Germany and France, will keep it going. The other countries of the EU will follow their lead. If you need any further proof of that I would point to Greece. It has been thoroughly rogered by the EU in the last few years. If there is any country with a case for leaving the Eurozone, Greece is it. Yet they still continue to bend over and take it in order to stay completely within the EU. All of continental Europe realizes that there is much greater advantage to maintaining the European Union, despite its many faults and imperfections, than to allow it to disintegrate and be required to go it alone.
Speaking of dire warnings in the media I would like to point out that they are mostly coming from the English media in the English speaking countries of the world, namely the US, Canada, Australia and Great Britain. In other words, it is old and middle aged, English speaking, white guys who are implying that the EU cannot carry on without its English speaking partner. As well, it was old and middle aged, English speaking, white guys who voted overwhelmingly for leaving in the referendum and they tipped the balance.
It should also be noted that it was this demographic that allowed the Stephen Harper Conservatives to win 99 seats in the last election, which is much better than he deserved and it is this demographic that has made Donald Trump the Republican nominee for President of the United States. (And probably handed the White House, the Senate and the SCOTUS to the Democrats in the process.)
I have a message for these old and middle aged, English speaking, white guys, of which I am one.
Our time of running the world is coming to an end. Accept it. We had a good run. We ran the world for the better part of four centuries, a record that will probably never be surpassed and made ourselves very wealthy in the process. However, simple demographics is changing all of that. That and the actions of a bunch rich white guys who brought us Globalization which is redistributing global wealth to parts of the world where white skin colour does not dominate the landscape. I am certain that many of those rich white guys are now regretting foisting Globalization on us because when they redistributed the wealth the beneficiaries of it began to use it to take more of that wealth for themselves, tipping the economic and political balance away from the white world to the non-white world. A trend that will continue and that cannot be stopped. So accept it and adapt to it.
As an aside, I have a message to the under 35 set in the world. The future belongs to you so you better get off your asses, step up, and do something to take countrol of it. If you do not your elders will dictate your future for you. I quote Plato at the top of this blog and there is a reason why I chose that particular quote.
The Brexit vote was just the beginning of a process of which we do not know the final outcome. Alot of politics is going happen before that outcome is achieved. However, I would bet a great deal of money that when this is all over things will be very different from what was conceived by the people of the UK and the world when this whole thing started.
Monday, May 23, 2016
Changing How We Vote
The government has set up a special committee to deliberate on a new way for voters to choose their government. I personally do not believe our way of choosing a government needs to be changed but the Liberals did make a promise and I guess we should not be too surprised that they have decided to keep that promise.
Predictably the other parties have staked out positions that are case studies for political hypocrisy.
The NDP are insisting on some form of proportional representation. They state that it is the "most democratic" method of choosing a government. Of course, the fact that proportional representation tends to produce perennial coalition governments and the fact that historical voting patterns would make the NDP the kingmaker AFTER EVERY ELECTION is never mentioned by them. They claim that they only have the voters needs in mind and they have never even considered the huge advantage it would give their party.
The Conservatives insist on a referendum because something as fundamental as how we vote should not just be left to politicians. To do otherwise is undemocratic. This from a party that until about seven months ago lead one of the most undemocratic governments in Canadian history. The fact that they believe such a referendum would result in maintaining the status quo and the fact that they believe the only way they can ever win government again is to maintain that status quo is never mentioned.
The Liberals would prefer some sort of ranked ballot as the means for voting. The other parties accuse the Liberals of being self-interested because they believe, as do the Liberals, that such a system would give a big advantage to the Liberal Party in future elections.
They are probably right. Such a system would be an advantage to the Liberals...until it wasn't.
You see, Canadians are much smarter than the people we elect to govern us. Canada has become the prosperous, tolerant and globally respected country that it is DESPITE its politicians not because of them. So, when the time comes that Canadians collectively decide to change their government they will do so regardless of the voting method put in front of them.
So, if we have to change the way we vote then let's just get it over with. Go through the motions but in the end the Liberals should just choose their option and be done with it.
Predictably the other parties have staked out positions that are case studies for political hypocrisy.
The NDP are insisting on some form of proportional representation. They state that it is the "most democratic" method of choosing a government. Of course, the fact that proportional representation tends to produce perennial coalition governments and the fact that historical voting patterns would make the NDP the kingmaker AFTER EVERY ELECTION is never mentioned by them. They claim that they only have the voters needs in mind and they have never even considered the huge advantage it would give their party.
The Conservatives insist on a referendum because something as fundamental as how we vote should not just be left to politicians. To do otherwise is undemocratic. This from a party that until about seven months ago lead one of the most undemocratic governments in Canadian history. The fact that they believe such a referendum would result in maintaining the status quo and the fact that they believe the only way they can ever win government again is to maintain that status quo is never mentioned.
The Liberals would prefer some sort of ranked ballot as the means for voting. The other parties accuse the Liberals of being self-interested because they believe, as do the Liberals, that such a system would give a big advantage to the Liberal Party in future elections.
They are probably right. Such a system would be an advantage to the Liberals...until it wasn't.
You see, Canadians are much smarter than the people we elect to govern us. Canada has become the prosperous, tolerant and globally respected country that it is DESPITE its politicians not because of them. So, when the time comes that Canadians collectively decide to change their government they will do so regardless of the voting method put in front of them.
So, if we have to change the way we vote then let's just get it over with. Go through the motions but in the end the Liberals should just choose their option and be done with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)