I had a conversation today with someone and they asked me why I was a Liberal.
My response is I am not a Liberal but I am a liberal. More specifically, I am a pragmatist. Most of life is about solving problems and when it comes to solving problems you are better served to identify the problem and find a solution that fits it instead of attempting to fit the problem to a preconceived solution.
This is true of governments. Their job is to come up with solutions to problems that will serve the greatest good. How they actually do this does not matter. So, for example, if a issue needs a more conservative approach to be resolved then that should be the approach they take. The same is true if a problem would be best resolved by an approach that would be considered liberal or socialist.
Looking at the political landscape in Canada today the only party that comes close to matching that requirement, federally, are the Liberals. The same holds true for Ontario.
The most likely alternative to the Liberals, in Canada and in Ontario, do not meet my requirements. They are much too dogmatic. That is, they care more about adhering to their narrow ideology than solving real world problems that would serve the greatest good.
I am of course referring to the Conservative Parties of Canada and Ontario. They are a great representation of the decent into dogmatism that has become a feature of modern conservatism in the English speaking world. In fact, I would go so far as to state that I believe the conservative movement, in its current form, is as great a threat to our freedom, lives and livelihood as Communism was during the Cold War. Indeed, conservatism would be the greater threat as it has much more credibility than Communism ever did.
Some would consider that statement inflammatory but you just need to look at the problem solving approaches of the old Soviet Union and modern conservatism to see the parallels.
During Cold War the Soviet Union had a very difficult time producing enough food to feed its entire population. For decades it had to buy surplus grain from Canada and the West despite the fact the area of land it had to produce grain and other foodstuffs almost equaled that of the Western world combined. Really, looking at the amount of farmland they had the Soviet Union should have been able to feed itself and have a great deal left over to sell to the rest of the world.
So why could the Soviet Union not feed itself? Simple, agricultural decisions that would usually be taken at the individual farm level were taken by a bureaucrat at a central location. Farmers in the Soviet Union were not allowed to think for themselves and to take decisions that were in the best interest of their farms. They had to implement the decisions, about their individual farms, that were taken somewhere else, often in a place very far away from their farms.
The ideology of the old Communist Party of the Soviet Union was the primacy of central control of all aspects of the economy. Factories and farms had to be centrally controlled from the centre because that is what Lenin and Trotsky said way back in 1917 and to stray from that ideal, even a little bit, was considered to be heresy. So, the Soviet Union stuck to Communist dogma for decades and had to buy grain and other foodstuffs from the West, almost every year, in order to stave off famine. It should be noted that the lack of ability to feed itself took up alot of the time of the Soviet leadership but they could never come up with a solution that would work and adhere to Communist dogma at the same time. When they had to choose between the two options they chose to stick to dogma everytime, until Mr. Gobachev came along.
The irony is if they would have relaxed that control just a small amount they would have probably solved the problem. The agriculture industry in the West is not a true free market by any sense of the word. That sector is the most controlled and subsidized economic sector in the West. However, individual farmers are allowed to make decisions regarding their own farms and that is the crucial difference.
So how does this relate to modern conservatism? The parallels are evident. The Harper government pursued a "tough on crime" agenda throughout its time despite the fact that there was increasing evidence to indicate that crime, violent crime in particular, was falling long before they came to power.
Mike Harris decided to deregulate the electricity industry in Ontario because modern conservatives firmly believe that any form of regulation is bad. Every industry expert that did not work for the industry or the Harris government stated that deregulation would lead to higher prices but the Harris government believed otherwise and went ahead with it. It should be no surprise that high electricity prices are now a big issue in Ontario.
I would also point out the deregulation of the Hog industry in Ontario which lead directly to the death of several people in Walkerton, Ontario.
Climate change is real and humans are contributing to it. The evidence is clear. Yet conservatives either deny that fact outright or they play down its potential impacts. There might come a time when global warming and its resultant impacts on our climate will become an existential threat to the human species yet conservatives refuse to even acknowledge that there is a problem.
To place more importance on ideological purity than on evidence and fact will inevitably lead to disaster. You can only ignore a problem or attempt to apply the wrong solution to it for so long before it becomes unmanageable. When we do it as individuals it can lead to great personal hardship. When governments do it they can do unspeakable harm to the people they represent and the society that they are morally and legally bound to protect.
Modern Conservative governments attempt to fit problems to reconceived solutions They place ideological purity over finding the most effective solution. Liberal governments are generally more pragmatic. They will usually weigh the evidence and facts before taking a decision on how to solve a problem. That is why I am a liberal.
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Thursday, July 06, 2017
Omar Khadr
With the news that the Omar Khadr legal settlement has been enforced the Conservatives and their supporters have worked themselves into quite a lather.
Naturally, they are blaming Prime Minister Trudeau for this but they seem to forget that Mr. Trudeau really did not have any other option. To let the case go to trial would have been most irresponsible on many levels. If Mr. Harper would have won the last election it would have been his government that would have had to reach and implement a settlement. I am certain that the Conservatives not mentioning this fact is just an oversight and that they are not trying to spin this situation in the worst possible way in order to attempt to take political advantage.
Taking the politics out of the situation we need to look at why a legal settlement was needed to begin with. Generally speaking when the defence in a civil legal process decides to settle it usually means that they do not believe that they can win if the case goes to trial. The settlement is a way to mitigate any damage of a loss by limiting any payout and there is usually a stipulation in any settlement agreement that they are not admitting to any wrong doing.
So why would the Candian government need to agree to a settlement?
Omar Khadr is accused of killing an American soldier when he was 15 years old. When he was captured the Americans incarcerated him in their prison in Guantanamo Bay.
After many years they finally released him, he returned to Canada and he proceeded to sue the government of Canada. Did he have a case?
Well, there are several UN resolutions and other international protocols, of which Canada is a signatory, which states that child soldiers generally get involved with wars as a result of brainwashing, drugs given to them by those who would have them fight or straight up coersion. As a result, these same international agreements indicate that in most cases child soldiers are not to be held responsible for the action they are forced to take. Instead they are to be rescued from their situation and measures are to be taken to rehabilitate them and reintegrate these children back into the respective societies. Of course this did not happen.
None of the international agreements on child soldiers are treaties or international laws. They are really just statements of good intent. So, if Canada did not want to follow them in this case they could have made a good argument as to why.
However, that would leave them with two other options. Treat the 15 year old Mr. Khadr as a regular soldier or treat him as a terrorist, which means treat him as a criminal.
For both choices Canada would have been compelled to treat Mr. Khadr much differently than he was actually treated.
If Mr. Khadr was treated as a soldier then, after his capture, he would have had the right of the protection of the Geneva Conventions. This is a treaty on how countries are to conduct war, including the treatment of prisoners of war and Canada is a signatory to that treaty. It is stated in the Conventions that the torture of prisoners of war is forbidded. Mr. Khadr was sent to Guantanamo Bay where he was tortured. Mr. Khadr is a Canadian citizen, by birth, so when the Canadian government found out the US Army was torturing Mr. Khadr they were legally required to protest to the US government and begin a process to have Mr. Khadr removed from the situation where he was being tortured. Instead, the Canadian security agencies actually sought to benefit from his torture.
If Mr. Khadr would have been treated like a criminal then he should have been sen to the United States or he should have been repatriated to Canada and forced to face the criminal justice systems in either country, which amongst other things, includes the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
Considering all of that Mr. Khadr's lawyers probably believed that they had a strong case that the Canadian government violated international and domestic laws. Shamefully, they may be right.
Many argue that Mr. Khadr was a terrorist and terrorists should not enjoy the same rights as the rest of us. The problem I have with that argument, and that I have always had with that argument, is that if you allow governments to deny basic human and legal rights for some where do you draw the line? Not everybody has the same definition of terrorist so the line becomes rather fuzzy. As an illustrative aside I was looking at an American news aggregation site a few days ago and there was story in their that some elements of the Trump Administration would like to define some environmental advocacy groups in the US as terrorist organizations.
In general I find the reaction to terrorism to be an over reaction.
For over 40 years the West was threatened by the Soviet Union and its vassal states. They had millions of men under arms, sitting on the border of Western Europe, and they had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us. The Soviet Union was a politically powerful state and it and its Communist ideals were an existential threat to our way of life. What was our reaction? We strengthed our democracies. We made our democratic institutions more robust. Any politician who would have suggested otherwise would have been lynched (politically speaking of course).
Some of the more liberal estimates of the number of terrorists out there is 100,000, if you are only counting the Muslim terrorists. That is 100,000 out of over a billion. They have no major government that supports them, they have no heavy weapons and they can barely move from their places of origin. Crucially, they have absolutely no political power. Indeed that is why the resort to terrorism to begin with. They are not an existential threat to our way of life. They can kill a few of us but they cannot bring down our democratic institutions or our society.
What is our reaction to them?
A large portion of the populations of the western democracy have collectively and figuratively wet their pants and they are demanding actions from their governments to protect them. Governments, which in the history of civilization have never given up an opportunity to grab more power for themselves, have been happy to oblige with increasingly draconian laws which erode our basic and legal rights.
It is ironic that the Soviet Union could not convince us to give up our rights and freedoms despite 40+ plus years of effort to do so. However, the actions of a relative handful of religious extremists, in less than half of that time, have some parts of our society demanding that the government take those rights and freedoms away from us because they see terrorists under their pillow.
Fortunately, our democratic institutions are much stronger than that and the Omar Khadr settlement has managed to demonstrate that nicely.
One final note, I read today that the family of the soldier that was said to be killed by Omar Khadr is looking at going after some of the money that he won in his settlement. That is interesting. The only way they will be able to do that would be to launch a wrongful death lawsuit against Mr. Khadr in a court of law. It is another irony in all of this that Mr.Khadr might be forced to finally defend himself and his alleged actions in a court of law, not because any government is making it happen, but because the family of his alleged victim might make it happen. Mr. Khadr might have come full circle.
Naturally, they are blaming Prime Minister Trudeau for this but they seem to forget that Mr. Trudeau really did not have any other option. To let the case go to trial would have been most irresponsible on many levels. If Mr. Harper would have won the last election it would have been his government that would have had to reach and implement a settlement. I am certain that the Conservatives not mentioning this fact is just an oversight and that they are not trying to spin this situation in the worst possible way in order to attempt to take political advantage.
Taking the politics out of the situation we need to look at why a legal settlement was needed to begin with. Generally speaking when the defence in a civil legal process decides to settle it usually means that they do not believe that they can win if the case goes to trial. The settlement is a way to mitigate any damage of a loss by limiting any payout and there is usually a stipulation in any settlement agreement that they are not admitting to any wrong doing.
So why would the Candian government need to agree to a settlement?
Omar Khadr is accused of killing an American soldier when he was 15 years old. When he was captured the Americans incarcerated him in their prison in Guantanamo Bay.
After many years they finally released him, he returned to Canada and he proceeded to sue the government of Canada. Did he have a case?
Well, there are several UN resolutions and other international protocols, of which Canada is a signatory, which states that child soldiers generally get involved with wars as a result of brainwashing, drugs given to them by those who would have them fight or straight up coersion. As a result, these same international agreements indicate that in most cases child soldiers are not to be held responsible for the action they are forced to take. Instead they are to be rescued from their situation and measures are to be taken to rehabilitate them and reintegrate these children back into the respective societies. Of course this did not happen.
None of the international agreements on child soldiers are treaties or international laws. They are really just statements of good intent. So, if Canada did not want to follow them in this case they could have made a good argument as to why.
However, that would leave them with two other options. Treat the 15 year old Mr. Khadr as a regular soldier or treat him as a terrorist, which means treat him as a criminal.
For both choices Canada would have been compelled to treat Mr. Khadr much differently than he was actually treated.
If Mr. Khadr was treated as a soldier then, after his capture, he would have had the right of the protection of the Geneva Conventions. This is a treaty on how countries are to conduct war, including the treatment of prisoners of war and Canada is a signatory to that treaty. It is stated in the Conventions that the torture of prisoners of war is forbidded. Mr. Khadr was sent to Guantanamo Bay where he was tortured. Mr. Khadr is a Canadian citizen, by birth, so when the Canadian government found out the US Army was torturing Mr. Khadr they were legally required to protest to the US government and begin a process to have Mr. Khadr removed from the situation where he was being tortured. Instead, the Canadian security agencies actually sought to benefit from his torture.
If Mr. Khadr would have been treated like a criminal then he should have been sen to the United States or he should have been repatriated to Canada and forced to face the criminal justice systems in either country, which amongst other things, includes the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
Considering all of that Mr. Khadr's lawyers probably believed that they had a strong case that the Canadian government violated international and domestic laws. Shamefully, they may be right.
Many argue that Mr. Khadr was a terrorist and terrorists should not enjoy the same rights as the rest of us. The problem I have with that argument, and that I have always had with that argument, is that if you allow governments to deny basic human and legal rights for some where do you draw the line? Not everybody has the same definition of terrorist so the line becomes rather fuzzy. As an illustrative aside I was looking at an American news aggregation site a few days ago and there was story in their that some elements of the Trump Administration would like to define some environmental advocacy groups in the US as terrorist organizations.
In general I find the reaction to terrorism to be an over reaction.
For over 40 years the West was threatened by the Soviet Union and its vassal states. They had millions of men under arms, sitting on the border of Western Europe, and they had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us. The Soviet Union was a politically powerful state and it and its Communist ideals were an existential threat to our way of life. What was our reaction? We strengthed our democracies. We made our democratic institutions more robust. Any politician who would have suggested otherwise would have been lynched (politically speaking of course).
Some of the more liberal estimates of the number of terrorists out there is 100,000, if you are only counting the Muslim terrorists. That is 100,000 out of over a billion. They have no major government that supports them, they have no heavy weapons and they can barely move from their places of origin. Crucially, they have absolutely no political power. Indeed that is why the resort to terrorism to begin with. They are not an existential threat to our way of life. They can kill a few of us but they cannot bring down our democratic institutions or our society.
What is our reaction to them?
A large portion of the populations of the western democracy have collectively and figuratively wet their pants and they are demanding actions from their governments to protect them. Governments, which in the history of civilization have never given up an opportunity to grab more power for themselves, have been happy to oblige with increasingly draconian laws which erode our basic and legal rights.
It is ironic that the Soviet Union could not convince us to give up our rights and freedoms despite 40+ plus years of effort to do so. However, the actions of a relative handful of religious extremists, in less than half of that time, have some parts of our society demanding that the government take those rights and freedoms away from us because they see terrorists under their pillow.
Fortunately, our democratic institutions are much stronger than that and the Omar Khadr settlement has managed to demonstrate that nicely.
One final note, I read today that the family of the soldier that was said to be killed by Omar Khadr is looking at going after some of the money that he won in his settlement. That is interesting. The only way they will be able to do that would be to launch a wrongful death lawsuit against Mr. Khadr in a court of law. It is another irony in all of this that Mr.Khadr might be forced to finally defend himself and his alleged actions in a court of law, not because any government is making it happen, but because the family of his alleged victim might make it happen. Mr. Khadr might have come full circle.
Wednesday, April 05, 2017
By-election are meaningless
I generally avoid reading political pundits now a days. I find their arguments to be vacuous and superficial. There is not a single one of them who actually adds anything useful to any political argument.
However, I happened to glance at a news aggragator site today and there was a story indicating that the reduction in the level of Liberal support was not all Justin Trudeau's fault.
Upon closer inspection the column was essentially arguing that the big defeats in Calgary and the fact their victories in Ontario and Quebec were only by 25 point margins instead of 30+ points seemed to indicate that the Liberals had cause for concern.
When I read that I began to wonder if pot had been legalized and I had just missed that fact.
The two Calgary ridings were held by Jason Kenney and Stephen Harper. I cannot think of two more rock steady Conservative ridings in Canada. The Conservatives could have run a pair of chimps as candidates and they still would have taken those ridings in a walk.
As for the other three, the margins of victory by the Liberals was impressive by any measure. The fact that those margins did not hit some arbitrary level set by an individual columnist proves nothing.
Bottom line, the Liberal seats stayed Liberal and the Conservative seats stayed Conservative. That is the only real story here. Any speculation on what these results mean to the bigger picture is just a columnist attemping to justify their job.
However, I happened to glance at a news aggragator site today and there was a story indicating that the reduction in the level of Liberal support was not all Justin Trudeau's fault.
Upon closer inspection the column was essentially arguing that the big defeats in Calgary and the fact their victories in Ontario and Quebec were only by 25 point margins instead of 30+ points seemed to indicate that the Liberals had cause for concern.
When I read that I began to wonder if pot had been legalized and I had just missed that fact.
The two Calgary ridings were held by Jason Kenney and Stephen Harper. I cannot think of two more rock steady Conservative ridings in Canada. The Conservatives could have run a pair of chimps as candidates and they still would have taken those ridings in a walk.
As for the other three, the margins of victory by the Liberals was impressive by any measure. The fact that those margins did not hit some arbitrary level set by an individual columnist proves nothing.
Bottom line, the Liberal seats stayed Liberal and the Conservative seats stayed Conservative. That is the only real story here. Any speculation on what these results mean to the bigger picture is just a columnist attemping to justify their job.
You would think that winning the last election would instill some confidence into Liberals
I had a discussion with a Liberal partisan last weekend and he was very concerned that Kevin O'Leary would be able to defeat the Trudeau Liberals.
The argument went pretty much like this. Donald Trump demonstrated that pursuing a campaign of overt bigotedness while claiming to be someone that can "clean up Ottawa" can lead to success and Mr. O'Leary only needs to follow the same approach to win in Canada.
Where to begin?
First, this is not the United States. Although racial and religious tensions are not unheard of here they are not nearly as intense as they are in the US. Pursuing an overtly racist election campaign will not go nearly as well for anybody that would like to pursue such a strategy as it did for Mr. Trump. The Conservatives already tried a more circumspect racist election campaign in 2015 and they lost the election and all of the work and effort put in by Jason Kenney to reach out to immigrant groups was turned to ash.
Second, the political situation is different. Donald Trump was running against a woman who was looking to replace a two term black president. Anybody that does not believe those two facts were great contributors to Mr. Trump's victory are not paying attention. The desire for change in the US was quite high and Ms. Clinton was not the change many key American demographics were looking for. Further, the US has a two party political system. Contrast that to Canada where the next election will be fought by a one term government lead by someone who most people actually like. As well, the multiple parties and the riding system used for our elections would make any overtly racist election strategy counterproductive. Many people who would be turned off by such a strategy live exactly where the Conservatives will need to pick up support if they are to win, namely the major cities and their suburbs.
Third, language trumps all other issues in Quebec. The argument from my friend was Mr. O'Leary could use the racist strategy to convince Quebecers to vote for him. Leaving aside the assumption that Quebecers would be convinced by that strategy after they turfed out a PQ government that pursued the Quebec Values Charter, Mr. O'Leary is a unilingual anglophone and that will be the only thing Quebecers would care about in any election. I cannot think of a bigger gift in Quebec, for the Liberals, than Mr. O'Leary campaigning in Quebec in English only. The Conservative vote would collapse and with the most likely leader of the NDP probably being from somewhere else but Quebec there is not many places where Quebecers will be able to put their votes. This kind of scenario presents the opportunity for the Liberals to win as many seats in Quebec as PM Trudeau's father did.
Fourth, equalization payments are sacrosanct in many provinces. Mr. O'Leary has argued for the reduction of these payments to the provinces and he has actually stated that he would attempt to do just that. What he is proposing is unconstitutional but from a political standpoint promising to carry through on such a proposal would be political suicide in the four Eastern Provinces, along with Manitoba and BC. And let's not forget that these payments are rather popular in Quebec as well.
Fifth, with the exception of the Senate there is not a grand desire to "clean up Ottawa" extant amongst the electorate. Canadians are generally happy with their government and a Trumpian promise the "drain the swamp" would not resonate nearly as much here as it did in the US.
Finally, when the next election rolls around Canadians will have been witness to a years long shit show that the Trump presidency has become. Canadians being generally sensible and wise people will want to avoid such a situation up here.
I do not believe that Mr. O'Leary will even carry the Conservative Party. However, if he were to pull off such a feat I believe that he would be a great gift to the Liberal Party and he would increase their already great chances of winning the next election.
The argument went pretty much like this. Donald Trump demonstrated that pursuing a campaign of overt bigotedness while claiming to be someone that can "clean up Ottawa" can lead to success and Mr. O'Leary only needs to follow the same approach to win in Canada.
Where to begin?
First, this is not the United States. Although racial and religious tensions are not unheard of here they are not nearly as intense as they are in the US. Pursuing an overtly racist election campaign will not go nearly as well for anybody that would like to pursue such a strategy as it did for Mr. Trump. The Conservatives already tried a more circumspect racist election campaign in 2015 and they lost the election and all of the work and effort put in by Jason Kenney to reach out to immigrant groups was turned to ash.
Second, the political situation is different. Donald Trump was running against a woman who was looking to replace a two term black president. Anybody that does not believe those two facts were great contributors to Mr. Trump's victory are not paying attention. The desire for change in the US was quite high and Ms. Clinton was not the change many key American demographics were looking for. Further, the US has a two party political system. Contrast that to Canada where the next election will be fought by a one term government lead by someone who most people actually like. As well, the multiple parties and the riding system used for our elections would make any overtly racist election strategy counterproductive. Many people who would be turned off by such a strategy live exactly where the Conservatives will need to pick up support if they are to win, namely the major cities and their suburbs.
Third, language trumps all other issues in Quebec. The argument from my friend was Mr. O'Leary could use the racist strategy to convince Quebecers to vote for him. Leaving aside the assumption that Quebecers would be convinced by that strategy after they turfed out a PQ government that pursued the Quebec Values Charter, Mr. O'Leary is a unilingual anglophone and that will be the only thing Quebecers would care about in any election. I cannot think of a bigger gift in Quebec, for the Liberals, than Mr. O'Leary campaigning in Quebec in English only. The Conservative vote would collapse and with the most likely leader of the NDP probably being from somewhere else but Quebec there is not many places where Quebecers will be able to put their votes. This kind of scenario presents the opportunity for the Liberals to win as many seats in Quebec as PM Trudeau's father did.
Fourth, equalization payments are sacrosanct in many provinces. Mr. O'Leary has argued for the reduction of these payments to the provinces and he has actually stated that he would attempt to do just that. What he is proposing is unconstitutional but from a political standpoint promising to carry through on such a proposal would be political suicide in the four Eastern Provinces, along with Manitoba and BC. And let's not forget that these payments are rather popular in Quebec as well.
Fifth, with the exception of the Senate there is not a grand desire to "clean up Ottawa" extant amongst the electorate. Canadians are generally happy with their government and a Trumpian promise the "drain the swamp" would not resonate nearly as much here as it did in the US.
Finally, when the next election rolls around Canadians will have been witness to a years long shit show that the Trump presidency has become. Canadians being generally sensible and wise people will want to avoid such a situation up here.
I do not believe that Mr. O'Leary will even carry the Conservative Party. However, if he were to pull off such a feat I believe that he would be a great gift to the Liberal Party and he would increase their already great chances of winning the next election.
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Everybody Just Needs to Chill
Donald Trump has been President of the United States for less than two weeks and many people seem to be coming unhinged by this fact. The rhetoric that is flying fast and loose out there is outrageous and overblown.
"He is going to get us into a nuclear war" they say.
"He and his supporters are facsists using the techniques of Adolf Hitler to undermine democracy" they cry.
"The Republicans hold all three branches of the American government and they will use that to undo decades of progress" they howl.
While I agree that Donald Trump is a rube, a boor, a misogynistic racist and that he is probably wholly unqualified for the office he holds his ability to cause real trouble is very limited.
First, he is unlikely to cause a nuclear war because the United States has a MASSIVE military bureaucracy which will prevent him from doing so. They are hardwired to not enter the US into wars that could lead to an attack on the continental US, such as going to war with another nuclear power, and they are a little gun shy after their latest wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Mr. Trump may be able to convince his military to take military action against Iran but that is probably it and anything they do will be designed to satisfy him without endangering too many Americans. It goes without saying that the only thing such an attack will do is convince the Iranians to build nuclear bombs and to seek an alliance with China.
Second, many point to his tactics for getting elected, such as vilifying the media, blaming foreigners for America's troubles and even bastardizing an old Nazi slogan with the "Let's make American great" slogan. Many pointed out that Adolf Hitler was elected and then used the power of government to take complete control of that government and they fear the same will happen in the US.
The problem with that is Adolf Hitler won the election to the government of the Weimar Republic, in 1933, a country that had absolutely no democratic tradition and whose democratic institutions had been established in 1919. To compare Donald Trumps election to the White House to Adolf Hitler's election as Chancellor of Weimar Germany is to compare apples to elephants.
Further, the greatest fear of the writers of the US Constitution was that one of their number would use the Presidency to set themselves up as a King so they created a system of government that makes any kind of change to that system virtually impossible. In fact, as powers of political leaders go the powers of the President of the United States are weak compared to many of the other leaders of democratic governments around the world. Indeed, if Prime Minister Trudeau was bent on really rocking the boat and making wholesale changes to Canada and its society he would have much more power to do so than the President would have to do the same in the US.
That has just been demonstrated by the fact that a federal judge in New York just stayed his Executive Order stopping immigration from the countries he selected. He signed the order on Friday and before the weekend was out it was deemed invalid and illegal and is not to be enforced. I am certain that this is not over yet but this demonstrates that Donald Trump will not be able to run roughshod over America's democratic values and institutions.
Third, the Republicans now hold both chambers of Congress but all of the Members of the House of Representatives and more than a third of the Members of the Senate face an election in 22 months. In reality that means they need to be in full re-election mode in about 14 months. If Donald Trump is really proven to be incompetent, as many expect, and he does not have the political smarts to curb his baser instincts, the path to re-election for these members of Congress will be the one that takes them as far away from Donald Trump and his actions/policies as possible. That will essentially neutralize his Presidency.
Further, the major changes the most ardent Tea Partiers want to make will be very difficult to pull off from a political point of view. We are seeing that with the Affordable Care Act, aka, Obamacare. Many Republicans in Congress have Obama derangement syndrome and are therefore bound and determined to remove anything associated with him. Unfortunately, many traditional Republican voters find themselves with much better medical insurance coverage, at a cheaper price, than before Obamacare. Taking that away from them could have very negative effects on Republican legislative representatives' election chances in a couple of years. The solution of course will be to replace Obamacare with Obamacare, only it will have a different name. The change will be cosmetic and symbolic and nothing more.
The job of an elected politician is to be re-elected. Republicans will push their agenda to be certain but their desire to be re-elected will temper that effort to a very great extent.
The election of Donald Trump is unfortunate. At least that is my opinion. However, it is not the end of the world. His ability to cause real trouble is limited by the system he needs to operate in and he has no ability to change that system.
So everybody needs to step back and take a breath. Vigilance is definitely warranted but I would say that about all of the leaders we entrust our governments to. As well, those who oppose him have to be ready to push back against this policies and actions, But again, the same would be true if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would have won the White House.
In other words, it is really just more of the same and nothing more.
"He is going to get us into a nuclear war" they say.
"He and his supporters are facsists using the techniques of Adolf Hitler to undermine democracy" they cry.
"The Republicans hold all three branches of the American government and they will use that to undo decades of progress" they howl.
While I agree that Donald Trump is a rube, a boor, a misogynistic racist and that he is probably wholly unqualified for the office he holds his ability to cause real trouble is very limited.
First, he is unlikely to cause a nuclear war because the United States has a MASSIVE military bureaucracy which will prevent him from doing so. They are hardwired to not enter the US into wars that could lead to an attack on the continental US, such as going to war with another nuclear power, and they are a little gun shy after their latest wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Mr. Trump may be able to convince his military to take military action against Iran but that is probably it and anything they do will be designed to satisfy him without endangering too many Americans. It goes without saying that the only thing such an attack will do is convince the Iranians to build nuclear bombs and to seek an alliance with China.
Second, many point to his tactics for getting elected, such as vilifying the media, blaming foreigners for America's troubles and even bastardizing an old Nazi slogan with the "Let's make American great" slogan. Many pointed out that Adolf Hitler was elected and then used the power of government to take complete control of that government and they fear the same will happen in the US.
The problem with that is Adolf Hitler won the election to the government of the Weimar Republic, in 1933, a country that had absolutely no democratic tradition and whose democratic institutions had been established in 1919. To compare Donald Trumps election to the White House to Adolf Hitler's election as Chancellor of Weimar Germany is to compare apples to elephants.
Further, the greatest fear of the writers of the US Constitution was that one of their number would use the Presidency to set themselves up as a King so they created a system of government that makes any kind of change to that system virtually impossible. In fact, as powers of political leaders go the powers of the President of the United States are weak compared to many of the other leaders of democratic governments around the world. Indeed, if Prime Minister Trudeau was bent on really rocking the boat and making wholesale changes to Canada and its society he would have much more power to do so than the President would have to do the same in the US.
That has just been demonstrated by the fact that a federal judge in New York just stayed his Executive Order stopping immigration from the countries he selected. He signed the order on Friday and before the weekend was out it was deemed invalid and illegal and is not to be enforced. I am certain that this is not over yet but this demonstrates that Donald Trump will not be able to run roughshod over America's democratic values and institutions.
Third, the Republicans now hold both chambers of Congress but all of the Members of the House of Representatives and more than a third of the Members of the Senate face an election in 22 months. In reality that means they need to be in full re-election mode in about 14 months. If Donald Trump is really proven to be incompetent, as many expect, and he does not have the political smarts to curb his baser instincts, the path to re-election for these members of Congress will be the one that takes them as far away from Donald Trump and his actions/policies as possible. That will essentially neutralize his Presidency.
Further, the major changes the most ardent Tea Partiers want to make will be very difficult to pull off from a political point of view. We are seeing that with the Affordable Care Act, aka, Obamacare. Many Republicans in Congress have Obama derangement syndrome and are therefore bound and determined to remove anything associated with him. Unfortunately, many traditional Republican voters find themselves with much better medical insurance coverage, at a cheaper price, than before Obamacare. Taking that away from them could have very negative effects on Republican legislative representatives' election chances in a couple of years. The solution of course will be to replace Obamacare with Obamacare, only it will have a different name. The change will be cosmetic and symbolic and nothing more.
The job of an elected politician is to be re-elected. Republicans will push their agenda to be certain but their desire to be re-elected will temper that effort to a very great extent.
The election of Donald Trump is unfortunate. At least that is my opinion. However, it is not the end of the world. His ability to cause real trouble is limited by the system he needs to operate in and he has no ability to change that system.
So everybody needs to step back and take a breath. Vigilance is definitely warranted but I would say that about all of the leaders we entrust our governments to. As well, those who oppose him have to be ready to push back against this policies and actions, But again, the same would be true if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would have won the White House.
In other words, it is really just more of the same and nothing more.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
The Technology Revolution
Back around the end of the 17th century the world of economics began to change. At first it was slow but then it really took off with the invention of the steam engine. By the middle of the 18th century thinkers actually began to give it a name, capitalism, and historians have come to name that whole era as the "Industrial Revolution".
Like all revolutions it brought great change and great upheaval. That upheaval really took off in 1848, when virtually the whole of continental Europe erupted in political revolution, which resulted in changes in how Europe's governments rules their citizens and introduced the world to what was considered a viable alternative to capitalism. The revolution and the resulting upheaval continued for 70 years finally culminating in the creation of totalitarian governments in Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia.
Ironically it took a devestating world war to bring a period of relative normalcy to the world, sweeping out most of the totalitarian regimes with the big exception of the Soviet Union and its vassal states.
That normalcy lasted for about four decades until the first rumblings of the next revolution began. We call those first rumblings "Globalization" and that revolution has continued and morphed into a "Technology Revolution".
For now that Revolution has been largely positive. Our access to devices and technology makes most of our lives easier. However, the flip side of that Revolution is the impact it appears it will have on the very concept of employment. I have read a fair amount about how technology will change the way we work and live and even the most conservative estimate of the impact of the Technology Revolution states that at least half of all of the current jobs on the planet will be lost to technology by 2050, and the greatest impacts will actually be felt in the industrial countries where technology can be put to the greatest use. So Canada and the other G20 countries can expect to see a disportionate number of jobs being replaced by technology, including recently industrialized countries like China, India and Brazil. Less conservative estimates put the job losses at around two-thirds of the current jobs.
These same studies indicate that most of these jobs will not be replaced with as many new jobs as those lost and what jobs are created will not be of comparable incomes and benefits to the ones lost.
That is a recipe for potential disaster. As jobs disappear and wages fall it is going to lead to a great deal of unrest amongst those who come out on the losing end of this trend. That is going to result in change in how politics is done. It still remains to be seen just how wide and deep that change will be but I think it is a certainty that we will see some profound changes in the politics of the rich nations of the world in the coming decades. I am not just talking about changes in government. The next few decades are going probably to test the resiliency of the Western democratic institutions like they have never been tested before.
After about 150 years the Industrial Revolution spawned the likes of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Along the way it created a whole new way of distributing wealth call capitalism and it created its alternative in communism.
Considering the speed in which our modern world progresses we probably will not have to wait that long for profound changes to occur during the Technology Revolution. That revolution is only about 30 years old and it has already created Corporatism and its first "right wing" demogogues. I suspect that the articulation of what will be considered a viable alternative to that economic system and the "left wing" demogogues who will rise up and attempt to use it to overthrow the current economic order are not that far into the future.
All revolutions bring great change and the Technology Revolution will be no different. Just like the economic and political world in 1950 was extremely different from the economic and political world of 1917 I imagine our world in 2050 will be completely different from the world of today.
Like all revolutions it brought great change and great upheaval. That upheaval really took off in 1848, when virtually the whole of continental Europe erupted in political revolution, which resulted in changes in how Europe's governments rules their citizens and introduced the world to what was considered a viable alternative to capitalism. The revolution and the resulting upheaval continued for 70 years finally culminating in the creation of totalitarian governments in Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia.
Ironically it took a devestating world war to bring a period of relative normalcy to the world, sweeping out most of the totalitarian regimes with the big exception of the Soviet Union and its vassal states.
That normalcy lasted for about four decades until the first rumblings of the next revolution began. We call those first rumblings "Globalization" and that revolution has continued and morphed into a "Technology Revolution".
For now that Revolution has been largely positive. Our access to devices and technology makes most of our lives easier. However, the flip side of that Revolution is the impact it appears it will have on the very concept of employment. I have read a fair amount about how technology will change the way we work and live and even the most conservative estimate of the impact of the Technology Revolution states that at least half of all of the current jobs on the planet will be lost to technology by 2050, and the greatest impacts will actually be felt in the industrial countries where technology can be put to the greatest use. So Canada and the other G20 countries can expect to see a disportionate number of jobs being replaced by technology, including recently industrialized countries like China, India and Brazil. Less conservative estimates put the job losses at around two-thirds of the current jobs.
These same studies indicate that most of these jobs will not be replaced with as many new jobs as those lost and what jobs are created will not be of comparable incomes and benefits to the ones lost.
That is a recipe for potential disaster. As jobs disappear and wages fall it is going to lead to a great deal of unrest amongst those who come out on the losing end of this trend. That is going to result in change in how politics is done. It still remains to be seen just how wide and deep that change will be but I think it is a certainty that we will see some profound changes in the politics of the rich nations of the world in the coming decades. I am not just talking about changes in government. The next few decades are going probably to test the resiliency of the Western democratic institutions like they have never been tested before.
After about 150 years the Industrial Revolution spawned the likes of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Along the way it created a whole new way of distributing wealth call capitalism and it created its alternative in communism.
Considering the speed in which our modern world progresses we probably will not have to wait that long for profound changes to occur during the Technology Revolution. That revolution is only about 30 years old and it has already created Corporatism and its first "right wing" demogogues. I suspect that the articulation of what will be considered a viable alternative to that economic system and the "left wing" demogogues who will rise up and attempt to use it to overthrow the current economic order are not that far into the future.
All revolutions bring great change and the Technology Revolution will be no different. Just like the economic and political world in 1950 was extremely different from the economic and political world of 1917 I imagine our world in 2050 will be completely different from the world of today.
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Hopelessly Out of Touch
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
The election is over, what now?
With the election ending in a victory for the Liberals it is now time to take a look at what the future might hold for each of the three main parties.
The Liberals are back! Their victory was convincing and it has been accompanied by an almost palpable feeling of relief amongst Canadians.
In the short-term the Liberals will do no wrong. They will enjoy the usual honeymoon that comes along with a change in government and they will have all sorts of low hanging fruit left over from the last administration with which to establish their bonafides for governing.
However, in the medium to long-term the Liberal government is going to face many challenges. First and foremost they are inheriting a weak economy that unlike 1993 is not on the cusp of the second longest economic expansion of the post-war era. The economy is more likely to go down than up in the next year or so although we should see an improvement after that. That is going to present a great challenge to them. Fortunately, they have promised to stimulate the economy for the next few years by investing in infrastructure. That might mitigate some of the upcoming economic downturn and it might act as a bridge from now to the upturn that should happen in a couple of years.
The second big challenge is the TPP. The usual suspects will be out in force to oppose that agreement and as history has demonstrated they have the easier argument than those who would support the agreement. Fortunately, there is no rush to ratify the agreement. There is no way the Tea Party controlled American Congress will give President Obama a trade victory by ratifying it during the final months of his term. That will leave it to the next president and most of the credible replacements for the President have come out against the agreement. The Liberals can safely wait until 2017 or beyond before bringing any enabling legislation forward for the agreement.
The NDP is back, to their traditional place in the House of Commons.
It is an open question of whether Mr. Mulcair will be able to hang onto his position. The NDP usually does not eat its leaders like the other two parties do but the NDP have never been so close to winning government only to see it slip away either. That is going to make things very uncomfortable for Mr. Mulcair in the coming months. The only saving grace for him is that most of the most credible replacements for him all lost their seats in the election. As well, the NDP has not been successful as the conscience of the Canadian Parliament and they have now suffered failure pursuing a more pragmatic approach as well. Is there a third way? I cannot see it. I suspect the NDP will be in third place for the foreseeable future.
The Conservatives are screwed.
History has demonstrated that a political party that is defeated after holding government for an extended period of time wanders the political wilderness for a great deal of time afterwards. It will take that time for the party to renew itself and get rid of the dead wood and hangers on that always infest a party long in power. Many names have been put forth to replace Mr. Harper but I would bet that none of them will ever see the inside of 24 Sussex. The next Conservative Prime Minister has not entered anybody's radar at this time. That will probably not happen until after 2019.
Added to the Conservatives' problems is Stephen Harper pretty much tore the Conservative house down in his attempt to cling to power. The Conservatives spent more than a decade attempting to shed the redneck, intolerant image that it was saddled with when the party was formed. They threw all of that away with the Niqab, Cultural Barbarity tip line and taking away citizenship gambits of the election. All of their work reaching out to new Canadians has been wasted. All of their efforts to put forward an image of being a tolerant, big tent party has been for naught. It is going to take a great deal of time to repair the damage that was done during the election.
Finally, it is an open question as to whether the Conservatives can remain united without the discipline of power. The party is inevitably going to go through some upheaval over the next couple of years and no one knows what long-term impact that will have on the party.
All of the parties are going to have to adjust to the new reality. It is going to be interesting to watch how each one makes those adjustments.
The Liberals are back! Their victory was convincing and it has been accompanied by an almost palpable feeling of relief amongst Canadians.
In the short-term the Liberals will do no wrong. They will enjoy the usual honeymoon that comes along with a change in government and they will have all sorts of low hanging fruit left over from the last administration with which to establish their bonafides for governing.
However, in the medium to long-term the Liberal government is going to face many challenges. First and foremost they are inheriting a weak economy that unlike 1993 is not on the cusp of the second longest economic expansion of the post-war era. The economy is more likely to go down than up in the next year or so although we should see an improvement after that. That is going to present a great challenge to them. Fortunately, they have promised to stimulate the economy for the next few years by investing in infrastructure. That might mitigate some of the upcoming economic downturn and it might act as a bridge from now to the upturn that should happen in a couple of years.
The second big challenge is the TPP. The usual suspects will be out in force to oppose that agreement and as history has demonstrated they have the easier argument than those who would support the agreement. Fortunately, there is no rush to ratify the agreement. There is no way the Tea Party controlled American Congress will give President Obama a trade victory by ratifying it during the final months of his term. That will leave it to the next president and most of the credible replacements for the President have come out against the agreement. The Liberals can safely wait until 2017 or beyond before bringing any enabling legislation forward for the agreement.
The NDP is back, to their traditional place in the House of Commons.
It is an open question of whether Mr. Mulcair will be able to hang onto his position. The NDP usually does not eat its leaders like the other two parties do but the NDP have never been so close to winning government only to see it slip away either. That is going to make things very uncomfortable for Mr. Mulcair in the coming months. The only saving grace for him is that most of the most credible replacements for him all lost their seats in the election. As well, the NDP has not been successful as the conscience of the Canadian Parliament and they have now suffered failure pursuing a more pragmatic approach as well. Is there a third way? I cannot see it. I suspect the NDP will be in third place for the foreseeable future.
The Conservatives are screwed.
History has demonstrated that a political party that is defeated after holding government for an extended period of time wanders the political wilderness for a great deal of time afterwards. It will take that time for the party to renew itself and get rid of the dead wood and hangers on that always infest a party long in power. Many names have been put forth to replace Mr. Harper but I would bet that none of them will ever see the inside of 24 Sussex. The next Conservative Prime Minister has not entered anybody's radar at this time. That will probably not happen until after 2019.
Added to the Conservatives' problems is Stephen Harper pretty much tore the Conservative house down in his attempt to cling to power. The Conservatives spent more than a decade attempting to shed the redneck, intolerant image that it was saddled with when the party was formed. They threw all of that away with the Niqab, Cultural Barbarity tip line and taking away citizenship gambits of the election. All of their work reaching out to new Canadians has been wasted. All of their efforts to put forward an image of being a tolerant, big tent party has been for naught. It is going to take a great deal of time to repair the damage that was done during the election.
Finally, it is an open question as to whether the Conservatives can remain united without the discipline of power. The party is inevitably going to go through some upheaval over the next couple of years and no one knows what long-term impact that will have on the party.
All of the parties are going to have to adjust to the new reality. It is going to be interesting to watch how each one makes those adjustments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)