Category: Uncategorized

Is There Any Point in Negotiating With Trumps America?

I spent the better part of fifty years leading negotiations, resulting in dozens, if not more, agreements. None of them ended in failure or even a rejected agreement once a settlement was reached at the bargaining table. There were two immutable conditions underpinning those negotiations: both parties had an interest in reaching an agreement; and certainty that, once reached, an agreement would be honoured even when the outcomes might prove different from what was originally contemplated. The other significant element was that the parties had continuing relationships that predated the agreements and would continue after. This experience makes it particularly frustrating for me when I encounter other types of negotiations, for example when I’m trying to buy a car and the salesperson always goes upstairs with what I think has been agreed to only to regretfully inform me that someone in higher authority has said “no” and I will have to increase my offer. Same thing selling or buying real estate. Part of me always feels the other party is bargaining in bad faith when, in fact, I’m engaged in a type of negotiation completely different from what I’m most familiar with. It’s important to keep this in mind when confronted with other, unconventional negotiating styles such as that of the U.S. government today, and not to react in anything but a calm and thoughtful way. The simple fact is they will do what they will do to paraphrase an old negotiating colleague of mine and there’s very little we can do to control that. We must continuously focus on what we can control, a message the Prime Minister is wisely repeating over and over.

Negotiations between the U.S. and Canada are currently at an impasse because of Donald Trump’s tantrum over an Ontario ad that played in America and that quoted President Ronald Reagan decrying the use of tariffs. At least that’s the official version although it really doesn’t hold water and it’s more likely the Americans were simply looking for an excuse to stop the negotiations to bring more pressure to bear on Canada. This “pause” is a good time for Canada to consider whether there’s any point in pursuing an agreement at all with America today? I raise this as someone who has supported closer economic integration between Canada and the U.S. since the 1960’s with the then Canada/U.S. Auto Pact. With the benefit of hindsight all the free trade agreements that followed led Canada into an increasingly vulnerable position until we find ourselves where we are today. They were a mistake. John Turner was right and Brian Mulroney was wrong.

These negotiations should mostly fit in the mold of the negotiations I’ve engaged in so the first task is to see whether the underlying conditions for agreement exist now or in the future? Do the Americans believe it is in their best interest to reach an agreement with Canada? To listen to the President and some of his Cabinet, it would seem the answer is “no”, at least for any agreement that would do anything other than impose greater disadvantages upon Canada. Many will say “well, they don’t really mean what they’re saying” but, after nine months of this administration, is that really credible? Yes, the Americans need Canada for many things including oil, potash, steel, lumber and aluminum but there are powerful lobbies in America where the costs of forgoing at least the steel, lumber and aluminum are outweighed by the increased profits resulting from the tariffs for those vested interests. In other words, the American people be damned as long as the select industries can increase their wealth even if it means increased costs for American consumers.

But, quite apart from what Canadians may believe to be in America’s best interests, it’s been my experience to usually believe what the other side is saying even when it seems to contradict common sense or known facts. It’s their beliefs that count, nothing more. Of course that encounters push back when dealing with a serial liar which President Trump has proven to be but, hidden in whatever obfuscation he’s launching on any given day, there are surely grains of evidence of what’s really going on.

There is one area where the Americans have been consistent and where they are proceeding to strip Canada of its industrial capacity and that’s the auto industry. This strikes close to home for me. I worked for the UAW in Windsor/Detroit in 1971, just a few years after the Canada/US auto pact had been agreed to and as the countries’ two auto industries were moving to full integration in response to what was considered an existential threat from Japanese, and to a lesser extent, German auto makers. And that’s why today’s North American auto industry is so closely integrated and why Donald Trump’s dismantling of that, complete with tariff walls and eschewing the move to electric vehicles, is going to leave that industry a stranded albatross that is increasingly uncompetitive and dying. It will be rough, but Canada must use this moment to find new auto maker partners and position itself as a global leader in new automobile technologies. The alternative is a complete hollowing out of Canada’s auto industry, one that goes back a century, with dire negative economic consequences for communities in southern Ontario and Quebec.

Aside from autos, the tariffs are weighing heavily on softwood lumber in B.C., Quebec and the Maritimes. Aluminum tariffs are negatively impacting Quebec and B.C. while the steel tariffs are mostly affecting Ontario. In other words, vast areas of Canada are having economic warfare waged against them and there’s little reason to think any agreement will result in reliable relief.

So, I return to the question: do the Americans want an agreement with Canada? At this point I think the answer is probably “no” and that may also apply to the renewal of the Canada/US/Mexico free trade agreement. And it doesn’t matter what we think should be in their best interests or that they are mistaken. All that matters at this moment is what they believe. So, for starters, one of the two fundamental anchors for any successful negotiation is missing.

And that brings me to the second anchor. Even if there is some renewed interest from the Americans, can we ever truly believe they will honour any agreement they enter into? What is almost certain is that, after one too many Big Macs, Donald Trump will wake up in the middle of the night, turn on his computer and wreck chaos across the agreement landscape. He’s already done so repeatedly and specifically with Canada with his so-called fentanyl tariffs and there is no reason to believe he’s going to change in the final three years of his Presidency.

Just to complicate the conversation further, it’s clear the tariff stick is not just going to be used to address trade issues. Time and again, Trump is using it to meddle in other countries’ internal affairs, including Canada’s. We’ve already blinked once, on the digital services tax, so why wouldn’t he use it over and over again to influence Canadian domestic decisions. In fact, he already has with the Ontario anti tariff ads. This, of course, pales in comparison to what he’s doing tariffing Brazil because it has the temerity to prosecute its former President for attempting to foment a military coup after his election defeat, or his threatened tariffs agains Columbia after its President expressed concern over the bombing of boats in the Caribbean and Pacific.

So, what does Canada do now? Well, much of what it is already doing, although with a better understanding there may never be agreements with this administration and we can survive that. In negotiations theory we use a term “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement”, or “BATNA” which basically means what it says. It’s one of the basic tools in preparing for and conducting a negotiation. It allows for a true comparison of any agreement on offer. Canada’s BATNA right now is pretty much what the Canadian government is doing. Respond to the threats and tantrums from down south with a firm “we’re ready to talk when the Americans are”, while getting on with the serious business of re-orienting Canada’s economy away from one dependent upon free trade with the United States. There will be increasing economic pain and it won’t be shared equally across the country but the federal and provincial governments can take steps to mitigate it and, most importantly, to ensure the rise of a new industrial base with displaced workers given first shot at participating in it.

Canada is a very special place and it’s worth doing whatever is necessary to ensure it endures and prospers. It’s just possible in ten years we may look back and thank Donald Trump for waking us up and starting us on yet another journey of nation building in The True North Strong and Free.

Just sayin

GH

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” box that will appear at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

Defending Canada

For most of the two centuries the land now known as Canada was occupied by Europeans it had few serious threats to its independence and integrity. It was surrounded by oceans on three sides and a mostly benign powerful neighbour to its south. For the first century and a half it was a member of the most powerful empire on earth which protected it from the predations of its southern neighbour as it came into its own as a super power. For the past eighty years that super power has provided a security blanket as both Canada and the United States shared responsibility for the protection of the continent.

And then everything changed. Military technology advanced so the oceans no longer provide the protective moates they once did; global warming is changing the Arctic Ocean so the Northwest Passage is navigable for significant parts of the year and, most surprising, the seemingly benign democratic neighbour to our south turned into something entirely different, openly threatening to absorb Canada and, at a minimum, retreating from its global role with NATO securing the peace and prosperity of the western style democracies.

And while these seismic changes were underway other developments, some partly fueled by them, began as Russia invaded Ukraine, while, at the same time, engaging in a massive buildup of its military in the arctic; China pronounced itself a “near arctic” nation intending to expand its “silk road” to include an arctic silk road that would, at a minimum, pass very close to Canada’s northern territory; all while other state actors engage in undercover activities to undermine Canada’s unity, integrity and sovereignty.

Canada has never been so vulnerable and alone. Our vaunted NATO and NORAD alliances all depended on a reliable and stable America, something that is increasingly missing. And although our European and major Commonweath allies remain, they have their hands full dealing with more immediate threats to their own sovereignty. So what can Canada do in this time of peril to ensure its long term survival and prosperity?

Prime Minister Carney was elected primarily because a majority of Canadians believed he was the best qualified to handle the current crisis, and his initial moves justify that confidence. Expanding and diversifying our trading relationships, massively increasing spending on defence, eliminating interprovincial trade barriers, and building generation defining projects of national importance all fit well into a longer term strategy to secure Canada. The more immediate challenge, however, is the short to medium term, especially when it comes to protecting Canada militarily. Purchasing a new fleet of submarines, purchasing a new fleet of fighter jets, enhancing our ability to fight a war with drones, expanding the armed forces…all good and necessary but almost all requiring years before they have any measurable impact on how we can defend outselves. But what if the unthinkable happens? What if Donald Trump’s America decides it should annex Alberta (with the assistance of the Quislings there asking for just that)? What if China decides to sail regularly through the Northwest Passage which even the United States doesn’t recognize as Canadian territorial water? What if, after the war in Ukraine winds down, Vladimir Putin decides to stretch his arctic muscles by occupying part of Canada’s arctic (all it would take initially is some isolated island…one of those places the appeasers amongst us would argue is not worth defending)? What if? What if? All unthinkable until it isn’t.

Finland, which has a long history of fending off invasions by the Russians, has what is called a “Total Defence” and it involves all parts of government and society planning and acting on defence. It expects all parts of society and citizens to participate in resisting an invader. I’ve heard suggestions Canada should adopt a similar model and, while some version of it might be helpful here, given Canada’s enormous size and scattered and diverse population, I suspect it would not be nearly as effective as in a small country with a homogeneous population and a long history of defending itself against larger aggressors.

There is another option, one that could be implemented fairly quickly and one that, given the recent history of world conflict, would be most effective in deterring open aggression against Canada: acquiring nuclear weapons. My younger self would have been appalled to see me writing these words but then he lived in a very different and more stable world.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union Ukraine was the third largest nuclear power in the world after Russia and the United States. It decided to go non nuclear and in 1974 entered into an agreement with Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom that guaranteed its territorial integrity in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. The agreement was known as the Budapest Memorandum. With the benefit of hindsight, that was a foolish move because twenty years later Russia began its campaign of territorial expansion into Ukraine by occupying Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk. In 2022 Russia launched a full scale invasion, starting the bloody war that continues to this day. It’s unlikely Russia would have done so if Ukraine had the ability to respond with nuclear weapons.

Similarly, the rogue state in North Korea would not have survived, or at least been able to assault its neighbours and generally destabilize the region, had it not had nuclear weapons. And then there’s the state of Israel that has never confirmed it has nuclear weapons but most likely does. This strategic ambiguity has been an effective deterrent for its hostile neighbours as one by one they’ve abandoned their goal of destroying Israel.

Growing up in the fifties and sixties in Canada we were told Canada had the know how, the facilities and the natural resources to manufacture nuclear weapons but chose not to out of a concern for nuclear proliferation. Looking back it strikes me as a bit hypocritical as we were secure under the American nuclear umbrella and so could afford a holier than thou attitude towards the nuclear powers. I even remember the turmoil that ultimately cost Prime Minister John Diefenbaker his government when the Americans asked to place nuclear missiles on Canadian soil. But so much has changed since then and, especially, most recently. Not only can we not rely on the Americans to protect us from overseas aggression but we have to confront the sad reality that America itself now poses a threat to Canada’s territorial integrity for the first time since the War of 1812. And even if America doesn’t directly threaten Canada’s sovereignty, its own internal divisions, now playing out in ever more alarming ways, undermines any confidence we can have in that alliance.

There is only one way for forty million Canadians to defend the territorial integrity of the second largest country on earth and that is for Canada to quickly acquire a nuclear force capable of dissuading would be aggressors, including both tactical and conventional weapons. It should be done clandestinely to prevent pre-emptive actions by potential enemies and actions by those fighting nuclear proliferation. And the fleet of submarines Canada is acquiring should be capable of firing ballistic missiles.

I understand how this goes against the grain of what many of us have been raised to understand as a core Canadian value. But weighed against the threats and the alternatives, it must be done. Alternatively we passively accept the harsh truth of Thucydides that the strong do what they do and the weak accept what they must. That is not the future I want for Canada.

Just sayin

GH

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog click on the follow button that will appear at the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Is Mark Carney Failing?

On April 28 Canadians went to the polls and gave the Liberal government a new mandate, their fourth in a row. The election was the culmination of one of the most dramatic political comebacks in Canadian history where the government turned a more than twenty percent polling deficit against the opposition Conservatives into a near majority government.

It is accepted political wisdom this would not have happened had it not been for Donald Trump and his threats to Canadian sovereignty and economic well being. While that was almost certainly true, there were other factors at play too, factors without which it seems likely the Conservatives would have triumphed. First of these was the Conservative leader, Pierre Poillievre who, over his twenty plus years in Parliament developed an image as a scrapper who was rather unpleasant and whose trademark became the one line rhyming jingos he and his core supporters seemed to enjoy but most other Canadians viewed with distaste. That, combined with suspicions he was too similar to the marauder down south, and his penchant for supporting actions by his supporters like the Truckers’ Convoy in Ottawa and Alberta, all contributed to a trust deficit just waiting to be exploited. His saviour was the then Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, who, after nearly ten years of endlessly performative politics was long past his “best by” date.

And that’s when the Liberal Party showed yet again why it is only slightly jokingly referred to as “Canada’s Natural Governing Party”. In what seemed like an impossibly short time, Trudeau was out and Mark Carney was in. The sigh of relief from Canadian voters, myself included, was almost audible as the appalling choice we’d been facing was removed. We no longer had to choose between two different, but equally unappealing, candidates at this moment of national crisis. There was an adult on offer and millions of Canadians voted for him. Within weeks of being chosen party leader, Mark Carney was elected Prime Minister, missing the holy grail of Canadian politics, a majority in Parliament, by just two seats.

The core theme of Mark Carney’s election campaign was that he was the best candidate to deal with the predations from the south. In the slogans of the campaign he was the “elbows up” candidate, the one who promised a strong and direct response to American economic aggression. This was accompanied by full sentences where we were told our relationship with America had fundamentally changed and that Canada’s response must operate on several levels at once, including finding new trading partners, breaking down inter provincial trade barriers, and significantly strengthening our armed forces, all while trying to maneuver through the chaotic and constantly changing political climate in Washington.

We just passed the one hundred day mark since the Carney government was sworn in and the vultures are beginning to circle, looking for signs of weakness or failure where they can attack. They point to a series of moves by the government that don’t seem consistent with “elbows up”, moves like suspending the imminent digital services tax and eliminating many of the counter tariffs Canada had placed on American goods in response to its first tranche of tariffs on Canada. And in the areas where the counter tariffs remain, particularly on steel, aluminum and automobiles, they remain at half the level of the American tariffs they are responding to. None of these moves has resulted in any obvious American reciprocal action except perhaps vague agreements to continue talking. At the same time the Canadian economy is teetering closer and closer to a recession as the impact of the American tariffs affect employment, spending and government revenues. While this is happening Prime Minister Carney and his government seem to be going out of their way to flatter and coddle the President.

On the other hand, in its first one hundred days the government has done some of the things that were in its election platform. It has passed legislation aimed at eliminating federal interprovincial tariffs, while actively encouraging the provinces to do likewise. It has passed a “One Canadian Economy Act” that aims to significantly reduce the time necessary for approvals of projects that are deemed in the national interest. It has created an office of Major Projects and appointed an experienced businesswoman to head it while, simultaneously, asking provincial and territorial governments to identify projects that might qualify to be accelerated. It has implemented a middle class tax cut. It has committed to increase spending on defence, first by two percent and then by a further three percent, as required by NATO. It has increased pay for members of the Canadian armed forces and is moving rapidly to purchase a new and greatly expanded fleet of submarines. Prime Minister Carney has held meetings with European leaders and is moving to integrate Canada’s weapons procurement with that of its European allies.

So what is going on?

Admittedly, I bring a perspective tempered by nearly half a century of negotiating contracts with governments, unions and other organizations so I am more inclined than others might be to wait and see and to trust the silence as a sign some progress is being made in negotiations with the Americans. I remember negotiating quietly while those on the outside were condemning our lack of progress, or our lack of transparency, or, indeed, our competence. In the end they were shown to be completely ill informed as all of the resulting agreements were ratified and accepted, often with great enthusiam. So, for starters, I don’t find it significant that there is very little information coming out and, in fact, suspect that is a sign progress is being made. If they were going nowhere we would hear about it.

We should remember the Prime Minister has been clear that Canada will not sign just any agreement with the Americans, unlike some other countries who seem to have done just that. The latest news that the negotiators are working on smaller, sectoral agreements makes perfect sense and is likely the best that can be achieved outside of the CUSMA renewal negotiations.

It also makes sense that the government re-engage with the Chinese and the Indians despite the angry pressure from their Canadian diasporas, something that is underway. We may not like the way they run their countries or act on the world stage but a trading country like Canada cannot ignore them, particularly when our closest ally and trading partner has gone rogue. And that’s the world we now live in.

Parliament is resuming in two weeks and a budget will be tabled shortly thereafter. That’s likely when the rubber hits the road and we can make a better assessment of how the man we elected to be Prime Minister is doing. When I voted for Mark Carney I was not voting for a Rambo who would charge wildly against the Americans. I voted for someone who I believed had the temperament, intelligence, demeanour and experience to lead Canada through a very difficult time, in other words, a man with the characteristics of our very best Prime Ministers. What’s more, I understood the “elbows up” part of his campaign was only part of the arsenal we would have to employ to emerge from this crisis intact and prosperous.

I have no doubt the most difficult challenges still lie in front of him, whether the continuing truculent and unpredictable America; the opposition from all the vested interests that rise up to defeat most nation building projects in Canada; the continuing slowdown of the economy as the trade war takes its toll or, as Prime Minister Harold MacMillan of Great Britain put it “events dear boy, events”. But so far I think he’s doing just fine, showing an adept and steady hand on the tiller as we navigate these extraordinartily treacherous waters.

Just sayin

GH

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that appears on the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Is It Over America? Did China Win Without Even Firing a Shot?

Several decades ago speculation began about a new cold war, this one between America and China, with the newly emerging state capitalism of China confronting the then only remaining superpower, the United States. Those of us in the west were reassured by history, or at least the recent history we were most familiar with, where western ideas, economic organization and ideology had always triumphed, most recently against the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union. It seemed likely, or maybe even certain, this would also happen with communist China where, we were told, the dynamism and creativity needed for a truly successful society would ultimately come crashing up against the stultifying rigidity and need for control of the centralized communist state. The brutal crushing of student activism in Tiananmen Square a decade earlier seemed proof the Chinese model could never compete successfully, let alone endure, against the dynamism of western democracies and capitalism with their at times chaotic free flow and exchange of ideas. China’s domination of much of Asia for centuries before the emergence of the western European empires was nothing but a footnote, or so we thought. And to be completely honest, this was supported by the persistent racism directed at the Chinese by westerners over the preceding two centuries.

Future historians will spend their careers trying to understand what happened next. For reasons beyond the understanding of most of us, Americans turned against the model that created and maintained their prosperity and dominance, and that they mostly built for just that purpose. Instead of supporting and celebrating that model, many Americans came to feel put upon by it as they bought into the elitist narrative of American decline as exemplified by the hollowed out communities that had been the centre of American industry. I say “elitist” because it was a narrative favoured by wealthy vested interests in America as it enabled them to resist changes that would have affected their bottom lines. And what better person to personify this than Donald Trump? In not one, but two, separate elections they chose him and his ideology, if you can call it that, that promised to undo the very foundations of American greatness and with it the western world order. His 2016 election could be viewed as an aberration given the relative numbers with the popular vote, but his 2024 victory was an unmistakable statement that a majority American voters supported him and what he represented, whatever that might be.

In only nine months he has led an assault on almost every pillar of American greatness. Perhaps first amongst these is his drive to destroy the international trading system that has developed since the Second World War. With no distinction between friend and foe, he has attacked trading partners using tariffs as his cudgel. This shouldn’t have been a surprise as he has long publicly held the view that America was being “ripped off” by its trading partners and that tariffs were the remedy. Never the less, the speed and aggression employed caught almost everyone off guard.

His approach to negotiations with other nations reflects a view that may have been effective in New York real estate but that, in international affairs, guarantees fallout that will last generations. Put simply, if a negotiation is a “one of”, where the parties have no continuing relationship, it is possible to aim for a settlement where one party demonstrably wins and the other loses. And, in fact, it is even possible to crow about your success afterwards without damaging long term relationships and your own interests. I say “possible” because even in such a straightforward and transactional negotiation, nothing occurs in a vacum and, if nothing else, you emerge with your reputation sullied, although a sullied reputation is clearly not something Donald Trump cares about. But when you are negotiating with nations with whom you will have an enduring relationship, it is an entirely different matter. And that’s what’s happening now.

And it’s not just trading relationships that are being affected as the threat of tariffs is mobilized to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. With Brazil, Trump is using tariffs to attempt to end the prosecution of his ally and former Brazilian President, Jair Bolsonaro, who has been charged with attempting to remain in power after losing an election by inciting a coup (sound familiar?). With Vietnam, the threat of tariffs was used to force the Vietnamese to accept and pay for, a golf club that benefits the Trump family. With Canada, the threat to end any negotiations on the tariffs was used to force it to abandon its digital services tax. With South Africa, tariffs are being used to try to force the government to repeal laws that might transfer agricultural lands from white South Africans to black South Africans. And, perhaps most damaging of all, his attack on India for importing Russian oil almost certainly guarantees a fundamental realignment of great powers that will not benefit the west.

Although this approach might lead to some short term “wins” for America, it will fail spectacularly in the long term as the barely dormant view of the “ugly American” re-emerges. America’s status as a superpower is significantly strengthened by its ability to rally the advanced western and Asian democracies behind it as force multipliers. The negative views fostered by the trade shakedowns will profoundly undermine that. Even with Canada, America’s closest neighbour and ally, the fracture will poison future relations for generations. Of course Canada will continue to help America when it experiences disasters but, when the day comes America needs allied troops beside it in places like Afghanistan where Canadians fought and died beside Americans, things will be different.

There’s something else going on under the guise of trade negotiations that everyone who cares about economic freedom and free enterprise should be concerned about. Of late, Trump has been announcing trade deals with private companies where the government takes significant ownership stakes in the companies in return for permitting them to conduct business both in the United States and with the rest of the world. In other words “pay to play”. This is the antithesis of the American free enterprise that drove its economy for well over two centuries. It’s the kind of state control evident in countries with authoritarian regimes that believe government and central planning is always the best way to organize an economy. This, despite the experience of the twentieth century, where time and time again, those economies failed to compete with the capitalist and democratic west and Asians. China may be an exception in this regard because of it’s long and very different history from the west, but do Americans really want to trade their freedom for the type of state control effectively practiced by the People’s Republic of China?

And it’s not just trade policy that’s undermining America’s status in the world. Terminating it’s premier foreign aid program, USAID, not only is having devasting effects on some of the most vulnerable and impoverished people on earth, it’s showing a callousness that completely undermines any claim to moral authority by America. Of course, it’s pretty obvious Donald Trump doesn’t give a fig about moral authority, apparently not understanding how it strengthened America in its past battles for the hearts and minds of people around the world.

America’s greatness was not just a result of it’s wealth and power; nor its democratic example; nor the moral clarity it often brought to international relations. It was also the result of the untrammelled intellectual freedom, scientific exploration, artistic freedom and, at times, almost chaotic internal debates over it’s direction. And now all these are under assault from forces that would prefer a much narrower, closed and static society. Using the pretext of antisemitism, Donald Trump has begun a full out assault on some of America’s greatest institutions of higher learning, seeking to bend them to his control and will. And some of them are bending. Even at the level of schools states controlled by MAGA supporters are banning books and, in one case at least, applying a filter against “wokeness” when assessing whether or not to hire teachers.

In the fields of medical and other scientific research the U.S. government is moving aggressively to end funding and to rollback supports for medical advances that don’t fit its narrow view of what is or is not correct. The research is being warped to fit the pre-conceived beliefs, and so advances in many areas crucial to human health and progress are being slowed or stopped, this under the Health and Human Services Secretary, Bobby Kennedy Jr, who is single handedly dismantling the great centres of medical research and management. His father must be rolling in his grave.

Even in the areas of arts and entertainment Trump and his allies are moving to defund and stifle the extraordinary creativity that has been the hallmark of American arts for at least a century. The perfect example is his takeover of the previously non partisan Kennedy Centre where he has now assumed the role of board chair and is actively intervening to ensure productions reflect his mudane tastes. This at the same time the government is cutting funding for public broadcasting in the United States.

And then there’s the existential issue of the effect of man made climate change on the world. Donald Trump and his supporters deny man made climate change because, to borrow a phrase from the documentary on the subject, it is a very inconvenient truth for those who prosper from the continued despoiling of the planet. After accepting massive donations from the petrochemical industry, the Trump administration has moved quickly to dismantle the supports and incentives for a transition to clean energy, casting them off as exemplars of woke liberalism and, particularly, of the administration of President Joe Biden. They have also withdrawn from international efforts to coordinate and accelerate the move away from carbon based energy. This, as the climate warms and the consequences appear as massive floods, hurricanes, firestorms, droughts and sea rise. I thought once the climate effects began to impact Americans, particularly those in red states, public opinion would change. But, thus far at least, apparently not, despite the advent of completely unprecedented disasters costing billions in damages and hundreds of lives. It’s probably a disservice to lemmings to draw a comparison between them and climate change deniers in the United States but it is oh so tempting.

So, while America turns increasingly inward and away from its great traditions of freedom, science, collaboration and progress, China just waits. It’s unlikely anyone would have predicted so many Americans would embrace a suicide pact that by any rational measure, is contrary to their own interests. But here we are. China is forging ahead with the technologies that will define the future while America looks longingly at a mythical and, for many, dark past. And although it is possible America may choose a different direction in 2028, that’s an eternity in the changing world we now inhabit. Increasingly, other nations will be pulled into the Chinese orbit, attracted by its wealth, military might and order, and repelled by the culture of blackmail and shakedowns increasingly characteristic of America’s approach to the world.

Is this the end of the “western moment”? I’m not sure but it does seem to be circling the drain. And the great tragedy is it is all so unnecessary and self inflicted.

Just sayin

GH

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on “follow” that will appear at the bottom right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Little Donald is Playing With Matches Again

Several days ago Donald Trump woke up in the middle of the night and decided to send a letter to Canada threatening thirty five percent tariffs on its exports to the United States. This was followed a few days later by similar letters to the European Union and America’s trading partners in Southeast Asia. Somewhere along the line Mexico got one too, and then there was Brazil where he has promised to apply fifty percent tariffs unless the Brazilian government and judiciary stop the prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro is on trial for trying to stay in power after losing the Brazilian election (sound familiar?).

In my (I stress) limited experience, little boys play with matches for several reasons best commented on by trained psychiatrists and psychologists, but one is blindingly obvious: little boys play with matches to get attention, usually the unwanted kind from adults, but attention none the less. Parents are legitimately concerned that little Johny, Donny or Mikey might hurt themselves. In the current context I could care less about that but then there is the serious concern he might light a fire that burns down the entire house or neighbourhood or world (you get the picture). And for reasons still eluding most of us, seventy seven million of our American neighbours gave little Donald seemingly unfettered access to the world’s largest supply of matches. And boy is he enjoying playing with them.

A whole new cottage industry has sprung up trying to make sense of Donald Trump, all predicated on the never quite stated view that something complicated, even sophisticated, is going on. Fortunes are being made or enhanced as former Trump associates and officials swan across the world’s TV screens (for a fee of course) to offer their unique insights into this consequential figure. And make no mistake, he is a consequential, perhaps even unique, figure in American history, if not the world’s (well, there was Nero, but that was a really long time ago).

Little boys playing with matches usually get their comeuppance when adults step in and put a stop to the behaviour, likely accompanied with some kind of remedial punishment. Unfortunately, with the current arsonist in chief the next opportunity for adult intervention isn’t until the U.S. midterm elections in November, 2026 and then only if enough American voters decide they’ve had enough of this roller coaster and elect at least one house of Congress capable of applying some breaks. And that assumes America will still be capable of holding free and fair elections. I’m not holding my breath. So for at least another seventeen months the pyrotechnics will continue and we’ll all have front row seats.

Governments from one end of the globe to the other are scrambling to get anything that might look even a little like “normal” back into the relationships with the world’s biggest economy and mightiest military power. And that is especially so with Canada where two hundred years of increasing cooperation and integration is out the widow.

Canadians elected Mark Carney as Prime Minister in April largely in response to the bellicose behaviour of Donald Trump and his government, whether threatening expropriation or economic ruin for Canada. With one exception, I think he’s doing as good a job as possible in the cirumstances. The exception is the move to remove the Digital Services Tax (“DST”) in response to Trump’s threats. While I didn’t support the tax and am glad it was removed, I was surprised at how that was handled. Just a few days earlier the government was insisting the tax would go ahead despite the very strong objections of the Americans but as soon as Donald Trump threatened to end the negotiations the tax was dropped. I know a few things about negotiations and this was an unforced error by Canada’s negotiators. Knowing the American position, the Canadians negotiators should have pre-emptively paused the tax until the negotiations were concluded, probably then trading it off for something in the negotiations. A quibble? Perhaps, but it reinforced Donald Trump’s view that bullying works and allowed his always charming and thoughful spokesperson to tactfully say “Carney caved”.

Aside from the DST though I think the government is doing most of the right things: moving to diversify Canada’s trade; eliminating interprovincial trade barriers; embarking on nation building projects that will use Canadian products while strengthening our ability to sell resources to nations other than the U.S.; encouraging “buy Canadian” programs domestically; committing to massive increases in Defence spending; building and strengthening relations with countries in Europe and Asia; and trying to achieve some kind of agreement that will stabilize our relationship with America. It’s the last of these that poses the greatest challenge because, aside from the diametrically different views on tariffs, does anyone really expect any agreement with America under Donald Trump is going to be faithfully executed and honoured? It’s a virtual certainty the time will come after an agreement is reached that Donald Trump will wake up in the middle of the night, need some attention, and fire off a tweet threatening or imposing tariffs on Canada despite whatever the agreement might say or require. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try for an agreement and, if the basic terms of one are achieved, it shouldn’t be accepted, just that our eyes need to be wide open to the limits of this process as long as the current occupant of the White House is in power. To the extent possible, the economic and political relationship should be stabilized and, yes, that will likely mean accepting some level of tariffs and I’m glad the Prime Minister has begun preparing Canadians for that.

And then we just get on with our lives as best we can, all the while hoping the little boy in the White House doesn’t burn the entire neighbourhood down.

Just sayin,

GH

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog click on the follow button that appears on the lower right side of your screen when you open the blog.

Lament for America

On July 4, 1776 the Continental Congress adopted the “Declaration of Independence” leading to the revolutionary war with Great Britain from 1776 to 1783 that ended with an independent America and the end of the first British Empire. The newly independent Americans adopted a Constitution that placed citizens at the centre of their governance, founded on the belief that government’s legitimacy flowed exclusively from the consent of the governed. This then revolutionary idea allows Americans to claim with some legitimacy their’s is the oldest continually functioning democracy in the world. The constitution was then amended to include “The Bill of Rights” guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion, and the right to publish, possess arms, and assemble.

The framers of the constitution established a tricameral structure of government with Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches, with the Legislative branch as senior, along with checks and balances to ensure none of the three branches usurped the prerogatives of the others or governed contrary to the underlying principles and commitments of the constitution. This form of government has survived for nearly two hundred and fifty years although not without challenges, the most serious being the civil war from 1861 to 1865. In the twentieth century there were at least two crises that tested its durability: the so called “Teapot Dome” scandal during President Warren Harding’s administration in 1921, and the Watergate scandal during President Richard Nixon’s administration between 1971 and 1974. In both cases the framework held and the republic continued, scarred but intact.

There has always been tension between the animating impulses of the American experiment, one celebrating the unfettered rights of the individual and the other seeking to corral, harness and attenuate that innately selfish drive. But the centre has held while still allowing for a remarkable and unprecedented explosion of material well being, innovation and freedom, not just in America but in many other parts of the world as well.

Americans are taught their country is the best in the world, in fact the best ever in the world, even though American history, like that of any nation, has significant blind spots and many dark corners. Since the Second World War it has, sometimes reluctantly, assumed the role of superpower and, for democracies at least, the one essential nation. At the end of the Cold War America stood as a colossus, unequalled in economic and military might. It didn’t always use that power wisely and stumbled, sometimes blindly, into confrontations and entanglements that cost it and others dearly in lives, dollars and political capital.

The success of America propelled excellence on so many fronts, whether scientific, medical, intellectual and the arts, while simultaneously expanding the American family to include groups that were historically marginalized or worse. This, along with the material success, signals the triumph of the ideas that were first expressed in 1776 as the outcome of the Enlightenment but with a uniquely American interpretation. For a time the optimism that followed infected much of the world with an evangelical certainty the right model for human organization had finally been found.

And then everything changed.

I’ll leave it to future historians to parse what triggered a seismic shift in the views of many Americans although some of the more obvious are the rapid embrace of free trade with the resulting loss of manufacturing jobs in America, the near collapse of the world financial system in 2007 with its fallout landing disproportionately on the American public and not the banks and bankers who caused it, the sense the southern border had ceased to exist and that America was being flooded with illegal immigrants, the ravages of the opioid epidemic first unleashed by unscrupulous business people and physicians who seemed to emerge wealthier and unscathed by its fallout, and, of course, the COVID pandemic which brought into sharp focus the competing American narratives, placing medical expertise and science against the ingrained individualism of most Americans. All of these and more contributed to the feeling by many Americans that their country was broken and someone had broken it. And the obvious culprit was the group that had run the country for most of the twentieth and the first part of the twenty- first centuries. This amorphous group was tagged the “liberal elite” or “the coastal elites” and it didn’t help that their more liberal flank simultaneously embarked on an attempt to fundamentally shift the values of the nation on issues like gender, race and the relations between the sexes.

Not only was that leadership seen as responsible for much of the malaise affecting many Americans, but it was viewed as not caring, in fact, as treating those on the out as less worthy. At the same time a small number of Americans began to accumulate wealth on a relative scale not seen since the Gilded Age, wealth they flaunted with yachts, space trips, obscenely extravagant celebrations, and all the lifestyle accoutrements many aspire to. It’s little wonder what began as an inarticulate and largely unformed sense of injustice turned into white hot rage, that rage then solidifying into the absolute binaries of us and them with no space for comity or even communication in between.

Previous generations had their share of conspiracy theorists and malcontents. And they have done damage to America. But, unlike their predecessors, today’s demagogues or wannabe leaders have access to communication tools not even dreamed of by their forebearers. The internet has so transformed human interraction and communication that the tools that were previously available to correct, adjust and engage are worthless. Everyone is an expert and everyone’s opinion, no matter how extreme, is valid.

The view that elites have betrayed America taints many things that have made America great. Its science, its medicine, its institutions of higher learning, its arts, are all thrown onto the bonfire of distrust and dislike along with the most basic tools of scientific research, discovery and understanding. Suddenly up is down, white is black, and, in the words of Kelly Anne Conway, facts can be ”alternative”. Once you cross that line the way back is difficult if not impossible. The normal tools of dialogue, observation and understanding are useless as every attempt to reach out is viewed with suspician and distrust. The late great American writer Joan Didion coined a phrase for a different context that I think describes the world now inhabited by millions of Americans: a world of ”magical thinking”, a kind of childlike belief that anything you think or believe is true and not subject to adult tests of fact and reality.

While it’s possible to understand the roots of the current fury in parts of the right, it is less easy to understand how Donald Trump became it’s avatar. From his initial descent down that gilded escalator to his astonishing victory in the 2016 election and then, even more extraordinary, his re-election in 2024, none of it fits any normal rational framework. A New York developer with, to put it mildly, a rather dodgy past somehow reaching out and connecting with disaffected Americans all over the country and, particularly, in those areas most alienated from everything New York represents. Not only has he connected, he’s become a messianic figure marching towards an ill defined MAGA ”promised land”.

The language of religion is appropriate as millions of evangelical Christians flocked to Trump despite his well known and, one would have thought, disqualifying, life choices and history. Those of us not part of evangelical Christianity or MAGA find this incomprehensible and yet, in two elections, evangelical Christians voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump. Their support only solidified after two assassination attempts where, for some, divine intervention saved his life. And this illustrates the near impossibility of having a dialogue between those who believe in science, humanism and verifiable facts, and those who believe in a literal activist deity first described in the Bronze Age.

Unlike the first Trump administration, America now has a government with a plan, a timeline and an implementation strategy. Much of the plan was laid out in the “Project 2025” document that Democrats warned about to little avail during the election. The strategy for its implementation includes undermining the pillars of American democracy and civil society by, amongst other things, removing people from positions of influence and power who might push back or whistleblow; attacking and weakening the crown jewels of the American advanced education system; undermining public confidence in science, medicine and what is described as “mainstream media”; demeaning the courts; politicizing the armed forces and deploying them domestically; and taking a wrecking ball to the norms of civilized discourse between opposing viewpoints, all with the goal of completely disrupting the existing order. This is exactly the strategy that Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s advisor during part of his first term, advocated.

While its “shock and awe” approach to governing has placed most of its opponents on their back heels, there are contradictions within the governing coalition that might cause it to unravel although, thus far, it has been remarkably sturdy. First there is the disparate nature of the coalition, including disaffected and mostly poor white voters, tech billionaires, libertarians, traditional conservative Republicans, survivalists, antisemites and a seemingly endless parade of hangers on’s and opportunists. The one thing that unites them is their anger at, and contempt for, the “elites” even though some would in normal times be part of that group. The second, for many at least, is an unquestioning belief in Donald Trump himself, one that shelters him from criticism or even the consequences of unlawful behaviour. For a minority, the tech billlionaires and elected Republicans especially, the real motivation is almost certainly self interest, whether opportunities for greater wealth or power, or fear of losing what they already have. This sounds a lot like Putin’s Russia.

The greatest vulnerability for Donald Trump and MAGA lies with the President himself. There are two major impulses behind Donald Trump: his unquenchable need for approval and praise, and, in some ways a measure of the first, his insatiable need to accumulate wealth. These are the core motivations in the administration and virtually every major action it takes is connected to them. I’m not a psychologist, but my life and work taught me that deeply insecure people will go to any length to feed their needs and constantly refill the void at the centre of their self-esteem. Place such a person in the Presidency and those needs warp every major choice by him and his government and, combine that with the cult like admiration of millions, and you arrive where we are today.

The Trump administration is likely the most corrupt in the two hundred and fifty year history of the Republic. There have been other corrupt administrations but nothing on the scale of today. And we are only one hundred plus days in. It’s no exaggeration to say the core objective of the administration is the enrichment of the Trump family and its closest friends and allies, and it’s helpful to view most decisions by the government through that lens. By some estimates, the Trump family has already been enriched by at least five hundred to a billion dollars through schemes such as its crypto currency where it is now possible for anyone to buy influence with the President and government without fear of any legal blowback.

Even in a foreign policy supposedly driven by the mantra of “America first”the powerful tools of the U.S. government are being misused to serve the President’s needs. An example is the approval of a golf course in Vietnam where threats of massive tariffs on a much smaller and weaker country caused it to not only approve a Trump golf course and resort but to pay for it. Of course there wasn’t an explicit and public link between the two actions but the government of Vietnam understood what it had to do to get in the good graces of the President and his family. And tracking the many Trump interests throughout the Middle East finds that same logic playing out, influencing and warping America’s policies and actions in the region. That doesn’t mean every decision by the administration is directly related to these self serving goals or that some decisions may not be the right ones by most standards, just that all ultimately are in service of those goals whether through increasing the likelihood of the continued control of government or more directly.

Even on the administration’s signal issue of immigration enforcement there are tracks leading back to the enrichment of members of the family or their close friends and allies. And while this massive grift is going on the normal counter balances from the media, from law firms, from institutions of higher learning and from civil society organizations are muted as they attempt to fend off existential threats from the administration.  And the Legislative branch, fully controlled by Republicans, does nothing.

One thing that is striking about this administration is its gratuitous cruelty and anger. Its approach to immigration enforcement is an example where some of the most vulnerable amongst us are treated without any acknowledgement of their humanity. This may be part of a deliberate strategy to frighten would be illegal immigrants and, in that regard, it may be working but, even so, it speaks volumes about those who are devising and implementing it and their supporters. Empathy is completely missing as the targets of these actions are stripped of their humanity if only to isolate them from the sympathies of the broader American public. This is not a new or novel strategy. In fact, it is taken chapter and verse from the playbook of authoritarians throughout history as they mobilized majorities through fear of minorities, and it never ends well. History will judge it harshly but, in the meantime, millions will suffer and many will die.

So, two hundred and fifty years after The Declaration of Independence, the great American idea is at a crossroads. It is turning from an optimistic, outward looking society into one whose characteristics are fear and loathing of the “other”; distrust of science and learning; and isolationism, including turning away from its boundless and hopeful belief in the future. Ironically, this is caused by its own loss of self confidence as it changes into just another big power imposing its will on those who are weaker, all in the service of a short sighted, dark and ultimately self defeating view of its relationship to the world. And this, under the watch of a kleptocratic government whose first interests are never those of the people it governs except so far as is necessary to maintain popular support and power.

America is in a very dark place right now and I don’t know if it’s possible for it to regain faith in itself, and to return to a world where it serves as an example for others. The damage may be irreversible even if the weight of corruption around the current administration finally drags it down. I don’t even know if America will be capable of holding fair and free elections in 2026 and 2028. But I do know it’s in the interests of everyone who cares about democracy, human rights, international stability and the continued progress towards a better, more humane and comfortable world that America pivots back to its role, no matter how hyperbolic, of being “a shining city on a hill”.

Just sayin

GH

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that appears at the bottom right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Gaza. Is It Genocide?

On October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorists crossed into Israel from Gaza and murdered approximately 1200 Israelis. They also committed other atrocities, including rape and dismemberment, while taking approximately 250 hostages back into Gaza. Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere celebrated this attack and vowed it was just the first of many until Israelis were driven into the sea and the state of Israel ceased to exist.

There was no doubt, expecially amongst Palestinians, Israel would retaliate and, as expected, on October 27, Israel launched a ground offensive that was preceded by weeks of airstrikes on Gaza. But for two short ceasefires, the fighting has continued since and tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza have been killed. Today, despite some being released, 58 hostages remain unaccounted for although likely less than half of those are still alive.

Gaza has been reduced to rubble and approximately two million Palestinian Gazans are homeless and under almost constant attack from the air and on the ground. The stated goal of Israel is to free the remaining hostages and defeat and eliminate Hamas, something that is extraordinarily difficult given it is almost impossible to separate Palestinians in Gaza from Hamas, they often being one and the same.

I have always supported the right of Israel to exist and to defend itself against hostile acts by its neighbours. I still do. After the October 7 attack I strongly supported Israel’s right and need to retaliate and agreed with its goal of eliminating Hamas as a constant threat on its southern border. As we’ve seen in the subsequent six hundred days, that is easier said than done and may be impossible. Presumably, this is what is driving the Israeli government to seek to eliminate all Palestinians from Gaza.  Although it has not cearly articulated this as its policy, some of the more right wing members of the current coalition government have, with one member now advocating for the killing of all Palestinian men in Gaza with, presumably, the relocation of surviving women and children to some other location, perhaps in Libya. Also, the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, now frequently refers to Donald Trump’s plans for Gaza as some kind of an American protectorate with few, if any, of its current inhabitants present in what has been described as “the Riviera of the Middle East”.

Israel is also aggressively expanding settlements on the occupied West Bank while settlers continue to harrass Palestinians living there. It’s increasingly difficult to watch what’s happening without feeling the ultimate goal of the Israeli government is the establishment of a greater Israel that includes not only the ancient territories of Judah and Israel but also the Gaza Strip. While some Israelis have always been open about this goal, it has never been the explicit goal of their government.

Palestinians have contributed to their current dire circumstances through a series of catastrophic decisions since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1947. Perhaps the greatest missed opportunity was Yasser Arafat walking away from the agreement with Yitzhak Rabin that would have cemented Palestinian control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and provided a pathway to Palestinian statehood as was envisaged in the original United Nations resolution that created the state of Israel and contemplated a similar Palestinian state. But all of that is water under the bridge and the possibility of a two state solution looks increasingly dim as both Israelis and Palestinians continue their dance of death, repeating, escalating and reinforcing the tragedies of the past eighty years.

During the past couple of decades the term “genocide” has been invoked increasingly to describe behaviour and events that, while appalling and tragic, don’t meet the standard originally set for this most heinous of crimes. We now hear about “cultural genocide” or “genocides” that take place over centuries as one population is slowly replaced by a stronger group, as well as other, less precise, usages. Using the language of “genocide” is apparently irresistible for many wanting to describe others’ behaviour as appalling or outside civilized norms and, as a result, the term has been watered down and has less of a sting than it did even twenty years ago. It needs to be reclaimed.

The term “genocide” was coined in 1944 as a direct result of the Nazi policies of extermination of certain ethnic and religious groups, most significantly, Jews. It described acts intended to destroy a national, religious, ethnic or racial group. There was no nuance such as “cultural” and, with the passage of time, it was generally accepted to include the Ottoman attacks on Armenians during the First World War, the slaughter of Tutsi’s by Hutu militia in Rwanda, the actions of Serb nationalists killing Muslims following the breakup of Yugoslavia and, of course, the Holocaust where approximately six million Jews were slaughtered in Europe by the Nazis and their allies up to and during the Second World War. In all cases, intention is important, which is why some of the later claims of genocide simply do not meet the bar despite their advocates wanting to include them in this most appalling of human actions. Genocide is an international crime and is often linked with the phrase “crimes against humanity”.

The State of Israel was created largely as a reaction to the Holocaust in Europe. It’s main goal was to create a place of sanctuary for Jews fleeing discrimination elsewhere and many of it’s founders were survivors of the European genocide. That’s why the discussion of genocide in the context of the conflict with Palestinians is so fraught. But we cannot look away. The relentless bombing and other military attacks by the IDF against Gaza, along with what seems to be a deliberate strategy of using starvation as a weapon of war, all with the likely intention of removing the Palestinians from Gaza, fits almost any definition of genocide. And just because the perpetrators were themselves victims earlier, doesn’t absolve them from that charge. What’s more, the campaign in Gaza may just be a dress rehearsal for similar campaigns in the West Bank.

It troubles me greatly to accuse Israel of committing genocide but, if moral standards are to mean anything, they cannot be double. I fully support the recent actions of the Canadian, French and British governments demanding Israel stop the relentless attacks on Gaza with the clear sense that, if it does not, sanctions must follow.

Just sayin

GH

Please share this blog. If you would liketo be notified each time I publish a blog click on the “follow” button that appears at the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

The Most Important Election in Canadian History (2)

At the start of the federal election I described it as the most important in Canadian history. I still believe that. Although the invective aimed directly at Canada from the White House has quieted over the past three weeks, it will likely resume once the election is over, as it seems Donald Trump and his MAGA followers have taken Danielle Smith’s advice and toned things down in the hope it will get the Conservatives elected. If the polls are correct, that’s not going to happen but, either way, I expect things will heat up after April 28.

Both Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre have run good campaigns, at least when measured against what they needed to accomplish. Carney’s has been cautious, seeking to avoid the pratfalls of a green politician, and Poilievre has managed to tone down some of his more aggressive instincts although there are still flashes to remind us of the attack dog image he worked so hard to establish as Opposition Leader. It’s ironic that image, effective against Justin Trudeau and in a very different political climate than the one we’re in now, has become an albatross around his neck. The behaviour that endeared him to his base is now a liability as he tries to widen his appeal, particularly with women.

Despite efforts by the Conservatives to refocus the election back onto the Liberal government’s record over the past decade, and concerns about cost of living, crime, street disorder and immigration, the elephant in the room remains Donald Trump and his threats to Canada’s economy and sovereignty. Despite Trump’s silence about Canada over the past few weeks, his other actions and words have upended the economic and political world order in ways that are profoundly unsettling to Canadians, as they should be. It seems the economic and foreign policy of the most powerful nation on earth is being set and changed on the fly, and then announced through late night tweets by the President on Truth Social. What could possibly go wrong? As it turns out, quite a bit. The giant swings on the stock market have drained trillions of dollars from the world’s economy, including in Canada where those of us relying upon investments in retirement are witnessing their shrinkage at an astonishing rate. All this, while some in Trump’s close circle of family and friends are making out like bandits, buying the dips and selling the highs. But maybe that’s just a coincidence.

One thing is certain as we look out over the next three years. The landscape will be constantly changing as the chaotic forces unleashed by the White House upend decades of peace and prosperity for much of the world. Some of it will be economic, some political. We might even see the aggressive use of hard power. And even if the Democrats win back one or both Houses of Congress in the 2026 midterms, the disruption coming from the White House will continue. Not a pretty picture, I know, so, to quote Bette Davis in “All About Eve”, “Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be bumpy ride”.

What does this mean for Canada’s federal election? A lot. Donald Trump has done the near impossible fuelling a Liberal Party resurrection that may see them form a majority government and gain an almost unheard of fourth consecutive term. And that’s because the most important question in this election remains: who can lead Canada most effectively through these exceptionally difficult times?

As I’ve said previously, prior to Justin Trudeau’s departure and Donald Trump’s assaults on Canada, I had decided to vote Conservative despite my dislike for Pierre Poilievre’s style of politics and some of the positions he supported in the past. I still think the Conservatives are a better choice on issues like public safety, law and order (although I’m not happy to hear them joining their provincial colleagues promising to use the “Notwithstanding Clause” in the Charter, increasingly rendering it meaningless), getting our resources to world markets, and bolstering defence spending. I do note Mark Carney is saying many of the right things on these issues too. But none of these issues matter if Canada’s economy is destroyed or its sovereignty lost.

Prior to making my final voting decision I wanted to see how the debates turned out and how, if at all, they might change my perception of the two leading candidates. They did not.

While Pierre Poilievre has run a good campaign where he has mostly muted some of his worst partisan instincts, I have seen little to persuade me he has the depth and experience to lead Canada at this very fraught time. He has a very thin resume with seemingly no experience in international relations or economics. And I know virtually nothing about his team, the people who will be populating the government if he is elected, although I suspect I would find some of them problematic. Witnessing the amateur hour playing out in Washington as spectacularly inexperienced and unqualified people now run the American government, I think it important Canada not embark on a similar experiment where, at the very least, we would have a group of inexperienced people trying to navigate us through these extraordinarily treacherous waters.

Everything in Mark Carney’s academic and professional life seems to have led him to this moment when the time meets the man. His resume says it all. By the way, I don’t get the Conservative’s attack on him as “resume man”. Perhaps someone can help me but isn’t it all about that resume vs the very limited one for Pierre Poilievre? In a sense I’m going with the devil I know, hoping Mark Carney will steer the Liberals away from some of their more unsuccessful policies and attitudes of the last decade but, even if he doesn’t, I’m certain he is the better qualified to confront the existential economic and political challenges facing Canada today. I will be voting for Mark Carney.

Just sayin,

GH

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that appears at the lower right side of your screen when you open the blog.

Make China Great Again (MCGA)

In the nearly three months since his inauguration Donald Trump and his administration have taken a wrecking ball to the U.S. federal government, cultural institutions, academia, schools, immigration policy, military alliances, health and human services, the federal civil service, law enforcement and justice. Although there seems little strategic thinking behind these moves, their end result will be a weaker, poorer and unstable America. But, he did win the election with over seventy million Americans voting for him and, if current polling is correct, still largely supporting him. And Americans were “warned” during the campaign with the disclosure of the Project 25 plans, so whether they simply disbelieved the warnings or supported the direction, they are getting what they voted for. As for the rest of us, that’s another matter altogether.

For eighty years since the end of the Second World War America has been the indispensable nation, leading the democratic west and providing an economic engine for much of the rest of the world. This did not happen by chance. It was the result of a deliberate strategy implemented with the creation of institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, NATO and the United Nations, and resulted in decades of remarkable and unprecedented peace and prosperity for much of the world, especially the United States. The stability of that system began to weaken as it moved, perhaps inevitably, towards freer trade causing domestic disruptions in the more advanced economies, including the United States and, while it is true that free trade has added greatly to the prosperity of the advanced economies, it is also true that prosperity has not been shared equally across their populations and that is the starting point for some of the unravelling we are witnessing today.

On April 2, which Donald Trump called “liberation day”, he and his government blew all that up, imposing tariffs on friends and foes alike, and blasting through the norms of alliances, international diplomacy and good economic tradecraft. Stock markets around the world plummeted, losing trillions of dollars in assets. I’m not an economist but, if the vast majority of economists are to be believed, this is not going to end well as it ignites a trade war and will likely cause recessions in the United States and much of the rest of the world.

One of the more notable features of the tariffs is how high they are for some of the weakest and poorest economies on earth, which is consistent with Trump’s other actions showing no empathy for the poor and downtrodden . Although there are any number of guesses out there, no one seems to have a coherent theory of why and what the U.S. government is doing, and it is possible there isn’t one. The justifications being offered contradict each other and almost always go against prevailing economic wisdom. Comparisons are being drawn with The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that, in 1930, attempted to build a tariff wall around the United States and contributed significantly to the Great Depression that only ended with the Second World War. It also ended Republican dominance in the American Congress for decades and forever linked the name of President Herbert Hoover with economic failure and collapse.

Trying to make sense of all this has become something of a cottage industry. My best guess is there is no coherent game plan in Donald Trump’s head, just a collection of partially formed ideas animated by long held biases and grudges. I suspect the real planning is being done and executed out of sight by the authors of the Project 25 Plan who want to radically change American society and America’s place in the world. Their ideal world is encapsulated in a distorted memory of the 1950’s where, if you were a straight white male, things looked pretty good, at least if you weren’t born then and with the benefit of hindsight. I also suspect these shadowy figures placate Donald Trump by applying a patina of his worst prejudices when implementing the new policies. Donald Trump is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and increasingly, he will be used as a tool to further the agenda of these extremists.

As well as the figures behind the agenda there are also the Cabinet Secretaries and other senior officials who were chosen not for their experience or skill but for their capacity to flatter and imitate Trump. When I read of the Signal Chat debacle where a number of them were meeting to review the actual bombing plans for Yemen, it struck me how inexperienced and juvenile they all were, showing sophomoric one upmanship in their language and attitude, as well as a complete lack of understanding of history.

Aside from the advisers, there’s another possibility. Look carefully at who is making money through the machinations of this government. Of course we know Trump, his family and coterie are monetizing the Presidency in ever more outlandish ways but that may be the least of it. Even if there is a recession and massive stock market losses, some, perhaps with inside information, will be able to take advantage of the chaos to fatten their own bank accounts and that includes the extended Trump family. It doesn’t matter that these people are already rich beyond the comprehension of most of humanity because the goal is always to get more and more and more, filling an unquenchable thirst in a morally bankupt existence. Check out how often Trump praises the singular goal of getting richer as if it is the holy grail for all human life, which I guess for him and his circle, it is.

While Democrats in the U.S. may see the economic chaos as helpful politically, providing the issue they need to stage a comback in the midterms in 2026 and the 2028 Presidential election, anyone who thinks that will cause the post Second World War international order to resume is mistaken. America has shown it cannot be trusted, and it will take a very long time, if ever, for other nations to place their faith in the word of the United States again. Canada, its closest neighbour and one of its best and oldest allies, was the first to learn this. That message has now been conveyed to the entire world. What this means is the Western World as it has existed and generally dominated since the seventeenth century is no more. For those of us who live in the so-called Western World, this is very bad news although, for others, it’s probably anything but. It is possible some new alliance of democratic nations will emerge, one that continues free trade amongst its members and collaborates on defence but the chance of that completely replacing the alliances with America at the centre are slim. America will remain the dominant economic and military power for some time, although its recent actions will accellerate its relative decline and the move to a world order that is not America centric. The principal winner in all this is China, whose rise as a rival to America has triggered anxiety in Washington and, ironically, prompted policies and actions that will do the opposite of what is needed or intended. All China has to do now is wait patiently on the sidelines, something it has a long history of doing successfully.

Also, what shouldn’t be ignored is that the kind of economic instability Donald Trump has unleashed often has led to open conflict between nations, not trade wars, real wars. Whether major but local conflicts or, worse, a third world war have become much more likely in the past ten days. The “greatest generation” is mostly gone now, but if they were here they would weep at this grotesque folly putting paid to their sacrifice.

As a student of history I have often been puzzled at some of the choices earlier nations and empires made, choices that, with the benefit of hindsight, led to their collapse. Now I’m living it in real time.

“plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose”

GH

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notifed each time I publish a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear on the bottom right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

The Most Important Election in Canadian History

Prime Minister Mark Carney is expected to call an election tomorrow, one that will end either on April 28th or in the first few days of May. By some measures it will be the most important election in Canadian history as the country confronts a bellicose United States that is threatening Canada’s economic ruin or absorption.

The possible results of this election would have been unthinkable even three months ago, but the resignation of Prime Minister Trudeau, Carney’s selection as Liberal leader and Prime Minister and, most of all, the all out assault on Canada’s economy and sovereignty by Donald Trump have turned previous predictions on their heads. If current polls are correct, it will be a tight two way fight between the governing Liberals and the Conservatives, rather than the Conservative landslide that seemed all but certain. And it will likely be decided on the margins, with “blue” Liberals and “red” Tories determining the outcome one way or the other. I am one of those people and, although I voted Conservative in the last federal election and was prepared to do so again to get rid of Prime Minister Trudeau, I’m now back on the fence.

My final decision would previously have been based on the Trudeau government’s track record over the past nearly ten years and it would have been mostly negative. I fault them for policies and attitudes that weakened Canada’s fiscal position; that viewed every issue through the single lens of reconciliation with native Canadians; that created entitlement programs costing billions of dollars while ignoring the glaring defense needs of Canada even after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014; that caused Canada to become an object of ridicule on the international stage while it pontificated about the virtues of whatever cause Du jour; for failing to make the necessary federal legislative changes to give provinces and municipalities the tools to deal with rampant crime and drug addiction; and for heedlessly alienating the resource producing provinces in the name of environmental purity. All this has weakened Canada and made it less prepared to confront the challenges it is facing today.

Trudeau’s “Sunny Ways” devolved into a mishmash of sanctimonious irritating announcements, often with no follow through. Perhaps this was best articulated by Trudeau himself when he stated Canada had no central, unifying identity and that it was a “post national state”. That didn’t stop him from vilifying the people who created this country, causing their descendents to be labelled as the progeny of genocidal racists, much to the delight of other countries who wish Canada harm. So, yes, I was prepared to vote for Pierre Poilievre despite some of the MAGA lite wing nuts around him and his churlish, childish behaviour. But Donald Trump has turned that calculation on its head.

In terms of substance it’s hard to offer much criticism of the Conservatives because, thus far, the party has failed to offer Canadians any kind of detailed policy platform. What little there is is couched in slogans and is mostly in response to current Liberal policies. There are some things I agree with: changing federal legislation to better support communities dealing with random crime, much of it related to drug addiction, building a military base on the Arctic Ocean, reigning in government spending, building infrastructure to get Canadian resources to both the Atlantic and the Pacific, and generally moving away from “woke” filters when setting policy. But that’s about it.

On the environment, the Conservaties single focus has been on abolishing the carbon tax and, thanks to the complicity of multiple federal and provincial governments, the tax has become so toxic that both major parties now support its elimination and on his first day as Prime Minister, Mark Carney eliminated it at least so far as it applies to individuals. Its demise was the inevitable consequence of governments using it as a cash cow and, thus, just another tax. As I said long ago, the only way a carbon tax will work is if it is revenue neutral with all its proceeds returned to taxpayers as was the case in the first Canadian carbon tax in B.C. that was introduced by Gordon Campbell’s Liberals.

Aside from the paucity of policy, the real problem with the Conservatives is their behaviour and approach to politics that is so well exemplified by Pierre Poilievre. I don’t think Mr. Poilievre is a MAGA supporter, but a significant part of his base is and he plays to them regularly. These people have little difficulty with Donald Trump which, right now, should be disqualifying. Their “take no prisoners” approach; vilifying anyone and everyone who might disagree with them; ignoring medical science and experts on healthcare and the environment, and the juvenile school yard bully language that so often punctuates Mr. Poilievre’s comments are profoundly un-Canadian. Similar behaviour there was the harbinger of the complete collapse of political comity in the United States. So the selection of a new Liberal leader and Prime Minister does create choices for me and, I suspect, many other voters as well.

Everything considered, there is only one issue in this election. Canada is facing an existential threat unlike any it has faced since the mid nineteenth century. Even our parents’ battle against fascism in Europe and Asia wasn’t in response to an immediate threat to the security and economic well being of this country. But Donald Trump and his coterie of sycophants and enablers pose such a threat. So, despite all the other priorities, the single issue in the election is: who can best lead this country in a battle for its very existence against the madness of American nationalism/populism that is threatening global stability? For this we will need a leader who can assess strategic risks and opportunities, knowing just how far to push the envelope without sending it over the edge. He (it will be a “he”) will need a calm demeanour and a very thick skin. He will be able to communicate with Canadians in complete paragraphs and in a way that engenders trust and confidence, modelling the behaviour that the rest of us must show over these next few years. Although difficult in an election, he should be perceived as above partisan politics, a leader who can unite and lead all of us against the existential threat.

So, how do the two leaders on offer stack up as we embark on the campaign? On paper at least, Prime Minister Carney has the edge. His history in academia, public service and the private sector all point to a man with great intelligence, much experience, and a deep understanding of the world and how it works. His obvious weakness is his lack of political experience, although that may be more a weakness during the campaign and not, if he is successful, after, as Prime Minister. But he stumbled out of the starting gate and I’m waiting to see if it was a “one of” or part of a pattern. Specifically, when the Conservatives raised the issue of Brookfield Management moving its corporate headquarters from Toronto to New York while he was chairman of its board, instead of giving us a straightforward and easily available answer, he equivocated and parsed in a way that would have made Bill Clinton proud. At first he said he was no longer on the board when the move occurred or when the official decision to make the move was made. While this was technically true, it soon came out that the effective decision to move was taken when he was chair of the board, something he or at least his political advisors should have anticipated. And this played right into the Conservatives’ hands. The move was never something that would excite Canadians, many of whom have investments managed by Brookfield, especially as no Canadian jobs were lost and it made good business sense for growing the business. But Carney’s response allowed the Conservative line to take hold, the one linking Prime Minister Carney with “sneaky”. This was a political own net goal. The question now is is this part of a pattern, something intrinsic to his general behaviour, or just a single slip by a political novice trying too hard to play the political game? The campaign will tell.

Leader of the Official Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, begins the campaign with a public persona he’s spent years crafting, one wildly at odds with what most Canadians are looking for in a Prime Minister at this time in our history. We do not need an attack dog nipping at Donald Trump’s ankles (although I like that image). And to make matters more difficult for him, there is nothing in his background that suggests he will be the kind of thoughtful, strategic leader we need at this time. Mr. Poilievre’s work history is entirely in politics, beginning as an employee of the old Reform Party, becoming a Member of Parliament from Ottawa, serving as a Parliamentary Secretary in the Harper Conservative government and then, finally, holding two minor cabinet roles in the final days of that government. Since becoming Leader of the Conservative Party he has cultivated his image as an aggressive partisan, never once rising to what most would consider Prime Ministerial behaviour. Most recently, his response to Justin Trudeau’s resignation and then Mark Carney’s ascent as Liberal Leader and Prime Minister showed no grace, no civility and seemed completely tone deaf in this moment. His base may like this but that’s not enough to get him elected.

So, as the election starts, both the major contenders have work to do. Mark Carney must show he can connect with ordinary people and, to some extent at least, be above the partisan political fray. Pierre Poilievre must demonstrate he can be Prime Ministerial and represent all Canadians at this time of crisis. Thirty seven days isn’t very long but long enough to demonstrate who is best qualified.

Just sayin

GH

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear at the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.